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

Click here to learn more about this warning.

What happened to the plane debris?

Update: F-4 Phantom > 500mph > Solid Concrete Slab
Submitted by EdWard-MD on Mon, 2008-02-11 17:09.
www.911researchers.com...

www.youtube.com...
F-4 Phantom > 500 mph > Solid Concrete Slab - Close Up Slow Motion.

Facts are referenced AND verifiable.

Like here, the wall was 12 ft thick, THE PLANE WAS NOT FILLED WITH WATER, but the tanks were to simulate fuel.

THIS IS A REFERENCED FACT FOR THOSE THAT DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT.

But there was a test similar to what is described above. In 1988, an
unmanned F-4 Phantom, ballasted with water and mounted on rails, was
"flown" into a concrete wall at 480 MPH. As reported, the plane crumpled,
and penetrated only about 2 inches of concrete. A very impressive test -
except it wasn't meant to be a test of nuclear reactor safety. The wall
the F-4 crashed into was not a simulation of a nuclear plant's wall. It
was a 12-foot-thick wall mounted on an air cushion. The test was designed
to study impact forces by measuring how far the impact would push the
wall. Breaking through the concrete was the last thing any of the
involved scientists wanted to achieve. Furthermore, the F-4 was ballasted
with water to give it the same weight as a plane fully loaded with fuel,
and its final weight was 42,000 pounds. Needless to say, crashing a 412,
000 pound 767 loaded with fuel into a fixed wall would have slightly
different results.

Big words, you say. Nice fearmongering, DM. But can you back it up with
any facts? Well, actually I can. Because according to a 1982 study by the
Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois - a study which was conducted by
request of the DOE and the NRC - the explosion from a 707 crashing into a
containment dome at 466 MPH would probably overwhelm the reactor's
shielding. Note - that's a 707, which weighs 336,000 pounds. In 1982
those were big jets. But we've "advanced" considerably since then. The
767s that were flown into the World Trade Center weighed 80,000 pounds
more than that and carried a lot more fuel.

Other studies, again conducted for the NRC at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, found that a 125,000 pound jet had a 32 % chance of
piercing a containment building's six-foot base and an 84 % chance of
breaking through the dome.

Ramming a plane into the containment dome isn't the best way to attack a
nuclear plant, either. There are other possibilities with much greater
chances of success. I'm not going to discuss them, but the statement that
"terrorists would be wasting their time messing with nuclear plants" is a
gross misrepresentation. I'm not saying every nuclear reactor in the
world should immediately be dismantled to prevent such an occurrence, but to claim that they are invulnerable is a disputed opinion, to say the
least.

everything2.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------

A key report, Sugano et al 1992, covers a rocket sled crash experiment
using an F-4D Phantom jet fighter impacting into a 10 foot thick
reinforced concrete block.

Sandia notes:

The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time,
due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom -- including both engines --
onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters
thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was
not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any
particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact
occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph).
The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire
following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test
established that the major impact force was the engines.

Article continues at the above link

Hmmm...the no plane theory is actually kind of interesting now that I think about it. Heh. If you asked me a month ago I would've told you you were crazy but....

You should logically expect some debris to go inside, but also some parts of aluminum to shear off and fall outside. I've always thought it looked a little weird how the thing got sucked in like that. Even on that day, I thought it looked like a movie or something. The bullet and other examples involve objects with a much smaller surface area, where the smaller point is much more suited to drive through another object. The planes surface area is much bigger, wings and nose cover multiple floors, and it's made of multiple pieces clad in aluminum, which are more likely to break apart on impact. Interesting...maybe a bunker buster is a better fit for what we saw. Some of those explosions seemed similar to what we saw on 9/11. That said, holograms or CGI is just something I haven't really looked at and it seems kinda out there. I will now have to actually look in to that option though.

I had a whole plan in my mind about the Urban Movers Mossad guys wiring the buildings, Dov Zakheim's remote control plane takeover systems, various Israeli computer crimes in order to confuse the FAA and NORAD, Israeli airport security, hijackers I thought were patsies or had Mossad look-alikes, etc...I thought 9/11 was basically an Israeli false flag, carried out with Mossad resources, but definitely co-planned (or mostly planned) with a group of neocons in Washington. I still think these players are mostly the same, in whatever case, but I might have to re-think a few things now. We'll see.

Also, the reason I've been reading some of these threads here in the last week is because I'm newly on board with the nuke theory. I used to be a thermate (+C4) guy as well, but looking again at the huge amount of energy needed for such destruction, pulverization of concrete, sublimation of steel, possible disintegration of the spire, the toasted cars, the 'meteorite,' which I'd never seen until recently, cancer profile, hot spots, sink holes, etc. WTC 7 was the only building that looked like a controlled demolition to me, but there's a hot spot there too, so maybe a nuke was used there too. Dimona is a likely source because they've had a "secret" nuclear arsenal for decades that's basically gone unchecked and they are very active when it comes to "defence," war, terrorism, etc. Zim Shipping could have helped transport it to NYC? They are also so closely linked to the political elite in the US and Pentagon that I'm sure if it was American technology they would have it too. They have the means and the motive...as well as a certain brazenness to get the job done imo.

I've also come to really consider Steven Jones a shill and I don't think I'll be listening to him much anymore. I still think thermate, or nano-thermates, could have been used, as well as something conventional to produce the squibs, but not thermate by itself. It's a very good cutting agent but there's no way it could produce those 100 micron particles or whatever. Jones has a shady history and I'm not sure why I ever considered thermate possible from the start.

Originally posted by EdWardMD

Newton's Third Law says it matters not which object is in motion - the tower hit the plane, the plane hit the tower. It makes no difference, what so ever. The outcome will be the same. There are no exceptions to this law.

ANOTHER LYING SCAMMER WITH COMPLETE BS.

Well, I must say I'm impressed.

You actually got something right.

But it's all for naught, the TM has no clue about how physics work, nor do they want to learn.

They are much more content being sheep and following along with the writings of your BYU buddies...

To Dr Evil:

this was in the other thread, but since it's OT there, I'm posting it here.

You said - "Wow, I've never posted the explosive effects? Let's try it one more time for lying dirtballs.

Massive craters, .... wilting spires,.... massive reduction in debris pile, ..............2 BILLION pounds of instant micronized building, and alot more. "



These are the only issues I want to discuss. Compartmentization, ok?

Ok, fine, you say this was the effects of nukes, right?

I'm not asking for the visual effects of what you claim, for this is debatable. I asking for a TNT equivalent that MUST result from a nuke that would cause this.

Please stay on point here.

I'll admit that my maths are wrong if you can provide correct numbers.

I could give a crapola what a lying scumbag wants. It's impossible to know unless one has the exacty kiloton size, and type of nuke used. One does not need to know the exact size to know what was done FROM VERIFIED REFERNCED EVIDENCE. Like saying someone that has been murdered by a bullet hasn't been murdered by a bullet unless you can tell the exact force/size of the bullet without having the bullet in hand. A through and through circular hole is a projectile until proven otherwise.l Just like massive craters, massive heat, 2 billion pounds of instant dust, BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS is a NUKE until proven otherwise. SCAM SCUMBAG BS and IMO an after the fact accesory to murder.

DrEd

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by EdWardMD

Newton's Third Law says it matters not which object is in motion - the tower hit the plane, the plane hit the tower. It makes no difference, what so ever. The outcome will be the same. There are no exceptions to this law.

ANOTHER LYING SCAMMER WITH COMPLETE BS.

Well, I must say I'm impressed.

You actually got something right.

But it's all for naught, the TM has no clue about how physics work, nor do they want to learn.

They are much more content being sheep and following along with the writings of your BYU buddies...

Had to save this for evidence. Unfortunately, this is probably the first true thing you've posted. But, there is a very small chance the coming global depression will cause uneasyness in the herd and cause the herd to revolt - A SIMPLE WORK STRIKE WILL SHUT THIS GOVERNMENT DOWN AND FORCE COMPLIANCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. In the very rare chance this will happen, I wanted to make sure this was saved for you.

But, I must admit, that odds are much more likely the sheeple will again comply to you scumbags and I'll be the one on trial for some terrorist BS. I've accepted that fact, but for me the options of truth, humanity and good will to non murdering scumbags leaves no other options.

Fa Q and see Below Me,

DrEd

[edit on 12-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

reply to post by EdWardMD

Could the elevated levels of tritium have come from the radioluminescent devices in the WTC's? Tritium would have likely burned in a bomb of any sort.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by EdWardMD

 

Could the elevated levels of tritium have come from the radioluminescent devices in the WTC's? Tritium would have likely burned in a bomb of any sort.

Tritium does not come from the original nuke. It comes from the explosion of the nuke. Although there is tritium in nukes for boosting - fusion.

The fake numbers are based on the one LITER sample ONLY. 1 of 16 MILLION liters MINIMUM that were present. BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS.

There were no tritium exit signs in WTC - referenced proven fact. There were a few gunsights that were tritium in the wtc SUPPOSEDLY- only noted AFTER it was found out there were no exit signs and they could not account for the dinky amount of tritium found in ONLY ONE LITER, ALL OF THE BUILDINGS COULD HAVE BEEN FILLED WITH GUNSIGHTS AND THEY WOULD NOT BE ANYWHERE NEAR BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS. Also fire causes any tritium to go atmospheric so if it was hot enough to melt the sights it was hot enough for the tritium to go atmospheric - also proven in a couple of my articles dealing specifically with tritium - per past official government disclosure dealing with government tritium exposures on nuke accidents and a fire in a warehouse holding tritium tubes. Anywhere fire melted the glass - no tritium. Only unmelted glass had tritium residue.

DrEd

[edit on 12-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

Originally posted by EdWardMD

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Wondered how long it would take for me to get banned for referenced proven facts. Whatever. I'll keep posting facts until you ban me. And calling referenced proven liars = LIARS.

DrEd

[edit on 12-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

reply to post by EdWardMD


T injection in fission bombs induces a little fusion but is mainly there to boost fission. Most of the energy increase comes from enhanced fission. The thing that must be reconciled is the apparent lack of an explosion or explosions consistent with micronuclear bombs. One would also question why, if such a small amount of energy were needed, anyone would bother with a device as detectable as a nuclear weapon.

reply to post by pteridine


Gee, I don't know. Why don't you ask them why they built a micro nuke in 1950s? Old tech BS. If you know all that, then you know the statement you made about tritium being from a nuke basic core was 100% BS. It appears to have only been made so you could shift the topic from one of proven evidence to one of old 1980 nuke technology BS. Meanwhile massive craters, hiroshima effect cancers, massive seering earth, instant 2 billion pounds of buildings turned to dust, billions of tritium units, etc, etc, etc.

DrEd

Well, my article hits are going down now - almost 1000 visits in 3 days. No more flags being displayed from new readers here. It appears this thread is going dead. Makes me want to vomit dealing with these scammers and their BS. Be sure and give my Love to the Jones twins and Woodhead.

DrEd



[edit on 12-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

reply to post by EdWardMD


Ed from Maryland,
Any nuclear explosion that would produce tritium would also produce many other radionuclides. None were found. The evidence for any type of nuclear event is lacking.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by EdWardMD

 

Ed ,
Any nuclear explosion that would produce tritium would also produce many other radionuclides. None were found. The evidence for any type of nuclear event is lacking.

You obviously have not read the articles.

""""""""""""""Barium - mv 533 ppM, Strontium - mv 727 ppM, Cerium - mv 91 ppM, Yttrium - mv 57 ppM, Lanthanum - mv 46 ppM, Molybdenum - mv 11 ppM, Thorium - mv 9 ppM, Uranium - mv 3 ppM, Beryllium - mv 3 ppM, and Cesium - mv 0.6 ppM - partial listing. For readers that are not familiar with most of these elements, here is a link to their relevance.""""""""""""

You should also take the link to 4th generation nukes and you will see what is capable. But, then again, that's not really your interest is it since you ignore massive craters, massive heat, hiroshima effects, wilting spires, 2 BILLION POUNDS OF BUILDING TURNED INTO ISNTANT DUST, BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS, ALL REFERENCED AND PROVEN, etc, etc, etc. AND HAVE NOT EVEN READ WHAT YOU SUPPOSEDLY DISCLAIM.

MODERATORS PLEASE DELETE THE "ED FROM MARYLAND" BS. I am not ed from maryland, just about any 3rd grader can find out who I am. I hide from no one unlike alias posters and I don't want any Ed Ward in maryland to be accused of my proven facts or face harrassment because of my efforts in exposing the truth because of some moe.

DrEd




[edit on 13-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

Originally posted by EdWardMD

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by EdWardMD

 

You obviously have not read the articles.

""""""""""""""Barium - mv 533 ppM, Strontium - mv 727 ppM, Cerium - mv 91 ppM, Yttrium - mv 57 ppM, Lanthanum - mv 46 ppM, Molybdenum - mv 11 ppM, Thorium - mv 9 ppM, Uranium - mv 3 ppM, Beryllium - mv 3 ppM, and Cesium - mv 0.6 ppM - partial listing. For readers that are not familiar with most of these elements, here is a link to their relevance.""""""""""""

Ed,
The tritium was found as HTO and anyone who checked the water for activity would undoubtedly have found these other elements in it, also. Of course, small amounts of uranium and thorium would be present in granite and gravel in the concrete.

Pteridine

reply to post by pteridine


Doesn't matter the form of tritium THEY WERE MASSIVE. Also, the ppm for uranium were higher than normal background 2 ppm. Almost all of the nuclides WHICH YOU STATED WEREN'T THERE - scamming BS - were in higher concentrations than normal, BUT, WHILE THEY MAY BE PROOF - would need additional tests which the government DID NOT DO was precisely WHY THEY WERE NOT USED AS MAIN EVIDENCE AND ONLY MENTIONED. INSTEAD I USED THE THINGS YOU KEEP IGNORING - EN MASSE - AND TRITIUM IN PARTICULAR PROVE A NUCLEAR EVENT HAPPENED. You should also take the link to 4th generation nukes and you will see what is capable. But, then again, that's not really your interest is it since you ignore massive craters, massive heat, hiroshima effects, wilting spires, 2 BILLION POUNDS OF BUILDING TURNED INTO INSTANT DUST, BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS, ALL REFERENCED AND PROVEN, etc, etc, etc. AND HAVE NOT EVEN READ WHAT YOU SUPPOSEDLY DISCLAIM.

DrEd

Originally posted by EdWardMD
reply to post by pteridine

 

Doesn't matter the form of tritium THEY WERE MASSIVE. Also, the ppm for uranium were higher than normal background 2 ppm. Almost all of the nuclides WHICH YOU STATED WEREN'T THERE - scamming BS - were in higher concentrations than normal, BUT, WHILE THEY MAY BE PROOF - would need additional tests which the government DID NOT DO was precisely WHY THEY WERE NOT USED AS MAIN EVIDENCE AND ONLY MENTIONED. INSTEAD I USED THE THINGS YOU KEEP IGNORING - EN MASSE - AND TRITIUM IN PARTICULAR PROVE A NUCLEAR EVENT HAPPENED. You should also take the link to 4th generation nukes and you will see what is capable. But, then again, that's not really your interest is it since you ignore massive craters, massive heat, hiroshima effects, wilting spires, 2 BILLION POUNDS OF BUILDING TURNED INTO INSTANT DUST, BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS, ALL REFERENCED AND PROVEN, etc, etc, etc. AND HAVE NOT EVEN READ WHAT YOU SUPPOSEDLY DISCLAIM.

DrEd

Eddie,
Do not get your skivvies in a knot with all CAPS intensification. I understand your emotion and impatience about this as you must have deep seated beliefs about it. I was asking about the elements in the analysis and, when I followed the link, I found the answer. They were not radioisotopes and are not evidence of a nuclear explosion. It appears that you are basing your conclusion only on the presence of tritium. There was not any explosion or any evidence of neutron flux. Even a small nuke would have provided such, and your claim of a fusion only device without a fission booster would have provided a neuton flux that would have resulted in deaths, in a matter of hours to weeks, for many of the firefighters at the scene.
The links in your posts were not all working. The nuclear demolitions of the 60's were fission devices. Dial-ups provide heat and blast at lower levels but lower levels is a relative term. Nukes are obvious.
The idea of a fusion only demolition is heresay. Containment and pressure-temperature regimes for fusion bombs are only available with fission assistance.
Nuclear bombs are not quiet, save for the relative hush of neutron bombs. The downside to a micro-neutron bomb is the neutrons [see above.]

reply to post by pteridine


The link clearly states FISSION PRODUCTS AS IT'S TITLE. ANOTHER PROVEN LIE. en.wikipedia.org...(by_element). Followed by unreferenced BS scam most of which is is false the rest is based on information more than 40 years old and not current with the proven referenced information provided in the article.

You should also take the link to 4th generation nukes and you will see what is capable. But, then again, that's not really your interest is it since you ignore massive craters, massive heat, hiroshima effects, wilting spires, 2 BILLION POUNDS OF BUILDING TURNED INTO INSTANT DUST, BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS, ALL REFERENCED AND PROVEN, etc, etc, etc. AND HAVE NOT EVEN READ WHAT YOU SUPPOSEDLY DISCLAIM.

DrEd

Originally posted by EdWardMD
reply to post by pteridine

 

The link clearly states FISSION PRODUCTS AS IT'S TITLE. ANOTHER PROVEN LIE. en.wikipedia.org...(by_element). Followed by unreferenced BS scam most of which is is false the rest is based on information more than 40 years old and not current with the proven referenced information provided in the article.

You should also take the link to 4th generation nukes and you will see what is capable. But, then again, that's not really your interest is it since you ignore massive craters, massive heat, hiroshima effects, wilting spires, 2 BILLION POUNDS OF BUILDING TURNED INTO INSTANT DUST, BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS, ALL REFERENCED AND PROVEN, etc, etc, etc. AND HAVE NOT EVEN READ WHAT YOU SUPPOSEDLY DISCLAIM.

DrEd

Perhaps you don't understand my point. The fission products diagnostic of an atomic explosion will themselves be radioisotopes. Strontium will show as Sr-90. The fact that these non-radioactive elements were found in the dust from the WTC does not prove a nuclear event. In fact, the lack of radioisotopes says there was no nuke. Not even a mini-, micro-, or nano-nuke.
The existence of tritiated water by itself is not proof of a nuclear event because no other radioisotopes have been found. It is proof of tritium combustion, only, because no nuclear bomb produces only tritium. Further, there was no detected blast or radiation from a nuclear event.

As much as you would like a nuke, there is really no evidence for one.
The collapses, fires, melting, and craters will have to be attributed to something else. The tritium will have to be attributed to combustion of emergency signs and other such things until another source can be identified.