Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Possible Solution to the Khalezov, Deagle 9/11 Nuclear Demolition Theory

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


You might be right but those beams at the base of the building were massive. They may have required the extra punch that depleted uranium charges provide.

Only scientific analysis will really answer the question. It might even come out in biopsies done on cancer or respiratory or renal disease sufferers.




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by Varemia
 


You might be right but those beams at the base of the building were massive. They may have required the extra punch that depleted uranium charges provide.

Only scientific analysis will really answer the question. It might even come out in biopsies done on cancer or respiratory or renal disease sufferers.



I dunno. I feel like once the top part is collapsed, there's no real point in blowing out the base. What effect was trying to be achieved? To me, it would have been more devastating of a picture to see a shredded building with the bottom 20 floors mostly intact, buried by debris.

I'm just trying to figure out the why in all this. So much of it just seems pointless, when the initial plane impact was enough to send the country into emergency mode. The collapse just tipped it over the edge. I doubt that the manner of collapse would influence the situation much.

I mean, imagine if you were in charge of the secret commission to blow the towers or collapse them in some way following a "staged" attack. Wouldn't you go for the simplest and least noticeable manner? Demolitions are extremely loud and obnoxious. In my opinion, that's the last choice a person would make in demolishing a building secretly. No, something better would be along the lines of spreading some kind of odorless material that burns extremely hot to weaken the steel faster (though I don't know any off the top of my head).

I don't know, it just seems like too many uncontrollable factors to assume that there was a way to plan an effective demolition after a plane impact. You can tell by my thoughts in this post being jumbled worse than a box of confetti.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

Psychologizing the perps is a difficult thing to do.

You have put your finger on a sure sign of an inside job though . . . overkill on the execution. This was a big, big theatrical production, and it worked like a charm, provoking what no terrorist group in the middle east would ever want. Invasion of the middle east.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by Varemia
 


You might be right but those beams at the base of the building were massive. They may have required the extra punch that depleted uranium charges provide.

Only scientific analysis will really answer the question. It might even come out in biopsies done on cancer or respiratory or renal disease sufferers.



Where did you get the idea that depleted uranium would provide "extra punch?" The beams at the base had the entire building falling on them; no punch was needed at all especially by something as trackable as depleted uranium.
You are thinking like the typical truther, mired in some arcane detail for which there is only your baseless speculation. Look at the bigger picture. Think like one of the purported plotters who wish to leave no fingerprints and no evidence of their involvement. Why would they do anything but arrange for the planes to hit and just let things happen? Having the towers standing but critically damaged is even a bigger headache for the country and would accomplish the same things as having the towers fall without exposing the conspirators with evidence of demolitions, DEW, hologram generators, etc. Both towers and the Pentagon is a shocking message no matter what happens to the buildings
Looking for and speculating about demolitions is really a disinformation technique so people will be focused on that aspect, for which there is no evidence or purpose, and ignore the incompetent agency head appointees and their political infighting. Those dolts ignored their experienced career agents while playing politics and fighting over interagency turf.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Where did you get the idea that depleted uranium would provide "extra punch?"


Referenced above.


The beams at the base had the entire building falling on them; no punch was needed at all especially by something as trackable as depleted uranium.


Strictly speaking, the base of any building has the entire building falling down on it from the time it is put up. If the structural integrity of the building is broken by explosives throughout, then the building is destroyed. That's what happened on 9/11.

The rest of your post is insulting and I'm not going to bother with it.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by pteridine
Where did you get the idea that depleted uranium would provide "extra punch?"


Referenced above.


The beams at the base had the entire building falling on them; no punch was needed at all especially by something as trackable as depleted uranium.


Strictly speaking, the base of any building has the entire building falling down on it from the time it is put up. If the structural integrity of the building is broken by explosives throughout, then the building is destroyed. That's what happened on 9/11.

The rest of your post is insulting and I'm not going to bother with it.


Strictly speaking the base of any building does NOT have the entire building falling on it. You have confused statics and dynamics once again. The building did not need explosives to collapse and none have been shown to be present. Gage also has a problem with the difference beyween statics and dynamics which may be the reason he ended up an architect rather than an engineer and why his cardboard box model is complete idiocy.

You should not bother with the rest of my post as it undoubtedly strikes a nerve.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

This thread really assumes controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11. It's about the possibility that depleted uranium shaped charges were used in the demolition. Anything new to add on that subject?



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
This thread really assumes controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11.


Which is a stupid assumption to make, as there is zero evidence of any controlled demolition - but that does not stop conspiracy theorists just making it up.


It's about the possibility that depleted uranium shaped charges were used in the demolition.


How about showing such things even exist first?



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 

The real question is whether it is possible to nail down the fact that the Bush administration used depleted uranium shaped charges on the WTC on 9/11. Establishing that fact will probably involve epidemiological studies of the diseases that crop up among first responders. The definitive answer might come only after numerous biopsies are taken or even after numerous autopsies are performed.

Nailing down a definite answer on this may take a while.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The real question is whether it is possible to nail down the fact that the Bush administration used depleted uranium shaped charges on the WTC on 9/11


wrong, the real question is why conspiracy theorists keep making up[ more and more bizarre conspiracy theories not based on anything at all!



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by pteridine
 

This thread really assumes controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11. It's about the possibility that depleted uranium shaped charges were used in the demolition. Anything new to add on that subject?



The thread title talks about a theory of demolition. If you assume controlled demolition without bases and then argue the details of how it was done, you are in the realm of fantasy. Before you discuss the liners used in the demolition charges, it would be a good idea to show that demolition charges were used or could have been used.
Have you calculated how many charges would be needed and how much depleted uranium would be in the rubble? Based on your photo example why would depleted uranium cutter charges be needed to shear joints held by only a few bolts? Did you ever use commercial or military explosives in any form?



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Answer is NO

The mythical "depleted uranium charges" would

1) Leave metal smears on the beams - nothing of this was every found

2) Uranium is radioactive - Starting just minutes into the attacks radiation detectors from the NY Department of
Health found NOTHING. Later the site was under constant monitoring from the Department of Energy, EPA,.
FDNY Haz MAT Unit, NY Dept of Health No radiation beyond normal levels was found

Sorry to burst your conspiracy delusions.....



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The real issue is the sort of elements found in the dust. That is what Deagle says he was threatened with arrest for attempting to find out.


Do you suppose Deagle was arrested for going into an area that was for first responders and the many, many rescue personnel to find people buried?

Did they really propose nuclear demolition? Richard Gage says there were silent explosions. Hmm, you know, they can't even keep their theories together and in agreement.

If it were a nuclear detonation, Manhattan would be a waste land. Not to mention the entire city of New York and parts of New Jersey. And the half-life of the radiation has not been long enough for the radiation to go away. I don't get it, if this government is so bad to do this "inside job", then why are people like Deagle and Richard Gage still living here?



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by pteridine
 

This thread really assumes controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11. It's about the possibility that depleted uranium shaped charges were used in the demolition. Anything new to add on that subject?



Yes, it was a controlled demolition. Hijackers were in control of planes that hit the buildings, causing a detonation resulting in an explosion that demolished the buildings.Yes, I will agree with that.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
The key to proving that depleted uranium shaped charges were used in the demolition of the WTC is probably going to be found in epidemiology, in the study of the diseases found among first responders. I want to post again on that subject but to prevent the casual reader from taking a few of the debunker posts, above too seriously, here is a short video reminder about explosions in the building prior to the collapse.



The debunker point of view is stated by "Harley Man" (still unidentified) a few minutes after the second tower came down giving the Bush administration explanation for the WTC "collapses".

edit on 8-10-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Still have not answered questions WHY NO RADIATION WAS EVER FOUND !

It case missed it Uranium is a RADIOACTIVE metal - it emits detectable radiation. Uranium 238, the isotiope
which depleted uranium is made from (depleted uranium is uranium from which the fissionible isotope U 235 has
been extracted for use in reactors)

U238 has half life of 4.5 BILLIONS years - longer than earth has been in existence. Any Uranium would have
been detected on September 11, 2001.

Everyone in NYC was looking for it in the hours, days and weeks from September 11 on.....



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Thedman, like I said in another thread, when one theory pans out another pops up to take its place. If a theory is that expendable that it can fall and another replace it, then perhaps the theory had no basis in the first place. The OS has been consistent from day 1 and that is what conspiracy theorists don't like. Even their own theorists contradict each other and themselves so much. It is funny though, when Dylan Avery and Richard Gage contradicts themselves, they get a free pass from theorists. And the theorist won't even acknowledge it.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Still have not answered questions WHY NO RADIATION WAS EVER FOUND !


That's not true. Elevated tritium levels were found at the WTC, although these were linked to signage, watches and gunsights.

Still, you made a boo boo. Your statement is factually incorrect.

escholarship.org...-1



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Still have not answered questions WHY NO RADIATION WAS EVER FOUND !


That's not true. Elevated tritium levels were found at the WTC, although these were linked to signage, watches and gunsights.

Still, you made a boo boo. Your statement is factually incorrect.

escholarship.org...-1


Tritium emits a weak beta particle; U-238 emits an energetic alpha particle. No such alpha radiation was detected. Your theory is unsupported.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
U-238 emits an energetic alpha particle. No such alpha radiation was detected. Your theory is unsupported.


pteri, do you know what means were employed to achieve that non-detection?





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join