It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

David Shaw's 24 Reasons for Fusion

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
1.Pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapor in the concrete floors.

2. Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermate.

3. 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot provide the energy required.

4. 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot provide energy required.

5. Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7) Thermate is impractical for lower level demolition due to the thickness of the 47 steel columns.

6. The spire behavior (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates, goes down, steel dust remains)

7. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings (Richter 2.1 and 2.3) occurred at the beginning of collapse for both towers. Short duration and high power indicate explosive event.

8. A press weighting 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris.

9. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton Effect.

10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would cool down much faster.

11. Brown shades of color in the air due nuclear radiation forming sulfuric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact indicating complicity in the coverup.

12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. This is why the "no commercial planes" line of inquiry is very important and should not be ignored or attacked. It can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement.

13. Pyroclastic flow observed in the concrete-based clouds. Only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations. Jim Hoffman unfortunately missed this obvious observation in his papers.

14. Huge expanding dust clouds 5 times the volume of the building indicating extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional demolition explosives.

15. Rubble height was some 10% of the original instead of 33% expected in a traditional demolition. Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height.

16. No survivors found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris. Upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction missed this pocket but removed debris above firemen.

17. 14 rescue dogs and some rescue workers died far too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins (respiratory problems due to alpha particles created by fusion that are far more toxic)

18. Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel. Only possible with fusion.

19. Decontamination procedure used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) for all steel removed from site. Water spraying contains fusion radiactivity.

20. Intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and Powder theory. (ed)

21. 200 000 gallon sprinkler watertanks on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water.

22. Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy blast and EM pulse caused electrical components in cars to explode and burn vehicles far from WTC site.

23. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC.

- David Shaw
911 Eyewitness
www.911eyewitness.com...



I ran into this interesting list earlier today and offer it here for discussion. In my view it is not a complete list of evidence, and currently lacks sources (although most facts are easily searchable). I intend to supplement it with my research in the coming days. If anyone has any questions or comments based on his work I would appreciate hearing them.

SteveR




posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
1.Pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapor in the concrete floors.


Tripe. "fusion device million degree heat", meet my little friend, the ideal gas law. Which says, other changes aside, that the pressure in the building is directly proportional to the temperature. Going from "nice 75F temperature" to "fusion device million degree heat" "instantly throughout the towers" = massive explosion leveling half of NYC.



2. Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermate.


Ah, so now it's "ablating" instead of "sublimating"? I guess someone filled them in on the fact that materials with a liquid phase in their phase charts don't "sublimate" quickly. If it was superheated to the point that the surface material was "ablating", they would be glowing. No glow. Sorry. Also, if the temperatures were "uniformly twice that of thermate" then all that paper would have burned instantly.



3. 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot provide the energy required.

4. 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot provide energy required.


Try MGH. It's a big building, it fell a long way. Lots of potential energy.



5. Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7) Thermate is impractical for lower level demolition due to the thickness of the 47 steel columns.


Live people in the building. Radiological problems aside, enough heat energy to produce molten steel (yet not blow out the building - unlikely) would fry up the survivors.



6. The spire behavior (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates, goes down, steel dust remains)


And they know it's steel dust - how? They know it "evaporates" - how? Where is the glow?



7. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings (Richter 2.1 and 2.3) occurred at the beginning of collapse for both towers. Short duration and high power indicate explosive event.


Let's see - a plane hit a building in both cases. Think that might help explain it?



8. A press weighting 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris.


Yet, you have debris. If your magical "fusion" bomb could obliterate this press, how can the other debris exist?



9. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton Effect.


Yet there wasn't. The outage was confined to the areas that had to be cut to kill power to the towers. Duh. Also, what of the firefighter's radios, the camcorders, the helicopters flying around and not crashing, etc.

And, oh by the way, I know neither you nor David Shaw have thought of this, but the Compton effect is caused by - what? X-rays? Gamma rays? That's right - hard radiation, and lots of it, enough to totally ionize the air in the entire area, the electrons of which then interact with the magnetic field of the Earth to produce the EM pulse. Now, where are the snow drifts of dead New Yorkers?



10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would cool down much faster.


Are you actually trying to argue for on-going heat generation by some sort of isotopic decay here, or what? The putative fusion event is over faster than thermate would be, although they're both quite brief in comparison to 100 days. Heat is heat, both would have cooled quickly. The fact that it did not is evidence of ongoing heat production in the debris, no doubt due to the fire.



11. Brown shades of color in the air due nuclear radiation forming sulfuric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact indicating complicity in the coverup.


Nuclear radiation sufficient to produce nitrous oxides would also have produced snowdrifts of dead New Yorkers, try again. I don't guess the dust and smoke from fires were sufficient to color the air?



12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. This is why the "no commercial planes" line of inquiry is very important and should not be ignored or attacked. It can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement.


Fusion weapons don't carry loose tritium other than in the boost and initiation systems. They make all they need by fissioning Lithium-6 in situ. If it was a fusion weapon, it would also have released an equal amount of deuterium, which was not found as far as I can tell. Try again.



13. Pyroclastic flow observed in the concrete-based clouds. Only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations. Jim Hoffman unfortunately missed this obvious observation in his papers.


It was a big dust cloud. It hardly qualifies as a "pyroclastic flow". Note the unburned trees, live people, etc. The association of a "pyroclastic flow" with a nuclear weapon is one I have only seen in truther sites.



14. Huge expanding dust clouds 5 times the volume of the building indicating extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional demolition explosives.

15. Rubble height was some 10% of the original instead of 33% expected in a traditional demolition. Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height.


It wasn't a "traditional demolition", so I'm sure there's more than one reason it doesn't look like one.



16. No survivors found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris. Upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction missed this pocket but removed debris above firemen.


ROFLMAO. "upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction"? That's almost worth summoning the ROFLCOPTER.

What about "giant pulse of x-rays, gamma rays, and neutrons would have fried everyone in sight, yet mysteriously did not"?

Here's the mundane explanation - the fires that burned for 100 days in the rubble when combined with heat, lime from drywall, and bacterial decay took care of the bodies.



17. 14 rescue dogs and some rescue workers died far too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins (respiratory problems due to alpha particles created by fusion that are far more toxic)


Far more toxic than what? The alpha radiation from a fusion weapon is over in a blink. The end. It doesn't hover around like Banquo's ghost.



18. Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel. Only possible with fusion.


Well, no, it isn't "only possible with fusion". Please point out the conditions which only fusion can supply which are the gating factor here. I'll wait. crickets...



19. Decontamination procedure used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) for all steel removed from site. Water spraying contains fusion radiactivity.


No, it doesn't. Where do people come up with this crap? What "special radiation" do you think is produced? You get neutrons and alpha particles, along with the usual x and gamma radiation. The neutrons will cause secondary activation of light elements. You'll get a burst of beta radiation from the secondary activation. No special water-soluble radiation, I'm afraid.



20. Intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and Powder theory. (ed)


Also crap. Paper doesn't need to heat very much to combust, less to brown. Yet it did not. The amount of heat produced is tied to the scattering cross-section of the material, not the mass.



21. 200 000 gallon sprinkler watertanks on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water.


And yet, with these 200,000 gallon tanks turned instantly into very high-quality steam, there was no explosion. Bogus.



22. Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy blast and EM pulse caused electrical components in cars to explode and burn vehicles far from WTC site.


Yet this same "fusion energy blast" did not level or start fires in nearby buildings, nor did it burn out camcorders, radios, the phone system, wiring in the surrounding buildings, etc.



23. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC.


Recorded in what way - by burning out? By erasing the magnetic tape they used? You'd have recorded that much gamma and x-ray flux in patterns of millions of dead people.

Really, you have to know HOW the Compton effect is caused other than "by a fusion weapon" - to invoke it has implications that are easily determined not to be true.

[edit on 26-8-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

[edit on 26-8-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 04:51 AM
link   
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts Tom..



Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Tripe. "fusion device million degree heat", meet my little friend, the ideal gas law. Which says, other changes aside, that the pressure in the building is directly proportional to the temperature. Going from "nice 75F temperature" to "fusion device million degree heat" "instantly throughout the towers" = massive explosion leveling half of NYC.



I don't find anything to support your last statement of a "massive explosion leveling half of NYC". What you are alluding to is a rapid and extensive expansion of "gas".

We had that.



Problem being the volume of the cloud far exceeds that of the trade centers. Five times infact. It is not simply gas. What we are looking at is the rapid and extensive expansion of micronized concrete and other building material.

pubs.usgs.gov...

Dr. Robert Schuller visited the ruins and said that there "was not a single block of concrete in that rubble," suggesting that the nearly 425,000 cubic yards of concrete had disintegrated into dust.

Million degree heat as Shaw stated may not be true. I share your dubious impression of the remark. That being said we have two good pointers about the temperature:

www.youtube.com...

As witnesses stated there are a couple of temperature references, 15000 and 11000. These are solar temperatures. While unverified it is at face value indicative of fusion.

There are 1157 victims completely unaccounted for. New York City chief medical examiner Dr. Charles Hirsch reported that the bodies were "vaporized". We know cremations require 3200 degree heat for 30 minutes to perform the same.

15000 or 3000, we are still above and beyond the range of hydrocarbon fires.

This is not the work of "lime" and "bacteria" Tom, nor is it the work of kerosene.




If it was superheated to the point that the surface material was "ablating", they would be glowing. No glow. Sorry.



All nuclear reactions you have witnessed prior to 9/11 were detonated above ground. At the WTC there was little "glow" to observe, the reaction itself was literally shrouded with dense concrete.

As for that little I mentioned.. there is this.




These are separate unaltered frames. When the glow is present, the cloud is far more overexposed than the sky - if we were looking at a kinetic collapse that would not be the case.




Try MGH. It's a big building, it fell a long way. Lots of potential energy.



Actually, the debris ejections Shaw is refering to happened at the beginning of the collapse. See this frame for reference.

img454.imageshack.us...




Live people in the building. Radiological problems aside, enough heat energy to produce molten steel (yet not blow out the building - unlikely) would fry up the survivors.



Over a thousand occupants were vaporized without a trace - the survivors numbered under ten Tom. While I understand what you are getting at, the nuclear demolition theory is based on directional and localized energy release. The small pocket of survivors in a rear elevator shaft were well away from the center of the building. Interestingly, according to their story the next floor above them had vanished.




They know it "evaporates" - how?



Metal "condensing" onto windows provides evidence for evaporation.




7. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings (Richter 2.1 and 2.3) occurred at the beginning of collapse for both towers. Short duration and high power indicate explosive event.

Let's see - a plane hit a building in both cases. Think that might help explain it?



No. The spikes Shaw refers to happened a split second before each tower collapsed. The seismic shock from the plane hits were insignificant. Before you cite debris striking the ground I'd like to ask what debris? A huge intact chunk of the trade center - which would be the case if the official story was correct - would pass. Unfortunately that is not the case. The shockwaves were caused by something else.




8. A press weighting 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris.

Yet, you have debris. If your magical "fusion" bomb could obliterate this press, how can the other debris exist?



Apart from superficial minor debris, it didn't. Look at the pictures, watch the video of the collapse. Believe your eyes. The twin 110 story centers were wiped out.




Yet there wasn't. The outage was confined to the areas that had to be cut to kill power to the towers. Duh. Also, what of the firefighter's radios, the camcorders



The radiation was released deep within the basement of the center. EMP warfare involves detonating nuclear weapons at high altitudes. There is a reason for that - the radiation is absorbed by mass to an extent.

There is also this diagram for which I haven't been able to track sources.
home.debitel.net...




And, oh by the way, I know neither you nor David Shaw have thought of this, but the Compton effect is caused by - what? X-rays? Gamma rays? That's right - hard radiation, and lots of it, enough to totally ionize the air in the entire area, the electrons of which then interact with the magnetic field of the Earth to produce the EM pulse. Now, where are the snow drifts of dead New Yorkers?



It is a logical fallacy to argue what a weapon can or cannot do to which we know not the specifications nor the exact effects. Any statements I make about the effectiveness of the hypothetical weapon cannot be proved nor disproved. I have refrained from doing so here and on the previous nuke threads. Without going into specifics I have made clear that the profile of the collapse and its remnants are not sufficiently explained by any other means than a nuclear reaction. Now, unless you have access to classified information you have no way of knowing if such weapons fit the bill, other than your own cursory opinion. My point being talking about ancient nuclear weapons - and they are ancient - does not debunk the use of a version that has gone through decades of development and secrecy. Nuclear secrets are the best kept in the world - we are very fortunate to have the DOE's report mentioning the "successful" development of minature minimal-residual-radiation nuclear devices.

The report has been covered in depth in a previous nuke thread, you may want to take a look.




11. Brown shades of color in the air due nuclear radiation forming sulfuric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue.

Nuclear radiation sufficient to produce nitrous oxides would also have produced snowdrifts of dead New Yorkers, try again. I don't guess the dust and smoke from fires were sufficient to color the air?



FEMA Photolibrary




Fusion weapons don't carry loose tritium other than in the boost and initiation systems. They make all they need by fissioning Lithium-6 in situ. If it was a fusion weapon, it would also have released an equal amount of deuterium, which was not found as far as I can tell. Try again.



And you'd be right. What we are talking about is PURE fusion weapons. There is NO polluting fission involved in the process. Read what has been posted. The U.S. for one injected many millions of dollars into the pure fusion program only to have it abruptly end in 1992.




It was a big dust cloud. It hardly qualifies as a "pyroclastic flow". Note the unburned trees, live people, etc. The association of a "pyroclastic flow" with a nuclear weapon is one I have only seen in truther sites.



Semantics, but I beleive you are right about Shaw's use of the term.

You chose not to answer 14 and 15.




What about "giant pulse of x-rays, gamma rays, and neutrons would have fried everyone in sight, yet mysteriously did not"?



In the case of a fission reaction/primary, yes. However, neutron radiation manifests death after many months. Now we have over 300 rescue workers diagnosed with unusual cancers. Types that match previous known radiation exposure.. such as thyroid cancer. Asbestos? You would have to be pretty desperate to cite asbestos.

[edit on 1/9/07 by SteveR]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 





18. Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel. Only possible with fusion.

Well, no, it isn't "only possible with fusion". Please point out the conditions which only fusion can supply which are the gating factor here. I'll wait.



You don't have to wait. The micronization profile is as follows:

35% was < 75 microns
46% was 75-300 microns
19% was > 300 microns

of the sub 300 micron cluster

35% 3 microns
20% 0.3 microns
5% 100 microns
5% 0.1 microns

Sample L18-2 was taken 0.25km from the center of ground zero.
www.ehponline.org...

An excellent quote from WITW. "Chemical explosives cause short localized bursts of energy. And most of that blast energy gets wasted, i.e. it does not enter the target. The radiation energy (Neutrons) from a hydrogen bomb doesn’t bounce off objects (like a chemical blast wave might) it penetrates and superheats them."




Water spraying contains fusion radiactivity.

No, it doesn't. Where do people come up with this crap?



You are simply unaware. For a source with some solid scientific backing, read this.
www.freepatentsonline.com...




20. Intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and Powder theory. (ed)

Also crap. Paper doesn't need to heat very much to combust, less to brown. Yet it did not. The amount of heat produced is tied to the scattering cross-section of the material, not the mass.



img374.imageshack.us...

We are not talking about heat production but rather dispersion. The dust clouds such as this one were reported as being "very hot" by witnesses. Why not hundreds of degrees and burning paper? Well think about all that has been said so far - and factor in the sheer volume of the cloud. Basic physics hands you your answer.




And yet, with these 200,000 gallon tanks turned instantly into very high-quality steam, there was no explosion.



img295.imageshack.us...

If this is not an explosion - you misunderstand the meaning of the word.




did not level or start fires in nearby buildings



img252.imageshack.us...
img170.imageshack.us...

No fires? Are you kidding? The area around the WTC site was covered in charred vehicles and buildings on fire. WTC 7 anyone?



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I was pretty sure that I was going to regret clicking on this thread and I was right, its full of supposition. And rather than taking it apart piece by piece I will just stick with one piece today.




6. The spire behavior (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates, goes down, steel dust remains)


If the TV transmission antenna evaporated...then how come the mangled chunk that used to be that antenna is being stored along with other WTC in a hanger at JFK airport?



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
I don't find anything to support your last statement of a "massive explosion leveling half of NYC". What you are alluding to is a rapid and extensive expansion of "gas".

We had that.


No, that's a big cloud of dust. If the gas in the building was "instantaneously heated" to millions of degrees C, the overpressure would not have make big foofy clouds of dust, you'd have had an overpressure that would have scattered chunks of the building into the surrounding states.

I think your assessment of the overpressure is off by several orders of magnitude. Let's meatball it. By saying "instantaneously", we'll assume you mean that the gas/concrete/whatnot is heated to something more reasonable, let's say 10,000C, and it's heated to that temperature before it can really begin expansion due to the overpressure, maybe in a microsecond or less.

Now, you have to convert to absolute, so assuming the air inside the building is at 75F, the absolute is 297K. Now, we're heating it to 10,000C in a trice, so that's 10273K. We'll say the air pressure prior to the event was standard sea level, 14.7PSI. Now, once that air is heated, the pressure will go to (10273/297)14.7 PSI, or about 500 PSI. Instantly.

Off the top of my head, and I'd have to go pull up my demolition books to recall, I think reinforced concrete buildings shatter at an internal overpressure of about 30 PSI. That's to say, the building will fly apart and be scattered over the nearby surroundings. Not go boom, fall down. Fly apart. Totally.

At 500 PSI, you'd be sweeping up WTC bits far and wide. And that's at 10,000 C, not millions of degrees C. You should note that this doesn't include gas generated by vaporization of other material in the building. All that iron, water and concrete you guys insist was vaporized makes for a LOT of additional overpressure, orders of magnitude more than just the air that was in the building. But the air itself is sufficient to disprove this part of the statement.

By the way, a rapid and extensive expansion of gas is what we call an "explosion".



Dr. Robert Schuller visited the ruins and said that there "was not a single block of concrete in that rubble," suggesting that the nearly 425,000 cubic yards of concrete had disintegrated into dust.


I've posted on ATS photos of concrete rubble at WTC that wasn't dust. I am pretty sure it was in another fusion theory thread. You can find them pretty easily - just GIS for WTC photos where people were walking through the debris instead of sitting back at a distance. Grant you, it looks pretty powdered. But, then, so did all the other pictures I could find of collapsed buildings over about 4 stories. I wasn't able to find what a 100+ story building collapse was supposed to look like. Without a baseline, I can't tell you if that debris appearance at WTC is unusual or not.

The youtube you cited next has obvious non-dust chunks they're walking through. I'm not debating that the concrete wasn't crushed beyond what I would have expected, but then I've never seen a building of that height collapse in that manner. Should it look like that? I don't know, and I looked for any sort of data on that and couldn't find it.



As witnesses stated there are a couple of temperature references, 15000 and 11000. These are solar temperatures. While unverified it is at face value indicative of fusion.


Well, no. They said 1500 and 1100, an order of magnitude off. And that was "it must be, I dunno, 1500 degrees". Not exactly a measurement. But let's go with it. It's not a solar temperature, as you say. I'm not sure if he meant C or F, let's say it's degrees C. You can get that in a Bunsen burner flame, for example, and smithy fires can easily get hotter. It is at face value indicative of a combustion process, and maybe some other heat source.



There are 1157 victims completely unaccounted for. New York City chief medical examiner Dr. Charles Hirsch reported that the bodies were "vaporized". We know cremations require 3200 degree heat for 30 minutes to perform the same.


No, they require that temperature in order to do it in 30 minutes - done more slowly it does not take as high a temperature. Consider what would happen in your oven to a roast left on for 120 days at 500 degrees.

Obviously there's a heat source under there - they say that fires are burning in the rubble and did so for months. Next, as I said, you have a TON of lime from the drywall. Mix it all together and bake for a month or two, and you're not going to have a lot left. Also, at the end, they weren't looking for bodies anymore, just bulldozing the debris up. So when they got down to where any remains might have been, they wouldn't have been taking a lot of time to look for them and they wouldn't have been very recognizable anyway.

Also, again if you're claiming literal vaporization of small organic objects, you have to bring the paper back into play.

Hirsch may have said that, but unless he has some way to prove that literally happened, it's just a comment. What I suspect he meant was "I found no remains", beyond that he has no way to know what happened.



15000 or 3000, we are still above and beyond the range of hydrocarbon fires.

This is not the work of "lime" and "bacteria" Tom, nor is it the work of kerosene.


But your figure of "15000" is either mistake or fabrication, and 3000 isn't necessary.

There are a lot of organics in there too, to sustain combustion. A typical office building has a lot of flammable material. Obviously enough to burn for months under the rubble.




All nuclear reactions you have witnessed prior to 9/11 were detonated above ground. At the WTC there was little "glow" to observe, the reaction itself was literally shrouded with dense concrete.


In order for metal to "ablate", one has to have an ongoing input of radiant energy at a flux level high enough to vaporize surface material while leaving the inner volume of the material below melting point, due to the limits of heat conductivity of the material. A flash of heat input won't do - it may ablate during the flash but after it will not. Not like you guys try to claim.

Iron is pretty damned heat conductive. In order to vaporize iron, one must heat it to quite a high degree - and at that temperature it will glow. Brightly. It did not. Therefore, the metal did not "ablate" nor did it "sublimate" - iron has a liquid phase in its phase chart, thus it will not "sublimate" at a high rate.

Those words mean things - you don't get to claim ablation in a situation where it obviously does not apply. The current claim of "ablation" for that chunk of building trailing concrete dust/spire etc is not supportable.



Actually, the debris ejections Shaw is refering to happened at the beginning of the collapse. See this frame for reference.


When the top section of the building fell, that's still a lot of kinetic energy, even when it fell one or two stories. I would expect material to fly - I'm frankly surprised it didn't happen more when the building fell.



Over a thousand occupants were vaporized without a trace - the survivors numbered under ten Tom. While I understand what you are getting at, the nuclear demolition theory is based on directional and localized energy release. The small pocket of survivors in a rear elevator shaft were well away from the center of the building. Interestingly, according to their story the next floor above them had vanished.


Over a thousand occupants were not found. There isn't any proof that they were vaporized. The survivors are a white crow for a lot of the fusion arguments. Actually, the fact that there were any survivors in Manhattan are a white crow for most of them.

Remember, your postulate is that the energy release was such that the entire building's concrete was somehow "powderized" - it can't be that directional. At any rate, the conjecture of "directional" and "localized" energy release has so many problems it can't stand either.



Metal "condensing" onto windows provides evidence for evaporation.


Any real evidence for this? And by real, I mean from a legitimate analysis. You'd expect some metal vaporization from the fires, particularly the metal of the airplanes themselves which most likely wouldn't last long. Also, I'd expect at least some of the lighter metals in the building to burn, particularly aluminum.

My personal speculation done strictly for entertainment purposes would in fact require metallic vapor to be found, most likely aluminum, but maybe zirconium and a couple of others.




No. The spikes Shaw refers to happened a split second before each tower collapsed.


Interesting. Also required for my speculation. And wasn't the same seen at Murrah?




Apart from superficial minor debris, it didn't. Look at the pictures, watch the video of the collapse. Believe your eyes. The twin 110 story centers were wiped out.


Yet I've also seen photos made by the firemen while the cleanup crews were working - and there's lots of crap. Stuff that looks pretty typical of other building collapses.

And a fusion weapon would wipe out the building, alright, but it wouldn't make a nice pile of it, and it wouldn't stop at the edges.




The radiation was released deep within the basement of the center. EMP warfare involves detonating nuclear weapons at high altitudes. There is a reason for that - the radiation is absorbed by mass to an extent.


The absorption of it depends a lot on the materials. Typically concrete wouldn't pose much of an obstacle.

I've heard a LOT of tapes of radio traffic. The issue wasn't so much that the "walkie talkies quit working" as the graphic shows, as that the comm system was overloaded, and the repeater inside the building quit working after the airplane impact.

There were also a number of video tapes made from only a few blocks away of the buildings falling.

I also think there's a really nice clip on ATS somewhere in another one of these threads showing some people standing outside some sort of shop watching the collapse, and all you see are the lights in the background blink once when the building falls due to the load shed.





And, oh by the way, I know neither you nor David Shaw have thought of this, but the Compton effect is caused by - what? X-rays? Gamma rays? That's right - hard radiation, and lots of it, enough to totally ionize the air in the entire area, the electrons of which then interact with the magnetic field of the Earth to produce the EM pulse. Now, where are the snow drifts of dead New Yorkers?


It is a logical fallacy to argue what a weapon can or cannot do to which we know not the specifications nor the exact effects...(bla bla bla)...Now, unless you have access to classified information you have no way of knowing if such weapons fit the bill, other than your own cursory opinion.


No, no, sorry. It's not a logical fallacy at all. You're falling into the magic neutron argument.

You can't claim that the weapon's exact specs are unknown, then wave your hands around and proclaim that you can now abrogate the laws of physics. That is probably an ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, if you want to quibble. And since I hate dragging debate rules into a discussion, I won't bring it up again unless you do. It really clogs up the discussion and ends up being a debate about logical fallacy.

The truth is, once the bang leaves the bomb, it's going to follow Real Live Physics Rules®. Neutrons will act like neutrons, gamma rays will come out when they should etc. What's in the box we can treat as a function, like a Thevenin or Norton equivalent. I don't need to know. What comes out of a weapon is stock physics.

EMP is caused by the Compton effect. You said it yourself. And the Compton effect is caused by gamma and x-ray flux, and lots of it. The concrete of the building would not have stopped it. In order to produce a measureable EMP, you would have had to fry up Manhattan with gamma and x-rays.



My point being talking about ancient nuclear weapons - and they are ancient - does not debunk the use of a version that has gone through decades of development and secrecy. Nuclear secrets are the best kept in the world - we are very fortunate to have the DOE's report mentioning the "successful" development of minature minimal-residual-radiation nuclear devices.

The report has been covered in depth in a previous nuke thread, you may want to take a look.


Yeah, and I quite easily stomped it in several previous nuke threads. The comment on the development of minimal residual radiation weapons directly relates to the development of a reduced neutron emission device, which reduces the level of secondary activation. Not only would you know this if you worked in the field or had an education in relevant physics, but I think that document states it explicitly.

They don't mean that it EMITS a reduced level of radiation, but that it has minimal RESIDUAL radiation. There is a difference.



(uncommented photo of debris)


Yep. There you go! Not only do you have a nice photo of debris, which you claimed above didn't exist, but it's emitting some smoke from a fire. Great! So in one photo, and you posted it yourself, you see clearly that debris does exist, and that there are fires. Heck, look closely and you'll see lots of what seem to be fist-sized chunks of concrete.

Again, in order to form nitrous oxides due to radiation, you have to have LOTS of radiation, hard radiation. Can't claim magic radiation either, sorry. The people would have been quite dead in the vicinity, much less the survivors of the collapse.





And you'd be right. What we are talking about is PURE fusion weapons. There is NO polluting fission involved in the process. Read what has been posted. The U.S. for one injected many millions of dollars into the pure fusion program only to have it abruptly end in 1992.


*sigh* Look, even your hypothetical "pure fusion weapon" would most likely carry its tritium in the form of Li6. Would it have to, no, but then you'd need a cryo plant to keep the tritium liquid. That would make it really big, bulky, and a power hog. Not the sort of thing you could tote around.

Making your tritium in situ is why they use Li6 - it's dry, light, and doesn't require refrigeration. However, it does require Hell's own neutron source to get things going.

Then you have to cause the fusion - a major problem without a fission trigger, and the reason why they discontinued research. But let's say a magic fusion fairy shows up. D-T fusion releases its energy in the form of very energetic neutrons - exactly the opposite of a minimal residual design.




Semantics, but I beleive you are right about Shaw's use of the term.

You chose not to answer 14 and 15.


No, the terms have a meaning. And that meaning is something that Shaw's trying to arrogate to his theory. It's like supernaturalists using physics terms they don't understand to try to lend credence to their speculations.

I did answer them - he says it didn't leave remains that looked like a traditional demolition. I agree - it also didn't leave remains that looked like Godzilla had stomped it, or ones like you'd have if an asteroid had hit it. That's because it wasn't what happened. I wouldn't expect to see it look like a demolition.

In fact, that's a horrible thing for him to bring up, for his own point. He's claiming it was demolished, then makes his own point that it doesn't look like a demolition occurred. Ok, I agree it doesn't look that way. Is that the end of the discussion?




In the case of a fission reaction/primary, yes. However, neutron radiation manifests death after many months. Now we have over 300 rescue workers diagnosed with unusual cancers. Types that match previous known radiation exposure.. such as thyroid cancer. Asbestos? You would have to be pretty desperate to cite asbestos.


No, no no. You have a lot of things wrong here. Neutrons will kill you right then and there. They have a VERY high lethality. It doesn't take diddly in terms of neutron flux to kill you right on the spot, far less to kill you a few days later. Way way way orders of magnitude less than it takes to heat a pound of steel a tenth a degree C will kill your happy butt, right on the spot. So all that steel vaporizing and the like would require a fluence that would melt you into a puddle, much less just kill you instantly.

The neutron flux escaping from the building would have done it really nicely for the entire area. But wait, there's more. Any nuke. ANY nuke will emit gamma and x-ray flux. That's where your EMP comes from. But more to the point, the neutrons which carry away the bulk (about 80% in the case of D-T) of the energy radiate a great deal of their kinetic energy away in the form of x-rays and gamma rays when they interact with materials. So all that dustification and ablating you are postulating, if supposedly done with neutrons, will result in a really nice dispersion of hard ionizing radiation over the area.

Thyroid cancer from radiation is generally associated with radio-iodine ingestion, too, I'm not sure where you would have gotten that from inside a building but whatever.

[edit on 1-9-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

[edit on 1-9-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 


Yes there was an overpressure bubble at the twin towers on 9-11 caused when the hydrogen plasmacized at ten million degrees or so. It was the ‘thumps’ that caused the earth to quake. But as with so many things in life, size does matter. And the pure fusion nukes used in NYC were small which is why “chunks of the building” weren’t “scattered into the surrounding states”.

For those of you who might be interested, here’s an easy-to-read link about pure fusion research www.ieer.org.... It answers a lot.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   


You don't have to wait. The micronization profile is as follows...

Sample L18-2 was taken 0.25km from the center of ground zero.


All that proves is the sizes of the particles in the dust sample they took. Nothing says it MUST be fusion due to that. May I also point out that the site you cite as evidence states that the samples were pulverized due to building collapse, not fusion.

Next, the samples were taken not from the site itself, but they are samples of dust that accumulated at a distance from the site after being carried there by the wind. Now, that's likely only going to show what ... yes, dust. Do you seriously expect to see large chunky pieces drifting to settle in more distant sites? Do you think that sampling technique is going to lend itself to selecting for lightweight/fine samples? I do.

Please tell me you guys are not getting these "micronized" comments from this site and claiming ALL the dust ON THE SITE was this profile because these guys sampled dustfall at remote areas. Please tell me you're not.

Next - the metals in the sample. What are they? Yes, light easily vaporizable (and flammable in most cases) metals. Zinc. magnesium, aluminum, boron and the like. Interestingly, I don't see Fe in the assay. At all.

They also did a radiation count - it wasn't anything special.



An excellent quote from WITW. "Chemical explosives cause short localized bursts of energy. And most of that blast energy gets wasted, i.e. it does not enter the target. The radiation energy (Neutrons) from a hydrogen bomb doesn’t bounce off objects (like a chemical blast wave might) it penetrates and superheats them."


Unfortunately WITW's understanding of physics apparently leaves a bit to be desired. You might not want to quote him as an authority in the field.




You are simply unaware. For a source with some solid scientific backing, read this.
www.freepatentsonline.com...


It's apparent you are having trouble reading for understanding when it's physics. Hydrogen has a high scattering cross-section. That means that it is a good moderator for neutrons - it doesn't absorb them, but it does slow them down. The neutrons' kinetic energy is transformed into heat, gamma and x-ray flux in the process. If your concrete is thick enough, and the fluence low enough, you can reduce the gammas and x-rays too.

In the case of an accelerator, the neutron fluence isn't as high as in a fusion explosion, by several orders of magnitude. That's why you can fry up people in reinforced concrete bunkers using a neutron bomb.

At any event, what they're talking about in the article is shielding for neutron radiation. In a fusion reaction, you get the neutrons up front, and lots of them. For D-T, 80% or so of the energy of the reaction is carried away as the kinetic energy of neutrons. But that's over with after the bang. The fusion doesn't keep going on for days or what have you.

So what you have left is the radiation of secondary activation. Up front you'll get betas as the activated elements emit a beta and raise their atomic number. Then what you get depends on the material, but it's probably going to be alphas and gammas.

Spraying it down with a hose isn't going to do much.




(you)
20. Intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy and were vaporized while paper did not.


(me, originally)
Also crap. Paper doesn't need to heat very much to combust, less to brown. Yet it did not. The amount of heat produced is tied to the scattering cross-section of the material, not the mass.


(you)

We are not talking about heat production but rather dispersion.


No, no, no. You definitely said that it didn't burn because "neutrons doesn't heat small objects/paper" which is blatantly incorrect. You have also stated that the interior of the building was heated to hundreds of thousands of degrees (millions actually). Then you said "solar temperatures", then it was 15000 degrees.

Any one of these would have burned the paper. And paper is heated by neutron flux. You have to look at the scattering cross section, fluence, energy profiles and the like. It's a pain to calculate, frankly, and you have to use a program to do it. But if you're postulating vaporized iron, you don't need it, the flux will be more than sufficient to burn the paper. And kill the people.

If you're claiming neutrons as the reason for the building collapse, you have to live with the results. Can't be jumping back to "it was hot". By the way, if the firefighters were left alive to claim it was hot, it wasn't THAT hot - how did it "vaporize" the people in the building?




If this is not an explosion - you misunderstand the meaning of the word.


I don't think your imagination is properly calibrated to deal with the explosion caused by 200,000 gallons of water "instantly" turned into superheated steam at whichever temperature you're claiming at the moment.

Mollier charts won't begin to touch it, and my handy steam calculator won't take an input that far off. I will say that at 1000 degrees C, and no where near starting at liquid water, let's say there was nothing but a thick fog in there, it would have gone to 3000 PSI. Raising liquid water to 10,000 C isn't something I can guess at as far as the end pressure. Maybe 10,000 PSI, in the volume of a 200,000 gallon tank? Certainly as high as the pressure in a small fission weapon near the fireball.

You wouldn't get that little pop. I'd be surprised if you didn't polish the island down to bedrock.



No fires? Are you kidding? The area around the WTC site was covered in charred vehicles and buildings on fire. WTC 7 anyone?


WTC 7 had a lot of fuel oil on hand for running generators. The tanks were breached by flying debris, it ignited.

The cars were burned really spottily, looking at the patterns I see in photos, it's possible they were the ones left running and abandoned. The dust could easily have caused them to overheat and start engine fires. You'll note that the fires seem to always start there, and that there are usually other cars in the picture that are NOT burned. Also I think IIB has made a good case for gas pipeline fires in the parking lot.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


So, is "plasmacized" the new term of the month?



Sorry, dude, you guys are claiming the ENTIRE VOLUME of the building's concrete was affected. And Shaw says the entire volume was raised to alternating degrees of temperature, but any number he's used so far is more than enough to blast the area to bits.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 


Well, well, well, another personal-attack laden post.

It’s being suggested that I have an “understanding of physics which leaves to be desired” and that SteveR “apparently has trouble reading for understanding of physics”. Fortunately for the two of us, we are easily entertained. However we must be careful. When reading these latest comments there is a real and present danger of us laughing ourselves to death.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
WITW, we went all through this on another thread where you demonstrated a pretty sweeping lack of understanding of the subject. That's not a personal attack, IMO. I never said you were stupid, or credulous, or a liar or whatnot, I simply said you weren't exactly an authority to be citing. I still don't believe you are.

However, as on the other thread, I will again say - you seem to be intelligent, you should spend some time taking some classes which would give you a bit better grounding in a subject which seems to interest you so.


As for SteveR, his comment was:
"You are simply unaware. For a source with some solid scientific backing, read this.
www.freepatentsonline.com...
"

No, I'm not unaware, and as far as solid scientific backing goes, it's obvious he didn't understand what he was reading or was unable to apply it in context. Thus my comment. In SteveR's case, though, you're right, maybe I could have phrased it better.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Personally I think some type of ultra low yield tactical nuke or NDEW (nuclear directed energy weapon) is probably the closest thing that the effects could be summed tom other than thousands of tons of tnt. What about the presence of Strontium And Barium In The WTC Dust, which are the result of nuclear fission? Perhaps some new type of bomb?

Tom, may i ask what you think brought those towers down and why do you think strontium and barium was found in the dust samples?



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
The presence of strontium and barium isn't that surprising in small amounts:



The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium. The very high levels of titanium (> 0.1%) were due to their presence in paint, especially white paint. The lead levels are elevated due to the use of lead-based paint on metallic surfaces during construction of the building.

Link to earlier cited site


Strontium 90 is an isotope of strontium which is found in fallout, but the site cited above says that there wasn't any particular radioactivity in the dust samples, although they do state that there was a slight elevation in beta activity which could be characteristic of Sr90, but they didn't do an energy spectrum reading to see what it was as far as I can see.

As far as that goes, the tritium released from the exit signs and what not might have ended up combined with some of the samples and also elevated the betas, there's no way to tell without analyzing the beta energy. I guess you could have done a really sensitive helium emission test and distinguished the tritium decay that way.

The most likely way to end up with trace strontium is through the destruction of CRTs, which use strontium for x-ray shielding. And possibly phosphors, I don't recall clearly but I think that strontium is a fluorescent light phosphor as well, I recall it being used for some sort of phosphor dopant.

As far as barium goes, it's in all sorts of common building products like paint.

So, yes you find barium and strontium in fallout, but that's very far from the only source.

Why do I think it was found, is that it's not that uncommon, and I'd be surprised if it wasn't found. The trace levels of lithium, uranium and beryllium are pretty low for a nuke of any sort.

Mod Edit: BB Code.

[edit on 1/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]

whoops, sorry, didn't come back and look to see if it was formatted right


[edit on 1-9-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
If there was residue from the exit signs in the airplane there must have been an airplane crashing into the WTC. Other than some questionable videos...wait...let me restate that: did anybody see any aircraft wreckage where the debris fell. I am not talking about pieces allegedly found blocks away but I mean right where the debris of the WTC fell?

I am specifically interested in wing spars, horizontal and vertical stabilizer spars, wing plank center sections, wing/fuselage sections, engine cores, stuff like that. Those components are thick and large and would not burn to liquid or turn to dust. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Other than that turbine piece they showed, I don't recall any chunky airplane bits being brought up.

I agree they're pretty thick from the few glances at the assy line I've had, do they always survive catastrophic airplane fires? I would expect the engine assemblies to survive any normal building fire at the least.

I'm not up much on burning airplanes. Well, I was in one a couple of times but I didn't hang around long enough to watch what happened after I got to the point I could unarse the thing, and they always managed to put it out before it caused major structural damage.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam




Other than that turbine piece they showed, I don't recall any chunky airplane bits being brought up.

I agree they're pretty thick from the few glances at the assy line I've had, do they always survive catastrophic airplane fires? I would expect the engine assemblies to survive any normal building fire at the least.



The engines always survive because they are so massive. If I could find a picture of a Boeing 767 assemply line just where they drop the fuselage onto the wings (called the mating) that section is massive. Also if I could get a picture of the section where the horizontal and vertical stabilizer attach to the aft fuselage to show how massive that is.

It is the aft fuselage, aft of the aft pressure bulkhead up near where the stabilizer is attached that they put the flight recorder because it is this area that usually survives a crash.

On some thread somebody posted a bunch of crash pictures clearly showing this phenomena.

But I don't think the general public has any idea how much of a Boeing 767 is going to remain after hitting a building at 400 or 450 knots. Skin, stringers, fairings will all burn up but not the major assemblies or the engines.

It seems to me that it would have been ideal public relations-wise to get a picture of part of a plane sticking out of the debris if only to say "Look at what they did to us!"

But of course this assumes that there was an airplane in the first place and other than the usual hysterical "But I saw it! My friends saw it! Its was on TV!" I know of no evidence that would lead me to believe that a Boeing 767 crashed into either the North or South tower of the World Trade Center.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Off the top of my head, and I'd have to go pull up my demolition books to recall, I think reinforced concrete buildings shatter at an internal overpressure of about 30 PSI. That's to say, the building will fly apart and be scattered over the nearby surroundings. Not go boom, fall down. Fly apart. Totally.

At 500 PSI, you'd be sweeping up WTC bits far and wide. And that's at 10,000 C, not millions of degrees C.



reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 



Nice post Tom. Plenty to chew on.

I do have some issues with what you have written, and the tenuous application of it to the theory.

You state that you beleive a nuclear weapon, used inside a building, would at least have resulted in intact pieces of the building flying distances, much like the explosion of a fragmentation grenade. And at most, air pressure 'polishing NYC to bedrock' (your words. Have you heard of the "The Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall"
intact only 150 m from the hypocenter of the atomic bomb explosion over Hiroshima.)

You claim this with calculations of overpressure based on Shaw's comment of instantaneous million degree heat through the building. This along with lack of significant radiation are your main reasons to debunk use of a nuclear device.

The problem with this is as I stated earlier. There are many signs that only a nuclear weapon demolished the trade centers. Our inability to accurately gauge how the weapon/s were used, and the behavior/specifications of them leads to (possibly) debunkable theories. No-one can state with certainty how they were applied - but we know they were. To dismiss the premise out of hand without factoring this truth is shortsighted.

I posted Shaw's research summary because there are good points in his work. What I beleive is not necessarily the same. Extremely high temperatures must of been present - at least in the hypocenter. This limitation alone massively affects your calculation of overpressure as there is no minimum yield. In 2 x 110 story buildings with concrete and steel floors, I would expect three things from a mini-nuclear demolition. One, mass-micronization of the concrete with portions of concrete away from the detonation intact, Two, hypothesized 'china syndrome' in the underlying debris, and Three consistantly attributable cancer.

We have three. All three are not explainable in any other way. No kinetics, no C4 (wtc7), no lasers, no asbestos.

Mass-micronization of concrete is unexpected in any kinetic only collapse, as you are kind enough to admit. You also note no 110 story demolition has been witnessed before, consequently there is no data on how improbable this micronization is and therefore should be untouched. That is a definite cop-out, Tom.

The entireity of the concrete micronizing depends on the yield and effect of the nuclear demolitions. In Shaw's case it would indeed produce 100% or near 100% micronization. There is evidence that this did not happen, which is not such a bad thing considering many nuke theories are indeed based on localized detonations.

Onto the China Syndrome. How does one explain constant heat generation under the pile for weeks and months after 9/11? Drywall, lime, paint smouldering? Not under constant spraying of water night and day. Question to all: Why was this pulled out 8 weeks after 9/11?


[Source: Frank Silecchia]

I do not want to hear about "thermite" or any derivative. It is known that molten thermite cools off rather quickly, it no longer glows after a few hours.

An oxygen starved fire of "lime and other building material" (is that including the fireproofing?) does not generate yellow-hot FE (1800-2000) temperatures, let alone under constant spraying of water. Nor is it responsible for the following observations:



Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003]



William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002, pp. 32]



Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. [SEAU News, 10/2001]



Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports, “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” [Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, 2001]



Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano. [National Environmental Health Association, 9/2003, pp. 40 ]



According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” [National Guard Magazine, 12/2001]



New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [New York Post, 3/3/2004]



As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.” [Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002]



As well as the reports of molten metal, data collected by NASA in the days after 9/11 finds dozens of “hot spots” (some over 1300 degrees) at Ground Zero


What is the massive indefinite heat a product of? Answer: Thermonuclear chain reaction.

This also explains why over a thousand crushed bodies haven't been found. Aswell as computers and furniture. There has been no answer whatsoever besides bacteria (it survives these temperatures?) for the bodies, and the assertation that office walls help to decompose 1000 bodies and skeletons is absurd. Where are all the thousands of objects and personal affects? I see so few. The unanswered micronization of concrete deals a death blow to the pancake theory, do you think if concrete plates are dropped to asphalt from heights such as 400m and lower they disintegrate to molecular dust? 35% of random sample sub 75 microns? Do they cover Manhattan in two inches of talcum-consistency dust?

It is easier to dismiss all this information. Afterall, ordinary explanations are far more likely by default. Aren't they?

I want answers to these statements. I also want answers to statements made in the previous posts you and readers have comfortably chosen not to address.


I said I was going to talk about the third telltale sign - consistantly attributable cancer. The internet and printed media is full of stories about 9/11 worker sickness. I have two issues with the usual interpretation of this. One, asbestos levels were found 'safe' days after 9/11. Two, it is mainly cancers such as thyroid, leukemia, and lymphoma rather than mainly respitory illness which is what would be expected.


June 11, 2006 — Since 9/11, 283 World Trade Center rescue and recovery workers have been diagnosed with cancer, and 33 of them have died of cancer, says a lawyer for the ailing responders. link



Analysis of Air Samples Taken from Residential Buildings in Lower Manhattan Indicates
No Elevation of Asbestos in Air. Low Levels of Asbestos and Some Fiberglass Found in Dust Samples.
link



This is not the story of rescue and recovery workers at ground zero getting sick with respiratory illnesses from their exposure; you have read those stories, and you have heard those cases.This is the story of 9-11 and cancer.
To date, 75 recovery workers on or around what is now known as "the Pile"—the rubble that remained after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on the morning of September 11, 2001—have been diagnosed with blood cell cancers.
link




No, no no. You have a lot of things wrong here. Neutrons will kill you right then and there.


I beleive that neutron radiation played a large role in the desired effects of the weapon. The majority of neutron radiation was directed upwards and absorbed by the mass of the towers. You claim that a release of neutron radiation would of "instantly" killed many people around ground zero. Absolute fecal matter. As you should know, not all neutron radiation is equal. I will repeat that for your edification. Not all neutron radiation is the same. We know neutron lethality depends on the MeV. read, and ofcourse the amount, not that I would think there'd be a high level after the collapse.

You call my mention of water "crap", perhaps I should of elaborated, you are aware that water, light water, is an effective neutron moderator? These are all important factors. Are you even aware that neutrons are used in certain medical operations?

[edit on 2/9/07 by SteveR]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Heard of Theodore B. Taylor? Probably not. Senior nuclear physicist and bomb designer at Los Alamos. Died in 2004. His pre-9/11 science books talked alot about nuclear demolition and potential terrorism, in one book he speculated on the possibility of nuclear devices being used to demolish the World Trade Center.

Read "The Curve of Binding Energy". Oh no doubt you will call his work "tripe", eh?



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Heard of Theodore B. Taylor? Probably not. Senior nuclear physicist and bomb designer at Los Alamos. Died in 2004. His pre-9/11 science books talked alot about nuclear demolition and potential terrorism, in one book he speculated on the possibility of nuclear devices being used to demolish the World Trade Center.

Read "The Curve of Binding Energy". Oh no doubt you will call his work "tripe", eh?


Wow, now I hadn't heard of that! Just found a copy on Amazon.



Shortly after the war he began working at Los Alamos, where he designed many of the smallest and lightest nuclear bombs. Subsequently, Taylor became an advocate of putting the genie back into the bottle. One of his nightmare scenarios was a group of terrorists knocking down the World Trade Center with a homemade nuclear bomb


Probably a rivetting read. Might have to add this to my wanted list. Another book maybe worth checking out:

The Mini-Nuke Conspiracy: How Mandela Inherited a Nuclear Nightmare; SE Faber (Hardcover)

www.amazon.com...




The frightening truth, as The Mini-Nuke Conspiracy reveals, is that the world has been hoodwinked. Piecing together the evidence with the help of scores of witnesses, the authors discover that South Africa not only made A-bombs but went on to produce an array of advanced tactical nuclear weapons. It did so with the help of allies in America, Britain and Israel.

Hounam and McQuillan show how a mysterious chemical called red mercury was responsible for a string of gruesome murders. They discovered that red mercury was a key component of a new type of battlefield mini-nuke. These so-called 'clean bombs' have the capacity to kill while leaving behind minimal radioactive fallout.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
You state that you beleive a nuclear weapon, used inside a building, would at least have resulted in intact pieces of the building flying distances, much like the explosion of a fragmentation grenade. And at most, air pressure 'polishing NYC to bedrock' (your words. Have you heard of the "The Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall"
intact only 150 m from the hypocenter of the atomic bomb explosion over Hiroshima.)


It didn't have a nuke inside it.


But seriously, take a look at the rest of the Hiroshima photo - what do you see? One collapsed building? Or is it pretty much polished clean? It's not unusual for explosions to leave small areas less damaged. This is hardly an argument that you can set off a nuke inside a building of the size to cause all the effects you list, and just have the building gently fall in a heap.

(edit: this is also more typical of an airburst like Hiroshima than a ground burst)



You claim this with calculations of overpressure based on Shaw's comment of instantaneous million degree heat through the building. This along with lack of significant radiation are your main reasons to debunk use of a nuclear device.


The temperature seems to vary wildly throughout the claims - "instantaneous millions of degrees" in one place and "twice that of thermate" in others, with "solar temperatures" added, I would guess, by yourself. So I chose a nice round 10,000C, which is a bit more realistic.

But yes, those are definitely two, and they are sufficient.



The problem with this is as I stated earlier. There are many signs that only a nuclear weapon demolished the trade centers. Our inability to accurately gauge how the weapon/s were used, and the behavior/specifications of them leads to (possibly) debunkable theories. No-one can state with certainty how they were applied - but we know they were. To dismiss the premise out of hand without factoring this truth is shortsighted.


No, I disagree with you totally. There are NOT many signs that a nuclear weapon was used - and there are many signs lacking that you would expect to see. Your quoted list of 24 has nothing at all which compels me to believe that a nuke was used, in addition, I found some of the claims to be, frankly, misfounded. It is amusing to see where the "micronized" claims are coming from - the sampling of dust at a remote location and not at the site itself.

As I have stated in this and other threads, nuclear weapons have certain unavoidable side-effects and signatures which in this case seem to be totally lacking. The repeated claim that without knowing the precise design of the weapon itself, it may generate some as-yet-unknown effects such as concrete powderizer beams or whatnot is not supportable. Why not claim fairies with phasers or Lost Ark death angels in a bottle?

No, this viewpoint is untenable. Nukes operate by well-known reactions, which generate well-known particles with statistically predictable behaviors.

Also, you'll note that Shaw as well as others on these threads will wave their hands about, invoke mystic unknown properties of a mystic unknown new weapon, then subsequently try to claim that the damage is done by neutrons and that the weapon produced an EMP, which would be the products of a "non fairy" bomb. You really couldn't have it both ways, if there were two ways to have it on this matter. If it produces neutrons, then they are bone stock neutrons that will act like neutrons.

Finally, we do NOT know nukes were used, and given the preponderance of evidence, it's not obvious how to conclude that they were. It's conjecture on your part and Shaw's, frankly, and an apparently unfounded one at that. It certainly is not 'truth' which must be accepted at face value.



I posted Shaw's research summary because there are good points in his work. What I beleive is not necessarily the same. Extremely high temperatures must of been present - at least in the hypocenter. This limitation alone massively affects your calculation of overpressure as there is no minimum yield. In 2 x 110 story buildings with concrete and steel floors, I would expect three things from a mini-nuclear demolition. One, mass-micronization of the concrete with portions of concrete away from the detonation intact, Two, hypothesized 'china syndrome' in the underlying debris, and Three consistantly attributable cancer.


Wait - didn't you claim at the beginning that some huge figure - 95% or something - of the concrete WAS "micronized"? And linked a video clip to reinforce it, as I recall. So, if such a huge percentage was "micronized", it would seem to follow that the entire building would have to be involved in order to satisfy your requirement of "nuclear micronization".

But, alas, it does NOT "massively limit" the overpressure. The overpressure would be the same, it would just be more limited in volume. An area heated to "millions of degrees" or 10K, or whathaveyou will still reach that overpressure. In your original list, he invoked "the entire building", you're just saying "Ok, ok, only in the middle then". But it's still going to be a mammoth overpressure in that area. So instead of the whole building popping like a dry ice bomb, it's just going to blow the middle out. Still didn't happen.

Also, if you try to regionally limit the effects of your putative bomb, then you're going to have "but then how did it 'vaporize' the people throughout the building, and that 200,000 gallon tank of water near the roof?" to answer.

Next, your "china syndrome" comment. No. Sorry. Here's where I'll be "polite Tom" and just say that I have to assume you got your idea on this from TV or a movie. What is a "China syndrome"? This is a theoretical stage in what is generally a catastrophic coolant failure of a fission reactor. When this happens, the fuel has melted from the residual heat caused by the decay of short-lived daughter products in the fuel assemblies. This can't be prevented by neutron control procedures, since the reactions are intra-fuel instead of inter-fuel. The rods soften and eventually melt, falling to the bottom of the reactor vessel. Once pooled there, the reaction recommences at a very high rate because the fuel is no longer spaced. The puddle of fuel will then begin melting through whatever is at the bottom of the vessel. If the fuel puddle is sufficiently diluted by the melt, the reaction may stop but the melt may continue for a while due to decay heat.

You will note, however, that none of this is applicable to a weapon, most certainly not to a fusion weapon which you are claiming.

Finally, the cancers which you bring up. The site was measured for radioactivity, one of the authorities you yourself cited upthread measured for radioactivity in the dust deposits away from the site, and there was no meaningful activity. Nor was there the gamma activity you'd expect from secondary activation of lighter elements by neutrons. That should pretty much eliminate any claims to a fusion weapon right there.



Mass-micronization of concrete is unexpected in any kinetic only collapse, as you are kind enough to admit. You also note no 110 story demolition has been witnessed before, consequently there is no data on how improbable this micronization is and therefore should be untouched. That is a definite cop-out, Tom.


Not at all. I can tell by you stating that that you haven't ever done any engineering analysis. You always want to find a baseline from which you can judge what is "typical" and what is not. How do you KNOW what is typical or expected? With no knowledge base, you have nothing but "well, this was interesting" that you can make as a conclusion. Single samples are anecdotal. I observe that it happened, but I don't know if it's typical, and can't. Some effects are calculable, from the strengths and characteristics of materials. But this is one of those secondary effects that could have a number of reasons.

For all you know, that might happen every time a building of this type and size collapses. I couldn't even find anything comparable to extrapolate from. I'll also remind you that your evidence for "micronization" and may I say I suspect it's what the other fusion theorists are quoting due to the phrasing used, is from windborne dust collected away from the site. What would you expect to find but dust?

Again, by your new "limited size" theory, most of the building should remain as big chunks of concrete as it would have been untouched by the explosion. Can't have it both ways. If it's all "micronized" by a nuke, then the entire building must be involved. If it's all "micronized" yet a nuke isn't required to do so throughout the building, then a nuke isn't required anywhere.



In Shaw's case it would indeed produce 100% or near 100% micronization. There is evidence that this did not happen, which is not such a bad thing considering many nuke theories are indeed based on localized detonations.


There is a LOT of evidence that no nuclear weapon was used. In Shaw's case, it would have produced "100% micronization" along with most of the island.



Onto the China Syndrome. How does one explain constant heat generation under the pile for weeks and months after 9/11? Drywall, lime, paint smouldering? Not under constant spraying of water night and day. Question to all: Why was this pulled out 8 weeks after 9/11?


By combustion of material under a very well insulated heap of concrete and drywall, with air coming up from the subway. As addressed earlier, no "China syndrome" theory can stand here. One, it's not applicable whatsoever. Two, if you want to invoke the heat of decay from secondary activation, then you will need Hell's own neutron source during the detonation, and it would have killed people as far as the eye could see. Then in order to generate sufficient heat to continue melting metal, the gamma flux would have french-fried anyone in the vicinity. It would have glowed a nice brilliant Cerenkov blue at night. You wouldn't have been able to miss it.

No, there wasn't any sort of "china syndrome". I might go for a gas leak. Also if you had a big puddle of molten aluminum under there contaminated with the right materials the firefighter's water could have fueled a nice alumina reaction for quite some time which would produce both heat and hydrogen which could migrate through the debris to burn elsewhere.



I do not want to hear about "thermite" or any derivative. It is known that molten thermite cools off rather quickly, it no longer glows after a few hours.


You're making the mistake of thinking that thermite cools any more or less quickly than any other molten lump of steel and aluminum slag of the same mass.

It's not magic. It's a lump of metal. Same with the heat of fusion - it's over with in a blink. In both cases, it will then radiate, convect and conduct away into the surrounding environment over time. The fact that it stayed hot under there tells you that there was another heat source, yet it is not a "china syndrome".

Most likely it was other organics. Books, book cases, desks, carpet, people, you name it. Which would also explain the relative lack of them in the debris.



An oxygen starved fire of "lime and other building material" (is that including the fireproofing?) does not generate yellow-hot FE (1800-2000) temperatures, let alone under constant spraying of water.


Sure it does, given sufficient insulation by the dust and drywall gypsum, and fed air slowly over a long period. You can melt metal with coal, it's done all the time. Also the water isn't going to penetrate the debris evenly. Obviously it did not in the case of your photo.



“Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall"

“in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.”


Had these been due to radioactive decay producing heat, they would have seen this as their last moments on Earth.




Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports, “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” [Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, 2001]



And there you go. You have provided your own answer. Emphasis mine.



What is the massive indefinite heat a product of? Answer: Thermonuclear chain reaction.


"This word... I do not think it means, what you think it means" Inigo Montoya

Ok. Let's whittle this one down. Again, I don't mean it as an insult, but it's indicative of a lack of understanding of the basic processes involved.

First. There is no magic heat. Heat is heat. Heat from a nuclear reaction isn't special long-lived heat, as opposed to heat from a chemical reaction such as thermate being somehow short-lived heat. You've got a lot of processes going on that will dissipate that heat - convection, radiation, and conduction are the three that come to mind. But they'll all dissipate heat from any source with total impartiality.

Second. There are nuclear chain reactions but the term "thermonuclear" implies that there is some sort of chain reaction to fusion. There is not. Thus, you don't probably don't understand the term "thermonuclear" or "chain reaction".

Third. You have often stated that you feel it was a fusion weapon, perhaps the mythical 'pure fusion' weapon. In that case, there is no fissionable material at all. Thus there is no ongoing chain reaction - as soon as the fusion fireball begins to expand, it's a race between the density falling and the temperature dropping as to which will extinguish the active fusion reaction first. At that point, it's over. You've got nothing left but residual heat radiating away from the fireball which won't last but a few extra seconds. There is no ongoing nuclear process there.

Even if it had been a fission weapon though, any unreacted material would have been reduced to a gas and spread far and wide, beyond any dream of criticality.

With the nuclear source obviated, the explanation for your bodies, personal effect, furniture and the like is clear. They fed the fires.



There has been no answer whatsoever besides bacteria (it survives these temperatures?) for the bodies, and the assertation that office walls help to decompose 1000 bodies and skeletons is absurd.


You assume that the temperature is uniformly high everywhere in the debris. Other statements you have made also lead me to believe you are envisioning the rubble pile as being or having to be fairly uniform in characteristics, it's not going to be true.

In some places, it will not be as hot as others. So in some areas, the bodies burned and added to the combustion heat. In others, it wasn't as hot and they either desiccated or were attacked by the lime in the gypsum. I suspect you are unaware that lime accelerates decomposition. Quicklime works best but gypsum accelerates decomposition too, albeit to a far lesser degree.



...do you think if concrete plates are dropped to asphalt from heights such as 400m and lower they disintegrate to molecular dust? 35% of random sample sub 75 microns? Do they cover Manhattan in two inches of talcum-consistency dust?


Again, aren't your "micronization" figures all coming from dust samples taken downwind? What would you expect to be air-borne, fist sized chunks? Again, by taking dust samples away from the site, aren't you selecting for smaller sized particles? Yes, yes you are.

But back to the point earlier in the post - now you're saying the entire building WASN'T 'micronized' by your putative nuke, right? Just some section? In that case, your position MUST be that the fall alone is enough to reduce it to powder. Or you have to waffle on the percentage of the building converted to dust.



It is easier to dismiss all this information. Afterall, ordinary explanations are far more likely by default. Aren't they?

I want answers to these statements. I also want answers to statements made in the previous posts you and readers have comfortably chosen not to address.


In general, YES. Yes, ordinary explanations are generally the truth. I could hypothesize that invisible fairies with death beams did it. But that's not likely.

As far as other statements, lay them out.



I said I was going to talk about the third telltale sign - consistantly attributable cancer. The internet and printed media is full of stories about 9/11 worker sickness.


Yet the radiation that would be required to do this, and in the case of thyroid cancer you would in general need radioiodine, is demonstrably not present. Therefore radiation is not the cause.



I beleive that neutron radiation played a large role in the desired effects of the weapon. The majority of neutron radiation was directed upwards and absorbed by the mass of the towers.


The directability of neutron flux is fairly limited. However, even if if you have a magical neutron fairy directing it upwards in totality, the first objects that are hit will begin to disperse the flux. Layer after layer of concrete will make it a random spray, it won't be directional at all, and some of it's going to be reflecting back down from the concrete to the street from above. I don't believe in the directionality theory though - you can sort of herd them for a bit but the reflectors are also heating catastropically and will cease to exist before the fireball is over. So you can get some limited directionality up front, for a few dozen nanoseconds, but once the fusion reaction starts to cook, the reflectors are gone.

Next, the kinetic energy of the neutrons interacting with a scattering medium such as concrete (or air for that matter) will disperse a large percentage of that energy into randomly directed gamma and x-rays.

Finally, it will catastrophically heat the material doing the scattering. This is where the "boom" happens. Or in this case, it didn't.



You claim that a release of neutron radiation would of "instantly" killed many people around ground zero. Absolute fecal matter. As you should know, not all neutron radiation is equal. I will repeat that for your edification. Not all neutron radiation is the same. We know neutron lethality depends on the MeV.


And what sort of neutrons do you get from a D-T reaction?

14.7 MeV.

That's humming. It's what we call a "high energy neutron". They're way lethal. But even thermal neutrons are lethal, although the instantly fatal dose is greater than that for higher energy neutrons.

So, as in any other neutron problem, you're going to have a mix of unmoderated neutrons and moderated ones. It will form a nice smear of various energies from 14.7MeV on down.

I just love that link you posted. It's like the other one where you tried to claim it as proof you could wash "fusion radioactivity" away with a hose. You didn't understand what you were reading. But it's a great link - I have those same tables here in some of my old books.

Let's look at them with some understanding.

At the top, you have table 1. Note that what it's telling you is that neutrons of mixed energy are assumed to be 10 times more lethal, fluence for fluence, than Xrays, gamma or betas. That's because neutrons are extremely lethal, as I stated before. It really puts a boot in your argument for fusion, because of the lack of snowdrifts of dead New Yorkers.

But let's also look at table 2, where we find that the Q for even thermal neutrons, that's what's left after cruising through several dozen buildings in Manhattan, are STILL twice as lethal as the same dose of gamma radiation.

Start at 14 and go up to the top of the table. 14 is there because that's what DT fusion emits, by the way. As you drop in energy, you see that the lethality Q figure varies up and down peaking at an 11. The reason that it isn't flat is because you're passing through various energy levels where the neutron will be more likely to be scattered, absorbed, or interact "mechanically" by smashing chemical bonds. If it's too energetic it may pass through without interaction. So you get that up and down thing as the neutrons cause various TYPES of damage based on their energy. But the Q is pretty high all the way down to the thermal levels, and even at its lowest it's still twice as lethal as the ionizing EM and betas.

Like I said, if you flip it to Grays, you'll find that the neutron dose required to instantly kill you is less than it would take to raise a pound of steel a tenth of a degree, IIRC. I worked through it a few months back. It really really doesn't take much. I think the "die three days to a week later" dose is only about 0.15Gy. That's off the top of my head, though.

Oh, and the reason for bringing that up - you're postulating all this instant vaporization of water on the roof and whatnot by the neutrons, along with the burned cars and the like. But the people in the vicinity would have been dead, dead, dead long before the paper browned, much less the engine block melted.

The entire neutron lethality thing is why even the smallest neutron bombs kill people in the open kilometers away.



not that I would think there'd be a high level after the collapse.


Another telling comment - the neutron flux from the reaction ceases when the reaction stops. The neutrons will expend their energy on materials and people in Manhattan within a fraction of a second - even a 'warm' thermal neutron is travelling plenty fast. In far less than a second they'll expend their kinetic energy totally and be "cold" thermal neutrons. Neutrons that aren't captured have a half-life of 10.5 minutes and will begin converting to hydrogen ions by emitting betas.



You call my mention of water "crap", perhaps I should of elaborated, you are aware that water, light water, is an effective neutron moderator? These are all important factors. Are you even aware that neutrons are used in certain medical operations?


Yes, I'm quite aware of it. But they use lots of it. Certainly your comment "they sprayed down the rubble with hoses because this stops fusion radioactivity" was totally naive, though. Again, the hydrogen in water moderates neutron flux because it has a high scattering cross-section. That doesn't mean it eats it up or washes it away though, just that it moderates it, moving it up the scale towards "twice as lethal as gamma rays" on your neutron energy chart. The amount of water has a lot to do with it. A hose fog won't do.

And you've made the same old mistake again. What neutron radiation do you expect to see in the rubble?


Let's say I'm more familiar with nuclear weapons than the average layman by training, and I've about got my master's in Physics to go with the one in EE. So, yeah, I am sort of aware of those points.

Do you know what the neutrons are used for in medicine? To kill tissue.


[edit on 3-9-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

[edit on 3-9-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join