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.

 

Thermate, C4, Micro Nukes Prove 911 Was and Inside/Outside Job

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Fission bombs would leave radioactive debris. What was found that would lead you to believe this?


No, not fission. Pure fusion (which is completely scalable) with antimatter/red mercury trigger.



FDNY THYROID CANCER SHOCK

Attorney David Worby, who represents nearly 10,000 WTC responders in a class-action suit, said he has tracked "a large cluster" of thyroid cancers among his clients, which include thousands of firefighters and cops.

Overall, at least 125 active and retired firefighters - all Ground Zero responders - have contracted some type of cancer since 2001, according to figures gathered by the Uniformed Firefighters Association.


www.nypost.com...

Note, the most common cause of thyroid cancer is exposure to radiation.


[edit on 9/2/09 by YourForever]




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Add to that the radiation from even the smallest nuclear device would kill
everyone within quarter mile (350-400m). Now consider that so 20 people
in the building survived the collapse - 14 in stairwar B North Tower, 2
in the underground concourse, 2 Port Authority Police officers buried in
debris and incredibly 2 people who actually rode the building down as it
collapsed.

Also one "genius" said the the rays passed through paper, but boiled the
water in concrete to cause it to explode. Heat sufficent to cause concrete
to spall would have ignited the paper.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by YourForever
 


Fusion bombs do not produce radioactive iodine - only fission devices
do. Fusion produces large burst of gamma radiation and neutrons - the
neutrons would be detectable from transmutting of common elements into
radioactive forms.

The FDNY haz mat team surveyed the site and detected no unusual
radiation levels......



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Well, since no pure fusion bomb designs officially exist, how would you know what they release?

Speculations at best. The facts remain - very high incidence of thyroid cancer and leukemia.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by YourForever
 


You are correct that it was most likely a pure fusion nuke, but the existence of these nukes has not been proven. However, there is proof of semi-pure fusion devices which would leave about the same signature as a pure fusion nuke. I stay with the facts and that is why the semi-pure nuke was chosen, since that is basically proven by referenced government declassifications.

Red mercury is most likely Lithium 6. Red mercury was just a code name on the black market for a high energy material capable of causing a pure fusion reaction. Highly unlikely they would use the real name - lithium 6 - ie, why would one buy it, if they knew they could make it. Lithium 6 looks like mercury but gives a red hew when it's heated.

Antimatter weapons 22 years old in 2008. www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com...

Indeed the thyroid is sensitive to radiation - but, I suspect you have cross referenced old nuke cancers with straight radiation cancers. The old nukes made radioactive Iodine and thyroids sucked it up localizing the radiation in the thyroid and caused its increased cancer rate.

However, new nukes or just plain old straight radiation produce the 'hiroshima effect', ie cancer in any cell/organ/tissue and a different cancer in each person depending on where the dna was broken and sometimes how it repairs. NOTHING ELSE KNOWN TO MAN WILL PRODUCE HIROSHIMA EFFECTS EXCEPT RADIATION. The main single cancer that points to radiation is 'testicular cancer' since there is NO KNOWN CAUSE for testicular cancer EXCEPT RADIATION.

Ed



[edit on 9-2-2009 by EdWardMD]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I hope one day the TRUTH comes out about all this.
I think its easier to be unbiased watching all this from Australia But it's so obvious.
Then again, the J.F.K assasination never got resolved either and no one
seems to even care anymore about that!. (OSWALD did it, just swallow that.)

Come on now, blinkers off everyone!

With all due respect - I hope the Americam people ALL wake up and smell the coffee.

Now , don't start me on OBAMA'S citizenship!

Good Luck.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


911 was definately an inside job.... but what of the "Plane" that hit the pentagon, which, we are told, vaporised on impact... clearly this was not a plane and there is some speculation that what hit the pentagon was a missile...

The "plane" that hit the pentagon hit the office of Donald Rumsfield, if 911 was an inside job this is the very office where the idea was formulated. I toy with the idea that maybe the pentagon was struck by something not part of the plan at all.... could it be possibe that what struck the pentagon was sent by the Aliens to make a point. That would explain many things.

Pink Rabbit



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aubryish
There is nothing left in the tub where two 110 story buildings were. TWO people. Nothing was left to put back together. The buildings are dust, the core is dust, all of the equipment and furniture turned to dust. How does this happen? Where does Carbonized Paper come from? not to mention the meteors of concrete and steel. METEORS



I am on the side of the 911 truthers it was an inside job you don't have to be a brain surgeon to see that but to say that there was nothing left is a little off.

I am not an expert on 911 but I am pretty sure there were papers and equipment on the ground that the clean up crews had to remove.

The whole site was cordoned off and the penalties for entering the restricted area were extremely severe. Now from what I heard the people that were in charge of the clean up operation and the removal of the computers e.t.c were linked with blackwater security? which in turn were linked somewhere down the line to the Bush administration.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by EdWardMD
 


Interestingly, a fission device is necessary as a fusion bomb trigger. Small nukes are detuned fission bombs. There is also the problem of noise. A small nuke would still make a bang. I find this theory hard to rationalize with the evidence.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


911 was definately an inside job.... but what of the "Plane" that hit the pentagon, which, we are told, vaporised on impact... clearly this was not a plane and there is some speculation that what hit the pentagon was a missile...


It's startling how many people can't grasp this simple point. Anyone who can get their head around some simple high school physics (Newton's 3rd law of motion) will eventually realise that an aluminium plane will not simply disappear into a heavy steel and concrete structure. If it were a real plane it should of crashed and crumpled up against the wall, sending plane parts, luggage and body parts flying all over the place, it would be a right bloody mess.

The towers were made up of approx. 250,000 tons of structural steel. As Morgan Reynolds would put it, give a man a sledgehammer and put him on a plane and he could punch holes through the fuselage of a plane with ease (the skin is millimeters thick and made from aluminium, same stuff as a coke can), but put that same man up on the 80th floor of one of the towers with the same sledgehammer and ask him to punch a hole in one of the structural steel core members or the outer wall, he would barely dent it even if he was hammering away all day!


Clearly no normal plane hit the towers or the Pentagon. As far as I know the only thing capable of that is a armour penetrating missile. The military spends millions on R&D of such weapons, yet on 9/11 a flimsy aluminium plane does what only bunker busting missiles and a demolition team can do.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Insol,

Your basic concept is correct, however, you neglect a very key fact and physics equation. Mass x velocity = energy. 'Plain' ole water will cut through steel like butter at high velocity. A simple piece of straw will penetrate an inch or so into a tree at only about 200 mph. A dinky single low mass neutron can pass through 18 inches of solid steel. Markedly less mass photons will cut through steel in lasers. One cannot ignore velocity and simply deal with mass alone.

It certainly appears that both WTC planes fired missiles just prior to impact - IMO, they did and they are 3 fold in their use, make an opening for the plane, assist in plane destruction - to assist in disinformation (where did the planes go?) and to ignite fuel placed inside the WTCs. Since it appears they used missiles on 1 and 2, there is no reason they would not have done the same thing at the pentagon.

Ed

[edit on 10-2-2009 by EdWardMD]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by EdWardMD
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Insol,

...A simple piece of straw will penetrate an inch or so into a tree at only about 200 mph.


[edit on 10-2-2009 by EdWardMD]


Well I tend to disagree with the straw analogy. The rational explanation for the straw in the tree is that the wind blew against the tree, opening the crack which allowed the straw to enter then the wind pressure drops, the tree bends back closing the crack, clamping the straw in place.

Not sure on the velocity of the water jet cutter, but I expect it can only cut through thin pieces, and it takes a few seconds of constant pressure before it goes through. Either way, I don't think it's a great comparison to what happened on that fateful day.


Remember, it matters not which object is in motion, the collision will be the same. The plane hit the tower, the tower hit the plane. It should of exploded up against the side of the tower.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Insolubrious]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


It is basic physics Insolubrious. Total energy is always dependant on velocity. The planes were moving at sufficient speed to break through the aluminium facades. It's really not something you should get hung up on.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by YourForever
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


It is basic physics Insolubrious. Total energy is always dependant on velocity. The planes were moving at sufficient speed to break through the aluminium facades. It's really not something you should get hung up on.


The facade was STEEL inches thick with aluminium cladding, so you're wrong there too. Watch and learn.


Google Video Link


Tell me, why does the military spends millions on missiles designed to penetrate armour cladding when they could just use a flimsy passenger plane to do the same job?


[edit on 10-2-2009 by Insolubrious]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Interesting, it's basic physics. The rules don't change because you 'find' elements of doubt - believe what you WANT to. Throw a bullet against wood and it bounces - apparently the wood didn't have big enough cracks in it?. Put gunpowder behind it and a copper clad/lead bullet will go through steel. Well known fact that water is used to destroy everything in bombs because it is at high velocity. Very interesting that you deny only some basic physics, reminds me of the BYU crew. I'm done with this BS.

DrEd



[edit on 10-2-2009 by EdWardMD]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Yes, it is part steel. I stand corrected.

Dr Ed, it seems to me a micro nuke could demolish the tower by itself without the help of C4 and thermate. What leads you to believe they were necessary to pull the towers?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by YourForever
 


One, because they were clearly seen. Thermate and squibbs. Also a nuke will not explain top down demolition. The facts are only explained by thermate, C4 and micro nukes. The nuke could not be hidden without the top down demolition as cover. And the top down demolition could not have been as complete and assured without the nuke.

Ed




[edit on 10-2-2009 by EdWardMD]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I had never considered the possibility of a small nuke, but upon reflection, I would not rule it out.

The Thermate was used to cut lengths of steel easy to haul off quickly so as to hide (eliminate) the evidence.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 
On the upper floors the columns were box members made of 0.25" steel plate. The aircraft were quite capable of cutting through them at the velocities in question.
None of the aircraft needed anything but mass, velocity, and fuel load, as they were far more potent than any non-nuclear cruise missile in the inventory. A missile was completely unnecessary in any of the 911 strikes and there is no evidence for any such employment.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdWardMD
the top down demolition could not have been as complete and assured without the nuke.

Yeah, I'm calling BS on this. Almost every controlled demolition is top down. In the following picture at the top-left corner, I took a screenshot of two apartment towers being brought down from implosionworld.com. As anyone can see, the squibs are detonated from the top down, just like in the WTC, but on a smaller scale and much faster:



Now in the next picture, a controlled demolition from CDI compared to the south tower:



The comparison is virtually identical. Any building can be brought down in any fashion with the right explosives placed in the right locations and detonated at the right time. All without the need for "nukes" of any kind. The WTC was not a conventional demolition and certainly anything is possible.


Originally posted by pteridine
The aircraft were quite capable of cutting through them at the velocities in question.

The perimeter columns at the WTC were only broken at the connectors. The steel columns themselves did not fail, that I know of.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by _BoneZ_]



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join