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

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 

At first I was not open to the nuclear demolition idea, but the more I read about the various signs of it, the more I am open to the notion that uranium weapons, depleted uranium shaped charges or some other nuclear event was a part of the mix in taking the WTC down.

I think some of the debunkers are blowing smoke in this thread.

I definitely think that the nuclear or partially nuclear demolition people are on to something very dangerous for the Bush administration particularly and for the US government generally.




posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by richierich
 

At first I was not open to the nuclear demolition idea, but the more I read about the various signs of it, the more I am open to the notion that uranium weapons, depleted uranium shaped charges or some other nuclear event was a part of the mix in taking the WTC down.

I think some of the debunkers are blowing smoke in this thread.

I definitely think that the nuclear or partially nuclear demolition people are on to something very dangerous for the Bush administration particularly and for the US government generally.



So... you'll believe it more the more people try to disprove it?

Gotcha. Ok, you heard him "OS'ers", just abandon the thread! He's made up his mind!

Honestly, I bet you'd become convinced of anything if you focused on it enough. That's how Mormons begin to accept Joseph Smith's writings as the word of God. It's how pretty much any cult gets followers.

Try to reduce your bias, if possible. That's the only scientific thing to do.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
Don't forget that EMP effects were documented and unexplained by any other means than nuclear/fu/ission etc. type devices. Nukes would generate the tremendous and instant burst of temps in the hundred of thousands or higher for a flash and disintegrate steel. The steel cores WERE disintegrated, meaning destroyed at the molecular level. The " Spire ' turning to dust is proof that the core was heated to the point of loss of structural integrity to the 90% and when the upper floors were blown by the mini-nukes and cut at sections with conventional charges as seen in recent video's, they were blown away basically from the cores and thus no real weight was being transferred, allowing for the core to stand briefly before" dustifying ".


The steel spire fell straight down. It did not turn to dust. None of the steel turned to dust... The reason a spire-shaped cloud appeared when it fell is because dust was settled on it. This is common sense.


NO OTHER explanation covers all the effects observed. You cannot get around the testimony of Ondrovic, the EMS tech and others who testified to EMP effects. Nothing else could account for what was related by these people, and anyone that si destitute of reason that they would say " falling debris ' over and over as if that could explain cars blowing up for no apparant reason and fire coats catching fire, people catching fire, vehicles melted and twisted in ways so anomalous that the official story drones avoid the topic like the plague, as anything they try to offer to explain it is so openly ridiculous and impossible that they end up humiliated.

The eruptions uPward and OUTward from the Towers, turning virtually all concrete and people...everything but paper, into dust or small shards. Anyone with even a basic amount of common sense knows that is a building were " collapsing" from gravity people and furnishings would be crushed and mangled perhaps, but not blown to tiny shards on roof tops far away!! Small nukes were used along with other agents for the total package...total destruction was necessary...no repairs this time...no waiting for war this time..so they brought out the big guns, the small nukes, and expertly set and detonated them.

The only problem is getting the people to wake up and think about what they are seeing, and what the evidence says. Check out what one witness says about the EMp effects she experienced:


graphics8.nytimes.com...

and : ______beforeitsnews/story/427/429/Witnesses_Saw_People_Vaporized_on_9_11.html


Have you seen the debris field? Surely you haven't, or you would realize that you're making most of this up. Besides, an EMP would fry cameras too. Anything electronic would cease to function in the immediate area.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Thanks for your post. I looked at the links you included, particularly the report on arsenic. That report is, to my eyes anyway, a very thorough report on the distribution of arsenic in the ground of the area of Ohio studied. The amounts found vary in different places and at different depths.

Duly noted.

Just a question though. At the time of the Three Mile Island accident were there notifications given of radiation hazards or any follow up effort to look for evidence of contamination in your area? I realize that you are west of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and most likely always upwind of trouble from there.



The Strontium levels in our ground was there before Three Mile Island. Like I said our family has been there four generations ago. But it would not be unreasonable for New York to be affected like that.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Gotcha. Ok, you heard him "OS'ers", just abandon the thread! He's made up his mind!


There isn't a chance of that happening. I guarantee it.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


No, the spire turned to dust on camera, it literally fell apart into dust. The core steel was mostly GONE, vaporized, and what was not was warped too badly for heat from office fires.

No doubt you did not even read the report I linked as you have NO other plausible explanation...I did not make anything up. How many photo's of melted and warped cars do you need? How many people need to testify about EMp effects? How do YOu know how EMp reacts in an urban setting with large buildings deflecting the EMP's.

So you doubt nukes but have ZERO way to explain what is offered...right?



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 



But if one reads down the list of constituents of the dust, by weight, one finds that there is actually more barium and strontium in the dust than copper!!!!, this from a building that would have huge amounts of copper wiring in it.

Barium and strontium are the products of nuclear fission.

The USGS remit was to look for asbestos, a well known health hazard, as an aid to deciding what precautions the clean-up crew should take. They do find asbestos, but they also find high amounts of radioactive barium and strontium, higher than copper for heaven's sake, and they are limited to a very understated aknowledgement of it's presence, designed to alert only the educated and knowledgeable in nuclear matters.
.


While barium and strontium were detected it was not radioactive

How many times for Christ sake do I have to make the point that WTC was survyed continously for radiation and none was detected

As for the sources of the Barium and Strontium

Barium is used in flourescent lights as an electron emitter


The dominating application of elemental barium is as a scavenger or "getter" removing the last traces of oxygen and other gases in electronic vacuum tubes such as television cathode ray tubes.



Barium oxide is used in a coating for the electrodes of fluorescent lamps, which facilitates the release of electrons.


Care to guess how many fourescent light tubes are in 2 110 story (+ 47 floor WTC7) buildings?

Strontium is used in the glass along with barium in CRT picture tubes. Again care to guess how many CRT
tubes were in those buildings ?


The primary use for strontium compounds is in glass for colour television cathode ray tubes to prevent X-ray emission. All parts of the CRT tube have to absorb X-rays. In the neck and the funnel of the tube, lead glass is used for this purpose, but this type of glass shows a browning effect due to the interaction of the X-rays with the glass. Therefore, the front panel has to use a different glass mixture, in which strontium and barium are the X-ray-absorbing materials. The average values for the glass mixture determined for a recycling study in 2005 is 8.5% strontium oxide and 10% barium oxide



You lose again....



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


The WK 54 would produce a lethal blast of radiation (500 rem) for a radius of 350 meters (10 ton) or 400 meters
(20 ton) warheads

Non lethal radiation would extend for hundreds of meters past these points.

Explain how people were able to survivve the collapse of the buildings without signs of radiation injury ?

Or that people in the vicinity were able to escape without injury ?

You lose again....



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
You lose again....



You lose again....


You ask the questions but you don't wait for the answers. Are those "Parthian shots", thedman? Are you running scared?

Incidentally, could I prevail upon you to cite sources, when you post authoritatively. Your last two posts seem to come from Mount Olympus with no postmark.


edit on 11-10-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Hre is a quick calculator of nuclear effects for those who have Microsoft Excel/Works or calculator which does
fractional exponents

Yield (Y) in tons of TNT (kiloton multiply by 1000, megaton by 1,000,000 to get number of tons )

Divide Y by 2500 (Y/2500)

Raise the result by following exponents

Thermal effects

(3rd degree burn on exposed skin) (Y/2500) ^ .41

(2nd degree burn on exposed skin) (Y/2500) ^. 40

(1st degree burn on exposed skin) (Y/2500) ^ .381

Blast overpressure (4.6 psi - enough to collapse most structures)

(Y/2500) ^ .33

Lethal radiation (500 rems )

(Y/2500) ^ .19

Multiply result by 1000 to get distance in meters

Example

20 ton WK 54

Thermal 138 meters 3rd degree burn
145 meters 2nd degree burn
159 meters 1st degree burn

Blast 203 meters 4.6 psi

Radiation 400 meters 500 rem



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


No I am pointing out the insanity of your claims....

Notice how nothing you say has been proven to be correct,,,,



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Hre is a quick calculator of nuclear effects for those who have Microsoft Excel/Works or calculator which does
fractional exponents


Sources please, oh mighty one.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Here are a couple online input calculators. Took me all of one minute to google search:

www.fourmilab.ch...

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
This eliminates one possible source of depleted uranium in the rubble of the WTC.

www.agoracosmopolitan.com...


Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747,” Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing’s 767, told AFP. “Sometime ago, we switched to tungsten, because it is heavier, more readily available and more cost effective.”



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
This eliminates one possible source of depleted uranium in the rubble of the WTC.


What depleted uranium in the rubble of the WTC are you on about?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
This eliminates one possible source of depleted uranium in the rubble of the WTC.

www.agoracosmopolitan.com...


Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747,” Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing’s 767, told AFP. “Sometime ago, we switched to tungsten, because it is heavier, more readily available and more cost effective.”

As no depleted uranium has been found in the rubble, why do you need to eliminate possible sources? This theory is dead, dixie. No nukes, no shaped charges, no depleted uranium found.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


It works like this Pteridine; one after another, he can show how all official story consistent sources of depleted uranium are unlikely or impossible. Then he can declare that any depleted uranium found in the wrecked towers must have come from conspiracy-consistent sources.

Actually looking for evidence of depleted Uranium can wait until its 'prescence' is fully explained by one or several non-official-story hypotheses.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by pteridine
 


It works like this Pteridine; one after another, he can show how all official story consistent sources of depleted uranium are unlikely or impossible. Then he can declare that any depleted uranium found in the wrecked towers must have come from conspiracy-consistent sources.


I never bother posting to tell pteridine things he already knows. He doesn't even acknowledge that the towers came down in a controlled demolition. All that symmetry, all that rapidity and all that historical firstitude mean nothing to him.

No matter.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

I never bother posting to tell pteridine things he already knows. He doesn't even acknowledge that the towers came down in a controlled demolition. All that symmetry, all that rapidity and all that historical firstitude mean nothing to him.

No matter.


How would you discriminate between a gravitational collapse and a controlled demolition? There is no evidence that "all that symmetry, all that rapidity and all that historical firstitude" was anything but a gravitational collapse.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

Why is this fire chief feeling heat from an explosion, at ground level, when the second plane hits?

graphics8.nytimes.com...


At the corner of my eye, the second plane now comes into the building. I know that there was a time line that you shared and...

Q. 9:06.

A. 9:06 was the second plane?

Q. Right.

A. Okay. At that point I would say that we knew it wasn't an accident. I mean, two planes on a clear, sunny, warm day, into the Trade Center, we knew that there was something very unusual going on. At the time of the impact, we were able to feel heat that was generated from the explosion at the command post, which was across West Street, and West is a fairly large street with that island in there, and debris was showering all over West Street.


A jet fuel fire 80 stories up is going to generate heat at street level . . . at the moment it starts?

I don't think so.

edit on 13-10-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join