WTC was a Nuclear Demolition - New Facts and Hard Evidence Exposing the Coverup and Censorship!!

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I am still having a peoblem with why the EPA blamed the radiation found at the sites on DU carried in the planes when most people know that that 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

All it takes is about 30 seconds of research to learn this fact.




posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
I am still having a peoblem with why the EPA blamed the radiation found at the sites on DU carried in the planes when most people know that that 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

All it takes is about 30 seconds of research to learn this fact.



Please provide the sources you've found in this regard. How much higher was the radiation found at the WTC and when was this?



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Not to mention just exactly what even a 1.5 kiloton device can do:

Underground Nuke Testing

I watched the first video posted, and just got done listening to the 4th one. I really can't believe I have up some 40+ minutes of my life watching that nonsense.

I demand them back!



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
It only takes a couple of pounds of overpressure to blow out glass, yet this didn't happen. It only takes about 15 pounds of overpressure to strip the facade off of a building like WTC, yet this didn't happen.

It's not possible to get massive compression forces that can "dustify" concrete, yet not blow the building all over Manhattan, period.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
Please provide the sources you've found in this regard.


www.atlanticfreepress.com... -illegal-use-of-canadian-uranium-in-du-weapons-in-non-compliance-with-canadian-law.html
DU & 9/11

Leuren Moret reported similar elevated radiation readings downwind from the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001. Two days after 9/11, the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) confirmed that the crash site rubble was radioactive and that it was probably Depleted Uranium (DU) contaminating the Pentagon crash site rubble.


www.mindfully.org...
WORLD TRADE CENTER AIR STUDIES:

Dr. Thomas Cahill, Emeritus Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of California at Davis, conducted an independent study of the air around Ground Zero at the World Trade Center after the 9/11 disaster13. Using very sophisticated monitoring instruments14 which detect very fine and ultra fine particles, Cahill and his group monitored the smoldering pile at the WTC for 5 months following the disaster from one mile north of the center. They measured concentrations of particles in six size ranges from 2.5 microns to 0.09 microns13. They reported the highest concentrations of very fine particles of metals ever reported in the US13, and unprecedented numbers of very fine and super fine particles13. This air monitoring study of the WTC provided new information about very fine and superfine particles which have rarely been studied. Burning metals and other materials at high temperatures generate very large amounts of very small particles. For this reason depleted uranium which has burned is particularly hazardous.

The EPA has verified that depleted uranium was in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 18,19 and that the crash site was contaminated. Residents of New York City detected radiation on hand held geiger counters at the WTC site. The EPA not only failed to protect emergency response personnel at both sites, but did not report or measure13 concentrations of very fine particles at any of the 9/11 plane crash locations. These are the most hazardous to health, and many personnel who worked at the crash sites are now very ill.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   
The above sounds exactly right. Superfine particles at the trade center site = explosives. Depleted Uranium makes sense at the pentagon considering the unusual penetration of the fuselage of the jetliner. I've always been suspicious that there was DU in the aircraft that hit the pentagon as the penetration was remarkable considering it impacted hardened concrete. Also it seems as thought the Office of Naval Intelligence was targeted deliberately, necessitating that degree of penetration.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrwiffler
I've always been suspicious that there was DU in the aircraft that hit the pentagon as the penetration was remarkable considering it impacted hardened concrete.


But thats the problem, as stated the 757 and 767 DO NOT carry DU.

Boeing stopped using DU on the newer 747s. The 757 and 767 carry Tungsten.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by 911thology
 


Thank you so much for taking the time to read the outline of the video.

I know there are some points that I did miss and somethings that are about my knowledge.....types of missiles, warheads, etc. I really only was trying to outline your interview for the people on here who quit watching once you mentioned TV fakery....I figured if I outlined each one that maybe they would read it and jump to the part that addressed questions they had. And to those people who stop watching....I guess you don't really want the truth.....All we have for 9/11 truth, at this point, is theories, this is another one. The style of the interview is one of the best I have seen. When file footage is talked about, they show it, when graphs are needed they show it, good questions are asked. I do recommend watching all 26 parts.

And I know there were some points I missed or didn't quite understand, I do appreciate you clearing those up for me.

My biggest question still is this......If everything from 27m. under the tower (the sub levels, parking garages, mechanical rooms, path station, subway station, and mall ... which were all a part of the WTC...minus the path and subway ... which just ran through the buildings) was to have been destroyed with the detonation .... why then did the mall (again, built in to the WTC's) and other underground things get destroyed? these sub levels and garages and mall are a part of the structure and would have been in the wave that went to 300m about ground level. Can you explain how they survived? There is footage of the mall and path/subway stations after the collapses.

Again, thank you for responding.

Anyone who would like to read his direct remarks to the outline I did on the video please click the link below......

PS...for those that did watch all 26 videos and had 1 major question that was not answered...you know what it is.....he answers it in his response to my outline.....

PPS....this video deserve the attention of people who support a new investigation....that's what investigation mean....to investigate all angles/possibilities.....he makes a really good case if people would just take a look.

Dimetri Response



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest

Originally posted by REMISNE
I am still having a peoblem with why the EPA blamed the radiation found at the sites on DU carried in the planes when most people know that that 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

All it takes is about 30 seconds of research to learn this fact.



Please provide the sources you've found in this regard. How much higher was the radiation found at the WTC and when was this?


The best source showing the 757's-767's didn't contain any depleted uranium is here;

Current Issues - Civilian Use of Depleted Uranium

Hope that helps!
Phil



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
The best source showing the 757's-767's didn't contain any depleted uranium is here;


It is very easy to find lots of sources that the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Considering the scope of this crime it is not at all unimaginable that the jetliner was prepared beforehand. Another possibility, which many decent researchers don't like(which has always puzzled me) is that the plane that hit the Pentagon was switched while in transit. I think the main objection to this is that it would be simpler to use the one plane, though in an operation of this magnitude and complexity, who knows.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
At first, I didn't think much or believe it could be true, that the US woul;d use nukes to bring down the towers. But after researching, I found the quote below from 911 timeline (see link) and believe now that it was really the only way to bring down 3 sky scrapers as quick as they did!

But even if this is true, what really can be done?

www.911timeline.net...

109) 9:59:04 a.m.: The south tower of the World Trade Center suddenly collapses, plummeting into the streets below. A massive cloud of dust and debris quickly fills lower Manhattan. It is later explained (disinformation) that the collapse was not directly caused by the impact, but the intense heat caused by the fire fueled by the jet's fuel weakening the steel support beams of the concrete floors. The WTC towers were built to withstand a 707 being flown into them. A 767 carries almost the same amount of fuel as a 707.


Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded very interesting seismic activity on September 11, 2001 that has still not been explained.


While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 9-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.


The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spikes" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were both registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.




These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data tends to lend credence to the theory that perhaps a massive explosion(s) in the lowest level of the basements where the supporting steel columns of the WTC met the bedrock caused the collapses.


A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.


The two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Thanks for the info.

Innocent school children are being brainwashed. Adults over-reacted at the expense of other minorities.

We know that history books are full of lies.

Tired of injustice
Tired of the schemes
The lies are disgusting
So what does it mean
Kicking me down
I got to get up
As jacked as it sounds
The whole system sucks
.. lyrics from Michael Jackson's Scream



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArcAngel
A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.


The two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.


Apparently short spikes are also caused by large buildings collapsing.

Apart from the somewhat questionable veracity shown by most articles on AFP, the logic here is pretty bad. Nuclear weapons are associated with bright flashes of light. My camera's flash puts out bright flashes of light. Therefore, my camera's flash is a nuclear device. That's equivalent to what you're saying here.

If you're going to invoke nuclear devices, you have to cope with the amazing lack of dead people in the vicinity of the towers, including the people that were alive in the rubble afterwards. Well, that plus the lack of ionizing radiation, the absence of activated materials, the absence of the building being splattered all over Manhattan, the lack of measurable overpressure, the absence of an EMP, it goes on and on. It's hard to miss a nuke, they're not exactly subtle.

Oh, and since I know it'll be one of the next posts, you need to get the exact definition of "clean" from a real source. When you see that term used in real pubs, it doesn't mean "absence of all ionizing radiation", which would be impossible. The mechanism of explosion in a nuke IS radiation. "Clean" is related to "efficiency" and is the yield fraction, basically how much of the fissile load is burned up. It doesn't mean a lack of neutron, gamma, and x-ray radiation. It's related to how much of the original fissile load is unreacted and spread around the area as fallout. A lot of uninformed or misleading sources will try to use that as "has no radiation at all", but it's just not true.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


If you bothered to read the the original post, you wouldn't be wasting everyone's time with your apparent ignorance.

Why don't you seek to "understand" before trying to be understood.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArcAngel
reply to post by Bedlam
 


If you bothered to read the the original post, you wouldn't be wasting everyone's time with your apparent ignorance.


Oh, I read it, alright. Your post was to the effect that some spikes were seen as the buildings were collapsing, and that spikes are associated with underground nuclear explosions. Therefore, the buildings were destroyed by nukes. And you got it from AFP.

Address my points, if you can.

BTW, you're going to have to tapdance pretty fast, up to the limits of my old LANL NDA I can bandy the physics with you on this, including the math.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
@911thology.

Some people have mentioned that a pressure wave capable of pulverizing solid steel into dust would easily have blown out all of the windows, what is your response to this argument?

[edit on 5-4-2010 by mc1km]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by mc1km
 


Such a pressure wave would have blown out most of the windows in the city. Steel does not turn to dust under impulsive loading, it undergoes plastic deformation.
This theory has no scientific basis.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc1km
@911thology.

Some people have mentioned that a pressure wave capable of pulverizing solid steel into dust would easily have blown out all of the windows, what is your response to this argument?

[edit on 5-4-2010 by mc1km]

Hi to everyone. Sorry, as I have already mentioned above I have no interest in this discussion, since I do not see any genuine interest here. However, as a matter of exception, I will answer your question. The windows would be blown out if there were a kind of 'pumping in' that would create air overpressure inside the building. However, crushing wave I am talking about did not produce any 'pumping in' in this sense. It simply compressed all hard materials - steel and glass alike. So, instead of being blown out, the windows were simply pulverized into the glass dust - in the same manner as anything else. That is why I do not see any sense in this argument whatsoever. This is the same if I ask you - could you explain the true reason of why the Moon is square? What you can say in response to this argument? Please, make sure to notice that this question was answered merely as a matter of exception. For any one with a genuine interest I propose spending his or her precious time on watching all the 26 parts of the movie attentively. All details of technical nature are explained there in quite a satisfactorily manner. Thanks for your kind understanding.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Uh huh......

911thology
missile that hit the Pentagon appoached it at a speed of 2.5 Mach

debunker
No sonic boom.The sonic boom would be a big deal and there was no sonic boom.

911thology
Sonic boom is when the object reaches the sonic speed, not when it flies at surpersonic speeds. Go study physics first. If I am lier than no point to ask me anything. Go read Report of the 9/11 Commission instead.

debunker
www.sky-flash.com...
As an aircraft flies at supersonic speeds it is continually generating shock waves, dropping sonic boom along its flight path, similar to someone dropping objects from a moving vehicle.

... The sound heard on the ground as a "sonic boom" is the sudden onset and release of pressure after the buildup by the shock wave or "peak overpressure."

911thology
I am not going to spend my precious time on arguing over this subject. I state the Pentagon was hit by supersonic armored Granit (P-700/SS-N-19) missile traveling at the speed of Mach 2.5. Don't belive? Up to you. Prefer to believe it was Flight 77? Up to you. Prefer to believe it was a Tomahawk? Up to you. I don't care.



The stupid burns hotter than nanu nanu thermxte





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join