Were mini nukes used on 911? [Archive] - The Orange Mane

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 12:09 AM

Why did the buildings collapse from the top down?

The comments I have seen so far by physicists who are involved in this discussion say the low yield nukes alone did not bring the towers down -- there had to be other charges placed in the buildings. However, the placement of micro nukes accomplished several things. They greatly reduced the number of charges necessary to bring down the WTC. They also vaporized -- the enormous central piers which caused the implosion. They also vaporized a lot of incriminating evidence.

A 2002 report by UC Berkeley tried to link the elevated tritium levels to known sources (very tiny sources) in the Boeing and one or two other known sources. But these physicists now regard this early report as lame -- especially given the other evidence.

Here is a letter pulled from the web with a useful summary of that evidence.

David Shaw writes an open letter to BYU Professor Steven Jones about the strong possibility that nuclear fusion devices were used at WTC on 9/11:

All 911 truth seekers appreciate your current contributions toward proving WTC demolition, even though explosives and demolitions are not your field of expertise.

However, while I believe that Thermate may have been used to initiate the collapse in conjunction with cutting charges such as RDX, it cannot begin to explain the observed evidence at the WTC, and therefore I feel that we must now include fusion devices as well in our demolition hypothesis and research.

The significance of this line of research is that while Thermate alone could be blamed on a small group of individuals impossible to identify, fusion devices can only be supplied by the US and/or Israeli military, according to a Finnish military expert I have consulted.

I would appreciate your expert comments, and those of other qualified 911 scholars, on the hypothesis that directed energy fusion devices were used at the WTC.

For the benefit of those in this mailing list not familiar with fusion, it is the nuclear reaction of hydrogen taking place in the sun and does not produce the same radioactive "fallout" as "fission" reactions with uranium and plutonium.

Fusion radiation is short lived, approximately 7 to 12 hours, can only be detected by $40,000 instruments, and is contained by the continuous spraying of water. Telltale byproducts that do not normally occur in nature are Tritium and atomic size metals, both recorded in official studies and subsequently ignored by "experts."

Funding for gradual conversion of the US nuclear arsenal to fusion devices was recently approved. This would allow the mini-nukes practical use in wars and troops to control the sites afterward. Official statements said that testing would not be necessary. I would submit that testing already occurred at the WTC.

Evidence of fusion devices at the WTC:

1. Pulverization of 99 percent of concrete into ultra-fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device's million-degree heat rapidly expanded water vapor in the concrete floors.

2. Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of Thermate.

3. 22-ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot provide the energy required.

4. 330-ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot provide energy required.

5. Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7). Thermate is impractical for lower level demolition due to the thickness of the 47 steel columns.

6. The spire behavior (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates, goes down, steel dust remains).

7. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings (Richter 2.1 and 2.3) occurred at the beginning of the collapse for both towers. Short duration and high power indicate explosive event.

8. A press weighing 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of the Twin Towers and was never recovered from the debris.

9. Wide-area electrical outage, and repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton Effect.

10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would cool down much faster.

11. Brown shades of color in the air due to nuclear radiation forming sulfuric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact, indicating complicity in the cover-up.

12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 "EXIT" signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. This is why the "no commercial planes" line of inquiry is very important, and should not be ignored or attacked. It can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement.

13. Pyroclastic flow observed in the concrete-based clouds is only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations. Jim Hoffman unfortunately missed this obvious observation in his papers.

14. Huge, expanding dust clouds 5 times the volume of the building indicating extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional demolition explosives.

15. Rubble height was some 10 percent of the original instead of 33 percent expected in a traditional demolition. Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed the upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height.

16. No survivors were found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble, who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris. Upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction missed this pocket but removed debris above firemen.

17. Fourteen rescue dogs and some rescue workers died far too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins (from respiratory problems due to alpha particles created by fusion that are far more toxic).

18. Record concentrations of near-atomic-size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel, which is only possible with fusion.

19. Decontamination procedure used at Ground Zero (high-pressure water spraying) for all steel removed from site. Water spraying contains (i.e. reduces) fusion radioactivity.

20. No bodies, furniture, or computers were found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy and were vaporized while paper did not. This is the Paper and Powder theory.

21. Two-hundred-thousand-gallon sprinkler water tanks were on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water was in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water.

22. Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned-out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy blast and EM pulse caused electrical components in cars to explode and burn vehicles far from the WTC site.

23. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high-quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC.

ClevelandBronco

10-21-2006, 01:04 AM

C'mon, Gaff. Here's your opportunity to build some credibility. Just for the record, deny that you use illegal drugs.

Say you tried marijuana once in England. You didn't like it and you didn't inhale.

Give me anything that'll make me think you aren't just another drug-addled relic from a time when we underestimated the long-term effects of hallucinogens.

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 01:18 AM

C'mon, Gaff. Here's your opportunity to build some credibility. Just for the record, deny that you use illegal drugs.

Give me anything that'll make me think you aren't just another drug-addled relic from a time when we underestimated the long-term effects of hallucinogens.

Happy to oblige. During the 1960s and 70s in my college daze I did use MJ and pcychedelics. However, I grew out of the practice.

I haven't used drugs for many years -- legal or illegal -- don't believe in them. Nor do I take any medicines -- other than vitamins and nutritional supplements. I don't even keep aspirin in the house.

Of course, being a Bronco fan I do drink beer -- especially at game time.

ClevelandBronco

10-21-2006, 01:59 AM

Happy to oblige. During the 1960s and 70s in my college daze I did use MJ and pcychedelics. However, I grew out of the practice.

I haven't used drugs for many years -- legal or illegal -- don't believe in them. Nor do I take any medicines -- other than vitamins and nutritional supplements. I don't even keep aspirin in the house.

Of course, being a Bronco fan I do drink beer -- especially at game time.

I was counting on continuous drug use as the explanation for your willingness to reject a more obvious scenario in favor of the more tortured one.

Truly, I will never understand your premises and we will never agree on much about the events of 9/11, unless and until indictments and convictions are obtained against willing participants at the highest levels of our federal government.

Those indictments and convictions will never happen, of course.

You'll believe that they'll never happen for one reason, and I'll believe that they'll never happen for another.

Maybe I'm looking at it incorrectly, but I think I'm living in a better nation than you are.

You sound to me like an old guy who actually believed the crap Teddy declared tearfully on the occasion of Bobby's passing:

…My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.

Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will some day come to pass for all the world.

As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him:

"Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not."

-----

Very much like Bobby you dream things that never were.

The supposed events of 9/11 that never were are among those things you dream.

Sleep well. There are good men protecting you who are willing to kill in your name.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-21-2006, 02:29 AM

I was counting on continuous drug use as the explanation for your willingness to reject a more obvious scenario in favor of the more tortured one.

You sound like a man of experience.

Very much like Bobby you dream things that never were.

The supposed events of 9/11 that never were are among those things you dream.

And you know this for certain because.....?

On the contrary, Miss Cleo: On a number of points, the criminal junta you support has less evidence to support its account of what happened on 9/11 than the so-called "conspiracy theorists."

Sleep well. There are good men protecting you who are willing to kill in your name.

You forgot to add "I'm not one of them, nor have I ever been."

Bronco_Beerslug

10-21-2006, 07:32 AM

Were mini nukes used on 911?
Of course they were, that kid from Milwaukee (Brahm) fired them when nobody was looking. He has a whole basement full of them.

This will give conniptions to some here
Hilarious! LOL

defenseman

10-21-2006, 08:00 AM

The comments I have seen so far by physicists who are involved in this discussion say the low yield nukes alone did not bring the towers down -- there had to be other charges placed in the buildings. However, the placement of micro nukes accomplished several things. They greatly reduced the number of charges necessary to bring down the WTC. They also vaporized -- the enormous central piers which caused the implosion. They also vaporized a lot of incriminating evidence.

A 2002 report by UC Berkeley tried to link the elevated tritium levels to known sources (very tiny sources) in the Boeing and one or two other known sources. But these physicists now regard this early report as lame -- especially given the other evidence.

Here is a letter pulled from the web with a useful summary of that evidence.

David Shaw writes an open letter to BYU Professor Steven Jones about the strong possibility that nuclear fusion devices were used at WTC on 9/11:

All 911 truth seekers appreciate your current contributions toward proving WTC demolition, even though explosives and demolitions are not your field of expertise.

However, while I believe that Thermate may have been used to initiate the collapse in conjunction with cutting charges such as RDX, it cannot begin to explain the observed evidence at the WTC, and therefore I feel that we must now include fusion devices as well in our demolition hypothesis and research.

The significance of this line of research is that while Thermate alone could be blamed on a small group of individuals impossible to identify, fusion devices can only be supplied by the US and/or Israeli military, according to a Finnish military expert I have consulted.

I would appreciate your expert comments, and those of other qualified 911 scholars, on the hypothesis that directed energy fusion devices were used at the WTC.

For the benefit of those in this mailing list not familiar with fusion, it is the nuclear reaction of hydrogen taking place in the sun and does not produce the same radioactive "fallout" as "fission" reactions with uranium and plutonium.

Fusion radiation is short lived, approximately 7 to 12 hours, can only be detected by $40,000 instruments, and is contained by the continuous spraying of water. Telltale byproducts that do not normally occur in nature are Tritium and atomic size metals, both recorded in official studies and subsequently ignored by "experts."

Funding for gradual conversion of the US nuclear arsenal to fusion devices was recently approved. This would allow the mini-nukes practical use in wars and troops to control the sites afterward. Official statements said that testing would not be necessary. I would submit that testing already occurred at the WTC.

Evidence of fusion devices at the WTC:

1. Pulverization of 99 percent of concrete into ultra-fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device's million-degree heat rapidly expanded water vapor in the concrete floors.

2. Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of Thermate.

3. 22-ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot provide the energy required.

4. 330-ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot provide energy required.

5. Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7). Thermate is impractical for lower level demolition due to the thickness of the 47 steel columns.

6. The spire behavior (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates, goes down, steel dust remains).

7. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings (Richter 2.1 and 2.3) occurred at the beginning of the collapse for both towers. Short duration and high power indicate explosive event.

8. A press weighing 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of the Twin Towers and was never recovered from the debris.

9. Wide-area electrical outage, and repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton Effect.

10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would cool down much faster.

11. Brown shades of color in the air due to nuclear radiation forming sulfuric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact, indicating complicity in the cover-up.

12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 "EXIT" signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. This is why the "no commercial planes" line of inquiry is very important, and should not be ignored or attacked. It can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement.

13. Pyroclastic flow observed in the concrete-based clouds is only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations. Jim Hoffman unfortunately missed this obvious observation in his papers.

14. Huge, expanding dust clouds 5 times the volume of the building indicating extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional demolition explosives.

15. Rubble height was some 10 percent of the original instead of 33 percent expected in a traditional demolition. Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed the upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height.

16. No survivors were found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble, who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris. Upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction missed this pocket but removed debris above firemen.

17. Fourteen rescue dogs and some rescue workers died far too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins (from respiratory problems due to alpha particles created by fusion that are far more toxic).

18. Record concentrations of near-atomic-size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel, which is only possible with fusion.

19. Decontamination procedure used at Ground Zero (high-pressure water spraying) for all steel removed from site. Water spraying contains (i.e. reduces) fusion radioactivity.

20. No bodies, furniture, or computers were found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy and were vaporized while paper did not. This is the Paper and Powder theory.

21. Two-hundred-thousand-gallon sprinkler water tanks were on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water was in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water.

22. Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned-out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy blast and EM pulse caused electrical components in cars to explode and burn vehicles far from the WTC site.

23. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high-quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC.

JUST AMAZING!!!!!!LOL LOL LOL ..... a tremendous WASTE of a thread....dman

*Do you have ANY IDEA of how screwed up the people are who generated this utter garbage? I do mean screwed and totally hosed. Univ. of Wisc. wants a few good "nutcases" for the PHD level , 9/11 conspiracy classes. MOVE THERE! You'll fit right in ..........dman

DBruleU

10-21-2006, 08:36 AM

You know, I don't watch the show "South Park", but the other day I was messing around on YouTube, and came across a recent episode of South Park that completely makes fun of all the people in America who believe in all these ridiculous conspiracy theories. I found it quite amusing.

If interested, heres the link: There are three parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4xAucZod6w

epicSocialism4tw

10-21-2006, 08:48 AM

Happy to oblige. During the 1960s and 70s in my college daze I did use MJ and pcychedelics. However, I grew out of the practice.

It took you two decades to achieve a Bachelors? That must have been some heavy drug use.

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 09:29 AM

Of course they were, that kid from Milwaukee (Brahm) fired them when nobody was looking. He has a whole basement full of them.

Hilarious! LOL

You must be demented to think this is hilarious.

Last night I spoke with Dr Frank Barnaby, former nuclear weapons designer for the UK. He was one of the scientists who vetted Mordechai Vanunu before the London Sunday Times published his expose in 1986 about Israel's nuke program. Barnaby confirmed to me that pure fusion weapons may indeed exist. Physicists have talked about them for many years. Of course, the actual research has remained classified.

As early as 1958 the US admitted in declasssified documents that even then we had small nukes suitable for demolitions. I'll include a link here by an MD who's been checking this out.

I'll repeat it one more time for you Beerslugger. We've done many nuclear tests over the years and the characteristics of a nuclear explosion are well known. The elevated tritium, the EMP, the seismic spike are diagnostic for a nuclear explosion. There is no other known phenomenon capable of causing these effects.

Although the nukes would have brought the towers down, the planners had to make it look like the planes did the job. The collapse was thus initiated by charges set high in the building. No doubt the charges were set in such a way that the initiation could be achieved at any point -- so the initial point of collapse would coinicide with the point of impact of the planes. A man with a laptop computer no doubt typed a command that set them off.

As Democrap you should be getting out the word on this - so that this new information -- the EMP and tritium were unknown to me until yesterday --- can be helpful in turning the tide against the republicans on Nov 8.

Given that there will be cheating the Dems need to win by a wide margin to overcome the Deibold factor.

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 09:32 AM

Some of the links in this article have expired by it's still a useful sumary of one man's research

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm

Barry Ramey

10-21-2006, 09:33 AM

Yeah, I know, it was those damn Jews you hate who hid those nukes in the building. Or better yet, it was Bush so he could get more power and get that oil he can store in his garage. Yep, makes perfect sense, especially the thousands it would take to pull such a thing off and no one yet coming clean about it. It can't be because of muslims who hate the freedoms we have and have been conditioned to hate people. Nah, God forbid we made them accountable and responsible. Instead, let's make up stupid conspiracies because of hatred for the president. Hopefully Pelosi becomes speaker since she has so many bette and great ideas, even though she won't share them with anybody :rofl:

This will give conniptions to some here -- but as we speak a hot debate is underway within the community of physicists about the use of nukes on 911. A Finnish scientist has argued that all of the evidence -- taken together -- indicates that several pure hydrogen weapons were used on 911 to bring down WTC 1,2 and 7.

Until today I did not even know about the existence of pure hydrogen bombs -- but some checking confirms they are real -- and have been around since at least 1990.

I'll just summarize a few of the key points. The University of California detected elevated levels of tritium on 9/13/2001 at the WTC. Other parts of NYC gave no elevated readings. The reading was site specific to the WTC. There was also evidence of an electromagnetic pulse on site at the time of the collapse of each tower. Sharp seismic spikes were also detected on 911.

All of this together is diagnostic that mini nukes were used on 911.

There is much additional evidence as well. Videos of the collapse, for example, show a typical cloud and blast profile seen in an underground nuclear test.

The fact that the enormous columns in the towers below ground level were melted, the tremendous heat detected 5 days after (and even longer) and molten steel, the pulverization of vast amounts of concrete, the central upward and outward thrusting of material, including steel beams, and much more evidence than I can summarize here all points to the same conclusion.

One other point: pure hydrogen bombs are made of trutium and deuterium - and have no plutonium or uranium, hence do not give the radioactivity of a usual nuclear weapon. The amount of radioactivity released with this kind of weapon is only 1/00 th as much as in a plutonium bomb of the same yield, and of a different type requiring special equipment to detect it. For this reason the tiny amount of radiation was not detected.

I should emphasize: the elevated tritium, the EMP, the siesmic spike, all taken together, can only be explained by a nuclear weapon.

To explore the case made by the Finnish scientist, go here
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/military.htm

To check out a live forum where physicists are discussing this go here
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418

Spider

10-21-2006, 09:41 AM

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 09:52 AM

This article by Sam Cohen was posted back in 2003. Cohen is the father of the neutron bomb. The fact that the WTC explosions were below ground sharply limited the spray of lethal neutrons.

The Nuclear Threat That Doesn't Exist – or Does It?

by Sam Cohen and Joe Douglass
March 11, 2003

U.S. administration spokesmen have said they have no evidence that Iraq has produced or acquired nuclear warheads. Implicit in their statements is the assumption that any such warheads would have to be fission warheads containing uranium or plutonium. This is the traditional path to nuclear warheads that the United States and other nations have taken.

However, what U.S. officials assiduously avoid is a whole different category of weapons: pure-fusion warheads or “devices.” These devices have been the focus of intense investigations over the decades by several nations: the United States, Russia, China, France, and perhaps others. They contain no fissionable nuclear material. Instead, they rely upon heavy hydrogen – deuterium and tritium isotopes – as their “fuel.” When sufficiently compressed and heated, these two isotopes of hydrogen fuse, releasing high-energy neutrons that shoot out hundreds of yards, killing living matter in their path.

Background

In 1979, Pope John Paul II conferred on one of the authors (Sam Cohen) a peace medal for his invention, the neutron bomb. This was a small nuclear weapon designed to do its work, killing enemy military forces, without destroying a country’s infrastructure. The idea was to design a fission-fusion bomb in which the number of high-energy neutrons released, the dominant killing mechanism, was maximized while the physical damage-producing mechanism, the fission component, was minimized. Only that minimal amount of plutonium, the fission component, needed to ignite or “burn” a capsule containing a deuterium-tritium mixture, would be used. This deuterium-tritium mixture produced the killing mechanism, a sudden burst of high-energy neutrons, while the fission blast was minimized.

The invention achieved the objective – to make a nuclear weapon that was tactically useful in the sense of not destroying the country in the process. But, it was quickly squelched by the various interests that concluded that such a device would only make nuclear war more likely. The neutron bomb was, in effect, banned because it destroyed the sharp distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons by minimizing the fission blast and radiation by-products.

Life was breathed back into the concept in the 1970s in an effort to improve NATO defenses by producing a weapon that directly challenged the immense Soviet strength – its tanks and armies. But, it did so without the massive physical damage usually associated with a nuclear weapon. Several hundred of the neutron bomb warheads were actually produced and stockpiled during the Reagan Administration. This new lease on life, however, soon came to an end. Following the first Persian Gulf War, President Bush at General Powell’s recommendation directed that all the tactical weapons be destroyed.

As the problems associated with attacking Saddam Hussein have become evident in recent months, so also have the advantages of small discriminant nuclear weapons. However, none are left in the U.S. stockpile. This explains the sudden bust of interest in forming two design teams, one at Los Alamos and one at Livermore National Laboratories, to examine possibilities for a new low-yield nuclear device. It has been termed a “device” because low-yield “warheads” were made illegal by Congress in response to pressures from the nuclear fire break lobby.

Pure Fusion Warheads

The small tactical battlefield neutron bomb is the closest kin to a pure-fusion device. The principle difference is that in a pure-fusion device, the plutonium fission component is entirely eliminated. The pure-fusion device relies on the same deuterium-tritium mixture to create its burst of high-energy neutrons, but is designed to accomplish this “burn” without the use of any fissionable material. Thus, while still packing a neutron wallop, its explosive yield – the part that does the most physical damage – is much smaller because it lacks the fission component. What little explosive yield remains can be as little as one hundredth the size of the small tactical battlefield neutron bomb.

While the physical explosion accompanying the detonation of a pure-fusion warhead is tiny, compared with the yield of a tactical neutron bomb, its lethal radius due to high-energy neutrons is not tiny. It would cause casualties several hundred yards from the burst point, roughly half the lethal radius of the neutron bomb.

The comparison of a pure-fusion warhead with a normal fission warhead is even more stark. The lethal area to military troops of a 10 ton (high explosive equivalent yield) pure-fusion device would be approximately the same as the lethal area of a fission warhead several hundred times larger; that is, one in the kiloton range!

The cost of a pure-fusion warhead is also reduced. In terms of the precious nuclear material that is required, namely, tritium and deuterium, pure-fusion devices are extremely cheap. Because the pure-fusion warhead does not need active nuclear material, such as plutonium, to “trigger” the deuterium-tritium burn, they can be made for a fraction of the cost of one fission-fusion neutron bomb of the 1980s.

The inherent consequences of a pure-fusion device go far beyond low cost and greatly reduced explosive yield. Most significant, pure-fusion warheads, in contrast to warheads that use fissionable material, are not covered by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Any country can, in terms of international law, legally possess and even sell such weapons and not be in violation of the NPT. Also, deuterium-tritium fuel can be purchased openly on the international market. The spirit of the NPT may be in violation, but not the letter.

Still further, because there is no fissionable component and because the explosive yield is so small, full operational tests of a pure-fusion device could be conducted in any country and not be detected by systems set up to monitor nuclear weapons tests. If tests were conducted underground at a moderate depth, say 50 to 100 meters, even the local inhabitants would suspect nothing.

These consequences drive a stake through the heart of U.S. non-proliferation policies. These policies are based on preventing those who want to “go nuclear” from having access to the active nuclear material. A warhead or “device” that does not use active nuclear material (uranium or plutonium) is not prohibited. To make matters worse, in no sense can they be termed weapons of “mass destruction.” Indeed, the pure-fusion devices are even more discriminant than the neutron bomb because there is, in comparison, negligible physical damage and a total absence of fission by-products and related contaminating fallout.

Because of this, the pure-fusion device represents the worst fear of those whose personal crusade is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and preserve the fire break in a hope that this will prevent a nuclear war. The pure-fusion device is less destructive than most conventional bombs, is reasonably cheap, and can be tested with impunity. It produces no fission radioactive by-products or fallout of serious concern.

That is, the pure-fusion device renders the unthinkable thinkable. This is why officials do not want to discuss the possibility of pure-fusion warheads and, as will be seen, will do their best to deny their possible existence.

Russia’s Pure-Fusion Device

In the early 1990s, information coming out of Russia in articles and statements by high ranking military and civilian officials (including the Chairman of the Russian Atomic Energy Commission) indicated that a pure-fusion device as small as a baseball and weighing around 10 pounds could be developed. The amount of deuterium-tritium fuel needed on the order of a gram. This device was made possible by their use of an exotic new material capable of producing enormous pressures and temperatures – great enough to produce a mini pure-fusion explosive. In other words, no longer was a fission component needed to trigger the deuterium-tritium fusion.

This new material was dramatically different in nature and concept of use from the conventional high explosives used in fission weapons. When ignited, the new material did not actually explode but instead stayed intact long enough to produce the enormous temperatures and pressures sufficient to enable the deuterium-tritium fusion.

The new material is known as a “ballotechnic” explosive, even though it does not actually explode in the conventional sense of the word. It was developed in Russia and became popularly known as “red mercury.” When President Boris Yeltsin took over the helm of the new Russia, in a secret directive he authorized the sale of red mercury on the international market. Sometimes the price was very high. Sometimes fake versions of it were offered to gullible buyers. The United States may have been one of these.

One very interested country which had a long history of purchasing Russia weaponry was Iraq. Russia helped Iraq develop chemical and biological weapons and Russian advisors were in Baghdad advising Saddam at the time of the first Gulf War. Only recently the two countries signed a multi-billion dollar oil field development contract.

Just after the Persian Gulf War, the head of the UN inspection Team sent into Iraq for the Agency for International Atomic Energy reported that in one Baghdad facility he found boxes full of offers to sell and develop red mercury. This discovery should have caused a huge furor. But, in the real world of nuclear politics it never even surfaced on any significant level. Apparently no one wanted to admit its existence or significance because of its implications respecting arms control and the NPT.

Past U.S. efforts to achieve a pure-fusion burn tried to mimic the fission-fusion approach. In it, the conditions needed to achieve a deuterium-tritium burn are achieved by imploding a conventional high explosive that would create the compression needed to initiate the burn. This is very hard to do using conventional explosives because of the precise control over the imploding shock wave that is needed. In the case of red mercury pure-fusion, it is the burn of the red mercury, not a shock wave, that creates the needed temperature and pressure. This obviates the very difficult timing and shock wave control required in a conventional approach.

Efforts to Discredit

As stories of black market red mercury trafficking began spreading, Western nations began a broad disinformation campaign to debunk the stories, ridiculing them and their authors. Leading this effort was the United States, via the Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory. They put out the word that red mercury was “one half-baked scam.”

That the red mercury fusion device is not a scam has been confirmed by responsible British investigators. One, Dr. Frank Barnaby, a veteran nuclear weapon designer, secretly interviewed knowledgeable Russian scientists. These scientists confirmed to him the existence of red mercury and its great significance.

The professed Los Alamos skepticism was hardly sincere in view of an intensive investigation of such explosives mounted at Los Alamos during the 1990s. The nature (and very high level of security classification) of the investigation belied claims of its being only a half-baked scam. The subject was so serious at Los Alamos that discussions of ballotechnics were held in their highly secure Aztec SCIF (Special Compartmented Intelligence Facility).

Selected Applications

On the open field of battle these pure-fusion neutron bombs, can be delivered by small rockets, mortars, artillery, etc. without any concern for the high accuracies demanded by conventional warhead use because the associated physical collateral damage was so low and lethal radiation effects radius so large. They do not need to hit the center of the target to devastate conventionally armed U.S. ground forces.

For urban warfare, fighting through cities such as Baghdad almost always entails having to physically destroy them. Having pure-fusion weapons would allow Iraq to defend these areas without the Iraqi military having to cause significant damage in the process.

Because urban structures in general produce no serious attenuation of the high-energy neutrons, buildings are not an effective place to hide. The neutrons will find the soldiers while leaving the buildings and infrastructure intact. In this sense, an Iraqi pure-fusion neutron bomb defense of their built-up areas is more civilized when compared with the use of destructive conventional means.

In the air battle, fusion warhead effects would reach out much further than at ground level. In that case, Iraqi antiaircraft weapons could be vastly more effective than the currently used conventional systems, which U.S. air defense countermeasures have rendered practically worthless. With a pure-fusion warhead, the tables are quickly turned. The lethal neutron effects of air burst pure-fusion warheads can reach out many hundreds of yards, thus rendering the U.S. air defense countermeasures practically worthless.

Considering a terrorists potential interest, the horror of such devices is self evident. The use of these devices by suicide bombers presents a far more threatening situation than possible repetitions of the 9-11 attacks. Because of their very small size and weight, they readily could be moved into and around the United States with practically no chance of detection.

Bottom Line

We can not stop proliferation any more than we can stop the advancement of technology or put a lid on individual ingenuity. Nor can we outlaw evil or dictate the way other people think.

For forty years we have been fooling ourselves into thinking arms control would solve the intractable problems of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons while turning a blind eye toward the impact of technology and the different thoughts of different peoples. Treaties were negotiated and signed notwithstanding the fact that they ignored the most serious technologies. As the flaws became evident, officials were not only disinterested, they wanted not to know.

The arms control process has been like the drunk looking for a quarter he lost where the light was best, rather than where he lost it. The nuclear problem discussed in this article is not unique. There are equally significant, equally frightening, and even more horrendous blind spots in our policies concerning chemical warfare, biological warfare, and related arms control treaties. As one top U.S. official told the Soviet biological warfare expert, Col. Kanatjan Alibekov, Ph.D., who defected to the United States in 1992, “Perhaps there are questionable activities going on, but for the moment, diplomacy requires us to keep silent."

When will the West drop the politically correct charade and face the real world? Launching a massive invasion into Iraq will not stop terrorism nor the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Attacking the axis of evil will not rid the world of evil. When will we learn to address the problem with the sincerity and seriousness it deserves?

© 2003 Sam Cohen and Joe Douglass
March 11, 2003

Sam Cohen, a retired nuclear weapons analyst, worked in France on low-yield, highly discriminate tactical nuclear weapons in 1979-80. His memoirs are SHAME: Confessions of the Father of the Neutron Bomb (2000).

Joe Douglass, a national security analyst, is the author of The Conflict Over Tactical Nuclear Weapons Policy in Europe (1968), and Betrayed (2002).

Both authors were members of the Los Alamos Tactical Nuclear Weapons Panel in the early 1970s.

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 09:54 AM

here's the link to the Cohen piece

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/douglass/2003/0311.htm

Spider

10-21-2006, 10:00 AM

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 10:30 AM

Before he died Hans Bethe, an origional member of the Manhattan Project, sent the following letter to Pres Bill Clinton urging to cease and desist all research into new nuclear weapons designs, including pure fusion weapons. Obviously, no one listened.

The letter speaks for itself.
http://www.fas.org/betheltr.htm

April 25, 1997

President William E. Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

My Dear Mr. President:

As the Director of the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos, I participated at the most senior level in the World War II Manhattan Project that produced the first atomic weapons. Now, at age 90, I am one of the few remaining senior project participants. And I have followed closely, and participated in, the major issues of the nuclear arms race and disarmament during the last half century. I ask to be permitted to express a related opinion.

It seems that the time has come for our Nation to declare that it is not working, in any way, to develop further weapons of mass destruction of any kind. In particular, this means not financing work looking toward the possibility of new designs for nuclear weapons. And it certainly means not working on new types of nuclear weapons, such as pure-fusion weapons.

The United States already possesses a very wide range of different designs of nuclear weapons and needs no more. Further, it is our own splendid weapons laboratories that are, by far and without any question, the most likely to succeed in such nuclear inventions. Since any new types of weapons would, in time, spread to others and present a threat to us, it is logical for us not to pioneer further in this field.

In some cases, such as pure-fusion weapons, success is unlikely. But even reports of our seeking to invent them could be, from a political point of view, very damaging to our national image and to our effort to maintain a world-wide campaign for nuclear disarmament. Do you, for example, want scientists in laboratories under your Administration trying to invent nuclear weapons so efficient, compared to conventional weapons, that someday, if an unlikely success were achieved, they would be a new option for terrorists?

This matter is sure to be raised in conjunction with the Senate's review of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, because that Treaty raises the question of what

experiments are, and what experiments are not, permitted. In my judgment, the time has come to cease all physical experiments, no matter how small their yield, whose primary purpose is to design new types of nuclear weapons, as opposed to developing peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Indeed, if I were President, I would not fund computational experiments, or even creative thought designed to produce new categories of nuclear weapons. After all, the big secret about the atomic bomb was that it could be done. Why should taxpayers pay to learn new such secrets--secrets that will eventually leak--even and especially if we do not plan, ourselves, to implement the secrets?

In effect, the President of the United States, the laboratory directors, and the atomic scientists in the laboratories should all adopt the stance of the "Atomic Scientists' Appeal to Colleagues," which was promulgated two years ago, to "cease and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons--and, for that matter, other weapons of potential mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons."

I fully support the Science-based Stockpile Stewardship program, which ensures that the existing nuclear weapons remain fully operative. This is a challenging program to fulfill in the absence of nuclear tests. But neither it nor any of the other Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Safeguards require the laboratories to engage in creative work or physical or computational experiments on the design of new types of nuclear weapons, and they should not do so.

In particular, the basic capability to resume nuclear test activities can and will be maintained, under the Stockpile Stewardship program, without attempting to design new types of nuclear weapons. And even if the Department of Energy is charged to "maintain capability to design, fabricate and certify new warheads"--which I do not believe is necessary--this also would not require or justify research into new types of nuclear weapons.

The underlying purpose of a complete cessation of nuclear testing mandated by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is to prevent new nuclear weapons from emerging and this certainly suggests doing everything we can to prevent new categories of nuclear weapons from being discovered. It is in our national and global interest to stand true to this underlying purpose.

Accordingly, I hope you will review this matter personally to satisfy yourself that no nuclear weapons design work is being done, under the cover of your Safeguards or other policies, that you would not certify as absolutely required. Perhaps, in conjunction with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty hearings in the Senate, you might consider making a suitable pronouncement along these lines, to discipline the bureaucracy, and to reassure the world that America is vigilant in its desire to ensure that new kinds of nuclear weapons are not created.

Sincerely,

Hans A. Bethe

Director, Theoretical Division, Los Alamos, 1943-1945

Professor (now Emeritus), Cornell University, 1935 to present

Nobel Laureate, 1967

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 10:39 AM

Look gaff , I dont know if you have even been to NYC or not , but there would be no way to contain the radiation , alot of people would be sick , the clean up crew would be dead by now ........... too many people not enough space , you add radiation = disaster

No, these were micro nukes. Very small. They were also directed weapons both by design and placement. Most of the neutrons probably went in tthe earth. Those that escaped into the atmosphere mostly went straight up.

The use of large amounts of water by the fireman and clean up crew greatly reduced the residual radiation on site. The radioactive materials produced by tritium are attenuated by water.

Still, no doubt some were exposed within a small perimeter of the WTC.

loborugger

10-21-2006, 10:57 AM

Mini Nukes fired by Gary Coleman ........ diabolical little bastard

Mini-nukes... thats what Willis was talking about!

And thats about as much response as this thread deserves.

Rohirrim

10-21-2006, 11:16 AM

Hilarious!

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 11:41 AM

Mini-nukes... thats what Willis was talking about!

And thats about as much response as this thread deserves.

Lobo....as in what? Lobotomy?

clarker

10-21-2006, 11:56 AM

Lobo....as in what? Lobotomy?Pot meet kettle.

epicSocialism4tw

10-21-2006, 12:04 PM

Lobo....as in what? Lobotomy?

Did Tim Leary convince you to give yourself one of those while visiting Satori-3? That would explain the two-decade long journey through college.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-21-2006, 12:10 PM

You must be demented to think this is hilarious.
Let's see, your latest 9-11 theory is nuclear weapons and I'm the demented one :thumbs:

elsid13

10-21-2006, 01:51 PM

I understand that mini nukes were developed by the same people that gave us the Flying Monkey Corp. BTW the way they dropped the laser from the monkeys' heads, and gone back to allowing the flying monkeys to throw their poop instead.

Stuck In Texas

10-21-2006, 01:55 PM

No, these were micro nukes. Very small. They were also directed weapons both by design and placement. Most of the neutrons probably went in tthe earth. Those that escaped into the atmosphere mostly went straight up.

The use of large amounts of water by the fireman and clean up crew greatly reduced the residual radiation on site. The radioactive materials produced by tritium are attenuated by water.

Still, no doubt some were exposed within a small perimeter of the WTC.

Aren't you one of the people who were so upset at the U.S. using weapons that left radiation? It seems to me that those would contain less radiation than "mini-nukes", yet you say that the neutrons just went "poof" into thin air? Seems like you're tweaking the argument to fit your position.

I've got a great idea. Let's turn off all the lights in NYC and see if the people glow in the dark! :wiggle:

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 02:54 PM

The following video compares pycroclastic flows caused by volcanos and the WTC collapse on 911. As usual Alex Jones is ahead of the curve. I would only take issue with one point. Ordinary conventional demolitions will not produce pyroclastic flows. There are only two known causes: nukes and volcanos.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/pyroclastic_flows_911_smoking_gun.htm

In this light consider again the WTC collapse. No doubt the micro nukes were placed far below ground level in the central core of the buildings -- probably in each case in an elevator shaft.

Much of the blast thus was directed straight up through the building. The elevator shafts provided a vertical chimney -- just like in a volcano. The pyroclastic flow of atomized steel and other material flowed up and out the top of the building, just like a volcanic explosion through a perfect volcanic cone. In this case the mountain itself collapsed from the top down and inside out as the explosion ran its course.

The blasts were also decoupled: The micro nukes were not placed at the very bottom of the shaft -- but at least 1-2 floors from the basement. This placement effectively decoupled the bomb from the earth, greatly reducing the blast itself. Decoupling has been known since the 1950s as a way of hiding an atomic test. You excavate a cavity underground -- then suspend the device in the center of the cavity. This avoids tamping effects and greatly reduces the seismic shock wave -- helping to conceal the test.

Even so, there was plenty of evidence at ground level of a huge blast. People standing outside the building were knocked off their feet. One photo shows a fire ball inside the WTC lobby. I'll see if I can find that photo.

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 03:03 PM

Let's see, your latest 9-11 theory is nuclear weapons and I'm the demented one :thumbs:

You cannot explain the elevated tritium, the EMP, and the seismic show wave -- not to mention the other evidence.

These effects are diagnostic for a nuclear explosion. How many times do I need to repeat this?

oops, I forgot the denial factor. As in: Don't confuse me with facts. Aex Jones has a good term for this: willfull ignorance.

It's your problem. You deal with it.

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 03:04 PM

It's a foregone conclusion: nukes were used on 911.

Stuck In Texas

10-21-2006, 03:10 PM

It's a foregone conclusion: nukes were used on 911.

Only to you.

W*GS

10-21-2006, 03:11 PM

The genuine conclusion is that gaffney is off his rocker. On the floor, sprawled.

If the WTC was demolished, why bother with the intricacies involved in hijacking planes?

And there's no evidence that anything remotely close to a pure fusion weapon has been designed and actually built - everything I've ever read (and that's a lot; nuclear weapons are one of my pet research topics) says that pure fusion weapons have hugely significant technical challenges that are years (decades!) from being solved.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-21-2006, 03:50 PM

It's a foregone conclusion: nukes were used on 911.

Flashing lights against the sky
Giving up I close my eyes
Sitting cross-legged on the floor
25 or 6 to 4

Picture yourself in a boat on a river,
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies.

Actin funny, but I dont know why
scuse me while I kiss the sky.

Along the coast you'll hear them boast
About a light they say that shines so clear.
So raise your glass, we'll drink a toast
To the little man who sells you thrills along the pier.

ClevelandBronco

10-21-2006, 03:53 PM

It's a foregone conclusion: nukes were used on 911.

Or volcanos.

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 04:29 PM

Flashing lights against the sky
Giving up I close my eyes
Sitting cross-legged on the floor
25 or 6 to 4

Picture yourself in a boat on a river,
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies.

Actin funny, but I dont know why
scuse me while I kiss the sky.

Along the coast you'll hear them boast
About a light they say that shines so clear.
So raise your glass, we'll drink a toast
To the little man who sells you thrills along the pier.

I knew your theory that the planes brought the towers down was wacko nonsense -- however, at the time I didn't know why.

Now we know.

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 04:30 PM

The towers would have fallen without the planes.

That was all window dressing -- for the masses.

W*GS

10-21-2006, 04:48 PM

The towers would have fallen without the planes.

So why bother with them at all?

Why not a replay of the 1993 WTC bombing? That would have been so much easier.

The simple truth is that you and the other conspiracy whackos (I refuse to use the word "theorists" because you do a grave disservice to real science) are just plain wrong. Period.

W*GS

10-21-2006, 05:01 PM

Even gaffney's fellow whackos don't believe this nonsense:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/nuclear.html

W*GS

10-21-2006, 05:06 PM

Put me on iggy, then, butthead.

TheDave

10-21-2006, 05:08 PM

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 05:10 PM

So why bother with them [planes] at all?

The simple truth is that you... do a grave disservice to real science. Period.

Why bother with the planes? Simple. For chumps like you -- the white male "backbone" of Amerika. The leaders know it doesn't take much of an excuse for mainstream Amerika to jump on their bandwagon. (Whether there were terrorists in those planes or not is immaterial -- a secondary issue.)

They understand guys like you - what makes you tick. They know how easy it is to tap your racism, your jingoism, your hatred of people of color, of homos, and every third world minority -- so they can get on with their hegemonistic agenda - i.e., bomb or/and invade some unsuspecting country, rape, pillage, whatever. They know you will smile your stupid smile and support them every inch of the way.

morality goes away in a puff of militaristic smoke (911)...

human rights? what are they, anyway?

As for the science: I'm still waiting for Beerslugger -- or one of you clowns -- to explain the elevated tritium, the EMP, the seismic spike and the pyroclastic flow.

None of you can do it because you are out of your depth. You do not comprehend the significance of these facts, which -- taken together -- can only mean one thing.

W*GS

10-21-2006, 05:20 PM

I already showed that your fellow 9/11 whackos don't believe in mini-nukes.

As for the rest of your ad hominem bilge, shove it up your ass.

ClevelandBronco

10-21-2006, 05:37 PM

You do not comprehend the significance of these facts, which -- taken together -- can only mean one thing.

No, two things. I'm starting to get behind the volcano theory.

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 05:43 PM

I already showed that your fellow 9/11 whackos don't believe in mini-nukes.
.

You proved nothing.

I looked at the site and urge others to do the same.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/nuclear.html

You'll notice there is no mention of the elevated tritium, which is documented. The guys who run this site don't even know about it.

They are also wrong about the EMP. They try to debunk claims that cell phones stopped working. But they don't mention that faxes and every other kind of electronic equipment were also knocked out. Nor do they mention the many autos in the surrounding parking lots that burst into flames. What caused these cars to burn into skeletal wrecks? It was the EMP -- that set their electrical systems on fire. The fact is that on 911 -- at the moment of the collapse -- lower Manhattan was cut off from the world -- and this continued for weeks. Phone service was not restored until December 2001.

Their statements about the lack of radioactivity also shows that they do not understand the pure fusion design. As I mentioned, such a bomb has no uranium or plutonium -- hence none of the usual radioactivity. The radioactive by products of a pure tritium-deuterium bomb are much less -- and different in kind -- can only be detected by special equipment. The by products were missed because FEMA never looked for it. If you don't ask the right question you won't get the right answer.

This cursory evaluation refutes their conclusions. A closer look would undoubtedly turn up more evidence of their wrong assumptions and false conclusions.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-21-2006, 05:59 PM

I already showed that your fellow 9/11 whackos don't believe in mini-nukes.

As for the rest of your ad hominem bilge, shove it up your ass.
You know W*GS, as a scientist and an educated man, you kinda disappoint me at times. You should be above the personal insult game. I know I'm guilty of it at times but I have an excuse having only obtained a 10th grade (formal) education and worked manual labor most of my life.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-21-2006, 06:47 PM

I knew your theory that the planes brought the towers down was wacko nonsense -- however, at the time I didn't know why.
Now we know.

And if you go chasing rabbits, and you know you're going to fall
Tell 'em a hookah-smoking caterpillar has given you the call
To call Alice, when she was just small......

Remember what the dormouse said,
Feed your head, feed your head.

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 07:11 PM

An appeal

A lot of smart people read and post on this board. I appeal to them -- you know who you are -- to help pull this picture together.

One person can't do it, alone. Please, help with this research. The web is like the Akashic records. All kinds of important informatiion is/are posted out there -- that directly/indirectly relates to this issue.

If you find out something germane to the question of mini-nukes and the WTC, post it here. I will do the same. Let's share information -- and make this thread a springboard for discovery and the search for truth. What higher purpose could it serve?

We have only a limited amount of time in which save our country -- and bring the criminals to justice who did this horrible crime on 911. They were prepared to use nukes against their own country men. Do you think they will hesitate to use them against Iran -- or some other nation? Of course not. They have crossed the Rubicon into the land of the damned. They can't say "Oops sorry we made a mistake.." They are committed. They can't go back. We can expect them to do anything...

This means the near future will likely be much worse than anything we have seen to date. Unless we can stop them...

W*GS

10-21-2006, 09:08 PM

You proved nothing.

I proved that your fellow whackos don't believe in your load of crap - you're past even their level of whackitude.

W*GS

10-21-2006, 09:10 PM

You know W*GS, as a scientist and an educated man, you kinda disappoint me at times. You should be above the personal insult game.

When gaffney says:

"They understand guys like you - what makes you tick. They know how easy it is to tap your racism, your jingoism, your hatred of people of color, of homos, and every third world minority -- so they can get on with their hegemonistic agenda - i.e., bomb or/and invade some unsuspecting country, rape, pillage, whatever. They know you will smile your stupid smile and support them every inch of the way."

he can shove it. Deep.

I know I'm guilty of it at times but I have an excuse having only obtained a 10th grade (formal) education and worked manual labor most of my life.

That's a copout - a mere excuse.

spdirty

10-21-2006, 09:29 PM

Your all wrong. Actually, it was quite simple to pull off. They had explosives planted at the base of the towers then on 911 they pretended like 4 planes were being hijacked when really they just rerouted them to Pennsylvania then flew 2 military jets into the World Trade Center filled with more explosives and shot down all the witnesses of Flight 93 with an F15 after blowing up the Pentagon with a cruise missile. It was only the worlds most intricate and flawlessly executed plan ever, EVER.

Why you ask?

The oldest reasonin the world. Money. The towers fell and the American SHEEPLE all waved their flags. Finally they could invade Iraq and get the oil which made them all richer than before.

Just remember, the government is all powerful and can do ANYTHING.

Ghaffney, you need to quit digging. If you don't you will be considered a leak. And The Bush Administration worked very hard to keep their involvment in 911 a secret and will do anything they have to to FIX leaks if you know what I mean. Just a word of advice to watch your six bro.

W*GS

10-21-2006, 09:36 PM

They were prepared to use nukes against their own country men.

You're such a whacko you can't even keep your lines straight.

gaffney, there's got to be a college class in abnormal psych out there for which you'd provide a wonderful research topic.

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 10:48 PM

Are you blind?

It says in the link:
Tritium
Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen in which the nucleus contains one proton and two neutrons. Nuclear fusion produces large amounts of tritium.

Proponents of the WTC nuclear weapons theory have cited the following passage, which reports the detection of tritiated water around the WTC, as evidence for their theory.

Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164Â±0.074nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53Â±0.17 and 2.83Â±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. 1 Â

The quantities reported are extremely small, and, as the same report states, their likely source was tritium radioluminescent devices in the World Trade Center.

Yes, the 2002 UC Berkeley paper. The full report is posted on the web. I looked at it.

The quantities were small -- but far in excess of background levels recorded elswhere in Manhattan.

You state the original proposed explanation for the elevated tritium -- but now physicists are not buying it. The Electromagnetic Pulse, the seismic spike, which both occurred at the moment of collapse, in combination with the elevated tritium, are diagnostic for a nuclear explosion. There is also the matter of the pyroclastic flow of material out of the top of the WTC.

All of these effects go together. If you separate them, then you have a lot of explaining to do. If luminescent watches account for the tritium, how do you explain the EMP? The pyroclastic event? The seismic spikes?

mhgaffney

10-21-2006, 10:57 PM

Then you also have to explain what pulverized all of that concrete? This required a vast amount of energy -- where did it come from? Beerslugger's plane theory depends on gravitation -- but this alone will not pulverize concrete.

What melted the 47 gigantic piers in the basement of the building? Where did the pools of molten steel come from?

A 50 ton steel press in the WTC basement simply disappeared. What happened to it?

Would a structural collapse vaporize a 50 ton steel press and melt enormous steel piers? No way. What then is the energy source?

Play2win

10-21-2006, 11:46 PM

ClevelandBronco

10-22-2006, 12:22 AM

I just saw a dynamic PBS show, in end, about fiber optics. This discusion is kinda of a lot like copper-electronics guys saying what they know about fiber optics. Why not just let time find the real answer.

The answer we have been told, I don't believe for one moment. I just don't know which direction is false and which direction is the truth.

I know what you're saying, but that shouldn't preclude us from beating Goofney senseless just for sport in the mean time.

Truth formed over the fullness of time won't mean anything to him anyway. He'll die thinking that he's one of a handful of guys that knows the real truth behind the real truth about 9/11 and its greater implications in all our lives. (See W*GS' link inside http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=48325)).

Before he dies with that notion, we get to play with him like a beach ball at a concert festival.

It's all good clean fun.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-22-2006, 03:37 AM

You know W*GS, as a scientist and an educated man, you kinda disappoint me at times. You should be above the personal insult game. I know I'm guilty of it at times but I have an excuse having only obtained a 10th grade (formal) education and worked manual labor most of my life.

:laugh:

Don't you just love it?

One minute W*GS is lecturing the rest of us about how name-calling and personal insults are immature and totally beneath him, and the very next minute he's letting it rip with the name-calling and personal attacks.

W*GS clearly doesn't think the rules he makes for others apply to him.

No wonder he identifies so strongly with Bush and the neocons.

:D

Bronco_Beerslug

10-22-2006, 05:30 AM

That's a copout - a mere excuse.
Exactly! What's yours?

W*GS

10-22-2006, 07:36 AM

One minute W*GS is lecturing the rest of us about how name-calling and personal insults are immature and totally beneath him, and the very next minute he's letting it rip with the name-calling and personal attacks.

If you dropped the insults and attacks, you'd have precious little to say.

W*GS clearly doesn't think the rules he makes for others apply to him.

You're the king of double standards.

Go back under the rock from which you slithered, ya pud.

W*GS

10-22-2006, 07:37 AM

Exactly! What's yours?

I give as a I get.

W*GS

10-22-2006, 07:39 AM

Then you also have to explain what pulverized all of that concrete? This required a vast amount of energy -- where did it come from? Beerslugger's plane theory depends on gravitation -- but this alone will not pulverize concrete.

Ever use a sledgehammer on concrete?

Your "theories" and "facts" are just plain whacko - but that's why we like you. You're the comic relief without even knowing it.

Spider

10-22-2006, 09:03 AM

I give as a I get.

Hilarious! if you say so

Bronco_Beerslug

10-22-2006, 09:30 AM

I give as a I get.
Possibly, but trading barbs and trying to argue a point with some knothead that thinks the U.S. government blew up the WTCs with nuclear weapons isn't too smart.

mhgaffney

10-22-2006, 09:42 AM

Why not just let time find the real answer.

I just don't know which direction is false and which direction is the truth.

The problem is that we have precious little time in which to work. We are up against the nuclear clock -- and it's ticking -- just a few minutes before midnight.

The first nuclear weapons were fission bombs: enriched uranium or weapons grade plutonium.

When the first hydrogen bombs were developed in the early 1950s one of the bragging points was the reduction in radioactivity. They were billed as "clean" weapons. It wasn't true, of course, but the radioactivity was much reduced from the atomic fission design. This is because the fission trigger did not have to be large. A hydrogen bomb is made of a main fusion device and a second fission bomb piggybacked onto it. The fission part is the trigger, and it can be very small.

Thus, they were able to minimize the use of enriched uranium or weapons grade plutonium, which is the primary source of the radioactive fallout. The fusion portion of the device by its nature produces much less toxic by product. Another "advantage" is a much greater yield. There is almost no limit to the size of hydrogen bombs, while there is a practical upper limit to the size of atomic fission weapons. Both types produce a burst of intense short-term radiation.

Decades later the neutron bomb was a third generation design. In the neutron bomb the fission trigger is further reduced -- the blast is minimized and the fallout minimized even more. Most of the energy is released in the intense initial burst of radiation. The neutron weapon was designed for use against a Soviet tank attack in Europe. The bomb would be exploded over the battlefield -- and shower lethal radiation over the invading Soviet army. Of course, the logic is false. Even if the Soviet army was destroyed, the battle would quickly escalate to full scale use of nukes. But this little detail didn't stop research and development from surging forward.

This 911 thread is about the 4th generation nuclear design -- the existence of which is still hush-hush. The pure fusion design takes this development path to its logical conclusion. This design does away altogether with the fission trigger, employing instead a new material known as red mercury in a new trigger design. The red mercury is mysterious. We don't know what this material is. But when it explodes it is capable of achieving tremendous pressures -- which causes the criticality -- setting off the fusion explosion. The fuel for the fusion exolosion is tritium and deuterium -- both isotopes of hydrogen.

These appear to be designer weapons. They can be very small. I noticed that one physicist referred to them not as mini nukes -- but as micro nukes. Because there is no uranium or plutonioum in these bombs the radioactive fallout is further reduced by about two orders of magnititude. True, the tritium-deuterium fuel does create some toxic by product. Moreover the by products are unique and you need special equipment to detect it. A geiger counter will miss it.

We constantly hear about nukes getting into the hands of terrorists. Well, it appears this is exactly what happened on 911. Terrorists at the highest levels of the US government "got their hands on" 2-3 of these super secret new micro bombs and used them in clandestine fashion against America -- a false flag attack for political ends.

They took a great personal risk -- betting they would not be detected because of the new bomb design. The failure to detect any radioactivity at ground zero lulled everyone to believe the official 911 conspiracy theory - which is a bald faced lie.

If we do not bring these individuals to justice very soon -- they will do something even worse -- probably drag our nation into a world disaster.

Is it not our country? If we don't save it -- who will?

W*GS

10-22-2006, 09:53 AM

Possibly, but trading barbs and trying to argue a point with some knothead that thinks the U.S. government blew up the WTCs with nuclear weapons isn't too smart.

I'm doing it for fun - and if someone asks me about the whackiest thing I've heard or read, I can provide an answer.

gaffney talks about the imminent demise of the US (or even the world) but gullible, ill-informed, and all-around goofballs like him are the real problem.

In sum, it's sorta like beating up on a punching bag.

clarker

10-22-2006, 09:57 AM

The problem is that we have precious little time in which to work. We are up against the nuclear clock -- and it's ticking -- just a few minutes before midnight.

The first nuclear weapons were fission bombs: enriched uranium or weapons grade plutonium.

When the first hydrogen bombs were developed in the early 1950s one of the bragging points was the reduction in radioactivity. They were billed as "clean" weapons. It wasn't true, of course, but the radioactivity was much reduced from the atomic fission design. This is because the fission trigger did not have to be large. A hydrogen bomb is made of a main fusion device and a second fission bomb piggybacked onto it. The fission part is the trigger, and it can be very small.

Thus, they were able to minimize the use of enriched uranium or weapons grade plutonium, which is the primary source of the radioactive fallout. The fusion portion of the device by its nature produces much less toxic by product. Another "advantage" is a much greater yield. There is almost no limit to the size of hydrogen bombs, while there is a practical upper limit to the size of atomic fission weapons. Both types produce a burst of intense short-term radiation.

Decades later the neutron bomb was a third generation design. In the neutron bomb the fission trigger is further reduced -- the blast is minimized and the fallout minimized even more. Most of the energy is released in the intense initial burst of radiation. The neutron weapon was designed for use against a Soviet tank attack in Europe. The bomb would be exploded over the battlefield -- and shower lethal radiation over the invading Soviet army. Of course, the logic is false. Even if the Soviet army was destroyed, the battle would quickly escalate to full scale use of nukes. But this little detail didn't stop research and development from surging forward.

This 911 thread is about the 4th generation nuclear design -- the existence of which is still hush-hush. The pure fusion design takes this development path to its logical conclusion. This design does away altogether with the fission trigger, employing instead a new material known as red mercury in a new trigger design. The red mercury is mysterious. We don't know what this material is. But when it explodes it is capable of achieving tremendous pressures -- which causes the criticality -- setting off the fusion explosion. The fuel for the fusion exolosion is tritium and deuterium -- both isotopes of hydrogen.

These appear to be designer weapons. They can be very small. I noticed that one physicist referred to them not as mini nukes -- but as micro nukes. Because there is no uranium or plutonioum in these bombs the radioactive fallout is further reduced by about two orders of magnititude. True, the tritium-deuterium fuel does create some toxic by product. Moreover the by products are unique and you need special equipment to detect it. A geiger counter will miss it.

We constantly hear about nukes getting into the hands of terrorists. Well, it appears this is exactly what happened on 911. Terrorists at the highest levels of the US government "got their hands on" 2-3 of these super secret new micro bombs and used them in clandestine fashion against America -- a false flag attack for political ends.

They took a great personal risk -- betting they would not be detected because of the new bomb design. The failure to detect any radioactivity at ground zero lulled everyone to believe the official 911 conspiracy theory - which is a bald faced lie.

If we do not bring these individuals to justice very soon -- they will do something even worse -- probably drag our nation into a world disaster.

Is it not our country? If we don't save it -- who will?:kiddingme ??? :hitself: :deadhorse

W*GS

10-22-2006, 09:57 AM

The red mercury is mysterious. We don't know what this material is. But when it explodes it is capable of achieving tremendous pressures -- which causes the criticality -- setting off the fusion explosion.

http://chemistry.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=chemistry&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroups%3Fq%3Dg roup%3Asci.chem%2Binsubject%3Amercury%2Binsubject% 3Ared%26hl%3Den%26amp%3Blr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26amp%3Bselm%3D1995Mar30.193842.19234%2540alw.ni h.gov%26amp%3Brnum%3D4

gaffney, you are dumb.

W*GS

10-22-2006, 02:34 PM

The interesting thing that should give Clinton-worshippers pause is that if pure fusion weapons existed for use by the Bush cabal to demolish the WTC, they would have had to have been developed during Clinton's watch.

Seeing as how gaffney probably thinks Lenin was the perfect leader, he wouldn't have any problem making Clinton part of the conspiracy...

mhgaffney

10-22-2006, 05:33 PM

http://chemistry.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=chemistry&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroups%3Fq%3Dg roup%3Asci.chem%2Binsubject%3Amercury%2Binsubject% 3Ared%26hl%3Den%26amp%3Blr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26amp%3Bselm%3D1995Mar30.193842.19234%2540alw.ni h.gov%26amp%3Brnum%3D4

gaffney, you are dumb.

I have to say: thanks, W*gs for this information about red mercury. I never thought I'd ever say this. W*gs has made a positive contribution to this discussion. Never thought it would happen -- but I'm happy to be wrong. It isn't the first occasion and I'm sure won't be the last.

Dr Frank Barnaby, former nuclear weapons designer for the UK, led me to believe that we don't know exactly what this stuff is. But I'm pleased that W*gs had the moxie to download at least a partial answer from the Akashic Web. Nice work.

I very much doubt, however, that the Russkis would reveal the exact formula for their ultra secret pure fusion nuclear trigger -- but thanks are in order just the same. Who knows? Maybe somebody in Moscow got sloppy from too much vodka...

As for Lenin, he was never one of my cultural icons. I much prefer John Lennon and Bob Dylan. Too bad that W*gs is incapable of an actual conversation and must hurl insults. Too bad for him.

Onward...

W*GS

10-22-2006, 06:00 PM

I very much doubt, however, that the Russkis would reveal the exact formula for their ultra secret pure fusion nuclear trigger -- but thanks are in order just the same.

"Red mercury" is right up there with "dilithium crystals".

As for Lenin, he was never one of my cultural icons.

You're too dim to realize he's your political icon.

Too bad that W*gs is incapable of an actual conversation and must hurl insults. Too bad for him.

What's this:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1322089&postcount=47

then?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-22-2006, 06:09 PM

Too bad that W*gs is incapable of an actual conversation and must hurl insults. Too bad for him.

When it comes to hurling insults, you'll find that W*GS is the king of the double standard here on the Mane.

One minute he's lecturing the rest of us about how immature personal insults and name-calling are, and the next minute he's lowering the bar when it comes to both.

W*GS

10-22-2006, 07:03 PM

LABF's got his panties in a twist because he dishes it out but can't take it.

He's relentlessly personal in his posts - two reasonable cannot merely disagree, one has to be good, the other, evil (no guesses as to which one LABF thinks he is).

- Using the term "reasonable" in reference to LABF is a mistake, I know.

mhgaffney

10-22-2006, 09:53 PM

When it comes to hurling insults, you'll find that W*GS is the king of the double standard here on the Mane.

One minute he's lecturing the rest of us about how immature personal insults and name-calling are, and the next minute he's lowering the bar when it comes to both.

The search for the truth is so arresting and exciting that even a troll can't help himself - on occasion. (smile)

As for the red mercury being a substance of fable -- Sam Cohen the father of the neutron bomb doesn't think so. Neither does Frank Barnaby, nuclear weapons expert.

mhgaffney

10-22-2006, 09:54 PM

ps. That's good enough for me.

mhgaffney

10-22-2006, 10:01 PM

... if pure fusion weapons existed for use by the Bush cabal to demolish the WTC, they would have had to have been developed during Clinton's watch.

No doubt you are correct. We have the letter to Clinton by Hans Bethe urging Clinton to desist. No doubt, Bethe had his sources of information at the weapons labs about what was happening.

Yet another under achievement by Clinton, the man who had so much potential.

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 12:58 AM

There are a number of stories out there about this. Three men were tried (and acquited) last summer in the UK -- on a sting operation -- for trying to buy red mercury for use in a dirty bomb. Here's the story

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1830189,00.html?gusrc=rss

Another report suggests this material existed as early as 1987. A South African Airways Boeing 747 crashed into the sea on a flight from Tapiei to South Africa after a fire in the cargo hold. Rumors have circulated ever since that the cargo may have included an illegal shipment of red mercury -- bound for a SA arms company linked to the SA nuclear weapons program. Remember, this was before the end of apartheid -- and thus before SA deconstructed its nuclear program.

In 2002 the South Arican government decided not to reopen the investigation into the cause of the crash -- despite the urgings of various parties to do so.

http://figtree.squarespace.com/journal/2006/7/26/red-mercury.html

ClevelandBronco

10-23-2006, 02:08 AM

broncocalijohn

10-23-2006, 02:26 AM

im not gonna read three moe pages on this but has anyone asked how these "bombs" got on the plane?

ClevelandBronco

10-23-2006, 02:38 AM

im not gonna read three moe pages on this but has anyone asked how these "bombs" got on the plane?

The planes were a diversion and the bombs were in place beforehand, as I understand these delusions, God help me.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-23-2006, 06:26 AM

And you're really seriously and tragically insane.

If you ask me, your hysterical reaction to anyone who questions the official BushCo account of what happened on 9/11 is just as insane.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-23-2006, 07:04 AM

If you ask me, your hysterical reaction to anyone who questions the official BushCo account of what happened on 9/11 is just as insane.Questioning is one thing, stating the U.S. government used nuclear weapons to destroy the WTCs is pretty much insane.

W*GS

10-23-2006, 07:07 AM

If you ask me, your hysterical reaction to anyone who questions the official BushCo account of what happened on 9/11 is just as insane.

When are you gonna commit to being a full-time 9/11 conspiracy whacko?

Make that last little step and join gaffney in that abyss of idiocy - that's truly all it would take.

clarker

10-23-2006, 07:15 AM

Questioning is one thing, stating the U.S. government use nuclear weapons to destroy the WTCs is pretty much insane.As LABF would say... Quoted for truth.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-23-2006, 07:24 AM

As LABF would say... Quoted for truth.

Um, not exactly "truth," Tattoo.

Mark didn't "state" that the weapons were used.

Take a look at the thread title again - it's a question, not a statement.

clarker

10-23-2006, 07:41 AM

It's a foregone conclusion: nukes were used on 911.LABF here a example for you of how he stated that nukes were used on the WTC. Did you even read the posts before you leaped to defend this nut ball just because he was saying something bad about Bush?

Bronco_Beerslug

10-23-2006, 07:41 AM

Um, not exactly "truth," Tattoo.
Mark didn't "state" that the weapons were used.
Take a look at the thread title again - it's a question, not a statement.
Yeah, he did. He's pretty much whacked..

It's a foregone conclusion: nukes were used on 911.

Although the nukes would have brought the towers down, the planners had to make it look like the planes did the job. The collapse was thus initiated by charges set high in the building. No doubt the charges were set in such a way that the initiation could be achieved at any point -- so the initial point of collapse would coinicide with the point of impact of the planes. A man with a laptop computer no doubt typed a command that set them off.

As Democrap you should be getting out the word on this

No, these were micro nukes. Very small. They were also directed weapons both by design and placement. Most of the neutrons probably went in tthe earth. Those that escaped into the atmosphere mostly went straight up.

The use of large amounts of water by the fireman and clean up crew greatly reduced the residual radiation on site. The radioactive materials produced by tritium are attenuated by water.

Still, no doubt some were exposed within a small perimeter of the WTC.

You cannot explain the elevated tritium, the EMP, and the seismic show wave -- not to mention the other evidence.

These effects are diagnostic for a nuclear explosion. How many times do I need to repeat this?

oops, I forgot the denial factor. As in: Don't confuse me with facts. Aex Jones has a good term for this: willfull ignorance.

It's your problem. You deal with it.

epicSocialism4tw

10-23-2006, 07:42 AM

Um, not exactly "truth," Tattoo.

Mark didn't "state" that the weapons were used.

Take a look at the thread title again - it's a question, not a statement.

Face it bro, your recruit is making a fool of himself in this forum. It might be better for you to start distancing yourself from him at this point.

W*GS

10-23-2006, 07:46 AM

Um, not exactly "truth," Tattoo.

Mark didn't "state" that the weapons were used.

Take a look at the thread title again - it's a question, not a statement.

I'm gonna jump on the bandwagon and note that at least once, gaffney has assured us that nukes were used on 9/11.

You just don't read very carefully, do you?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-23-2006, 07:54 AM

LABF here is you example of how stated that nukes were used on the WTC. Did you even read the posts before you leaped to defend this nut ball just because he was saying something bad about Bush?

But it's not just this particular thread or topic - you have a habit of dismissing anyone who dares to question the official account of 9/11 on any grounds as a "nut ball."

That brings me back to my original point, i.e., folks like you and CB are just as nutty and irrational as the "conspiracy theorists" you demonize.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-23-2006, 07:58 AM

Face it bro, your recruit is making a fool of himself in this forum.

:laugh:

That has to be the most whopping pot/kettle/blackism I've heard here in a long time.

It might be better for you to start distancing yourself from him at this point.

"Better" for me how?

Should I be worried that I'm going to lose the ditto monkey vote if I don't categorically dismiss Mark as a "nut ball?"

Gee, that would be a tragedy. :D

epicSocialism4tw

10-23-2006, 08:07 AM

:
"Better" for me how?

First off, you didnt deny that he was your recruit. He is as far left as you are and I dont really see any other reason for him to be on this board.

Should I be worried that I'm going to lose the ditto monkey vote if I don't categorically dismiss Mark as a "nut ball?"

No, but it sure does make you look like a fool of equal magnitude. The regulars here already know what kind of poster you are. Willingly associating yourself with and defending the obviously crazy opinions of fringe lunatics like this Gaffney fellow just make you look like a tool, which you are.

How much are they paying you guys to propagandize this forum?

clarker

10-23-2006, 08:12 AM

But it's not just this particular thread or topic - you have a habit of dismissing anyone who dares to question the official account of 9/11 on any grounds as a "nut ball."

That brings me back to my original point, i.e., folks like you and CB are just as nutty and irrational as the "conspiracy theorists" you demonize.I don't dismiss all conspiracy theorists, just you and McQuack. Because you have your mind already made up.

I have read things like the popular mechanics story and have seen a National Geographic show on how the towers fell and I have a hard time believing the 9-11 cospiracy stuff.

1. If they were smart enough to pull off 9-11 how come they were not smart enough to plant WMD's in Iraq. Seems to me that would have saved them a huge political headache.

2. They couldn't keep Aub Graib(SP?) a secret when a small amount of people were ivolved, but they have pulled off what would be the biggest hoax in history? With hundereds if not thousands of people to be involved to pull it off? Give me a break.

I will admit I think people who really believe these 9-11 myths are little crazy. Gaffy is just plain nuts though. Even Beerslug, who hates Bush as much as you do, thinks he is nuts.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-23-2006, 08:21 AM

First off, you didnt deny that he was your recruit. He is as far left as you are and I dont really see any other reason for him to be on this board.

My "recruit?" :laugh:

Now who's sounding like a paranoid nutjob?

No, but it sure does make you look like a fool of equal magnitude.

A chump who twice voted for George W. Bush pretending to be qualified to judge who looks like a fool and who doesn't?

Hilarious! Priceless.

Willingly associating yourself with and defending the obviously crazy opinions of fringe lunatics like this Gaffney fellow just make you look like a tool, which you are.

You are the official poster boy for 'obviously crazy opinions' and 'fringe lunatics' on this board.

You have been exposed as Karl Rove's most clueless, brainwashed trick so many times on this forum it's beyond belief.

How much are they paying you guys to propagandize this forum?

To a Bush ostrich like you, the reality that the majority of Americans experience is almost pure 'propaganda' these days, isn't it?

I'll give you credit for one thing: You're a master of cognitive dissonance.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-23-2006, 08:27 AM

I don't dismiss all conspiracy theorists, just you and McQuack. Because you have your mind already made up.

That's bullsh*t.

Show me one "conspiracy theory" you haven't dismissed.

I will admit I think people who really believe these 9-11 myths are little crazy. Gaffy is just plain nuts though. Even Beerslug, who hates Bush as much as you do, thinks he is nuts.

Do you have any idea what a bandwagon argument this is?

Probably not.

clarker

10-23-2006, 08:33 AM

That's bullsh*t.

Show me one "conspiracy theory" you haven't dismissed.

Do you have any idea what a bandwagon argument this is?

Probably not.The only one we talk about is the 9-11 myths.

If you want one example, I would say that the Oliver Stone movie JFK is closer to the truth than the Warren Commission.

I don't care if it is a bandwagon argument. It shows that even people from you sided of politics think Gaffy is nuts so it is hard for you to dismiss republicans who also think that guy is bonkers as just another Bushbot. Unless you think Slug is a GOP mole.

epicSocialism4tw

10-23-2006, 08:40 AM

[QUOTE=L.A. BRONCOS FAN;1324526]My "recruit?" :laugh:

Now who's sounding like a paranoid nutjob?

Yet another display of your seemingly nonexistent reading comp skills, and your inability to recall past conversations. A little too much acid maybe?

You are the official poster boy for 'obviously crazy opinions' and 'fringe lunatics' on this board.
You have been exposed as Karl Rove's most clueless, brainwashed trick so many times on this forum it's beyond belief.

Yep. Ive been exposed by your disconnected, short-term memory deficient use of fringe lunatic news sources and opinions.

If they dont agree with fringe left politics, they must be evil.

To a Bush ostrich like you, the reality that the majority of Americans experience is almost pure 'propaganda' these days, isn't it?

No, just the main purveyor of extremely partisan propaganda on this site who chooses not to engage in discussion but rather disseminate propaganda daily on this board. Whether or not you are getting paid for it is irrelevant. It would at least make me pity you a bit more if you were.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-23-2006, 08:56 AM

Yet another display of your seemingly nonexistent reading comp skills, and your inability to recall past conversations.

Now you're just throwing sh*t against the wall in the hope that something might stick.

That didn't take long.

A little too much acid maybe?

Like the fry brain in the WH for whom you twice voted?

Yep. Ive been exposed by your disconnected, short-term memory deficient use of fringe lunatic news sources and opinions.

No.

You've been exposed by events.

Events which have proven you wrong time and time again.

Wrong about everything you believed about your boy GeeDubya and the Grand Old Pedophiles.

If they dont agree with fringe left politics, they must be evil.

Looking out from the bubble of cognitive dissonance you inhabit, 2/3 of your fellow Americans are on the 'fringe left."

That's what makes you such a laughing stock here.

No, just the main purveyor of extremely partisan propaganda on this site...

More like "purveyor of extremely inconvenient facts and uncomfortable realities."

W*GS

10-23-2006, 09:30 AM

Looking out from the bubble of cognitive dissonance you inhabit, 2/3 of your fellow Americans are on the 'fringe left."

Thinking that Bush is a lousy President hardly makes one a fringe leftist, much as you desire.

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 11:04 AM

Yeah, he [Gaffney] did. He's pretty much whacked..

I'm still waiting for someone to explain the Electromagnetic pulse (EMP), the elevated tritium, the seismic spike, and the pyroclastic flow on 911.

Instead of dealing with the evidence you attack me.

I understand skepticism, but these are facts. A nuclear explosion is a signature event. There are definite effects -- well known -- and all of these effects are present on 911 at the WTC, with the lone exception of the fallout.

I have presented powerful evidence (the letter from Hans Bethe and the paper by Sam Cohen) that a next generation nuclear design may indeed exist -- a pure fusion weapon. Such a design has no uranium or plutonium, hence would not produce detectable fallout with the usual equipment.

So deal with these facts.

What got wacked was America. We are the only species on the planet capable of denial. And you are a perfect example of the syndrome.

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 11:28 AM

Have a look at the seismic spikes recorded on 911 -- still unexplained. They happened. This is not opinion -- it's fact. Underground nuclear explosions ALWAYS produce seismic spikes.

Here is evidence that explosions occurred -- at the moment of collapse.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/seismic-wave.gif

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 11:31 AM

Scroll down this page and take a long look at the photo at the very bottom. It shows an entire parking lot of cars burned out on 911 -- by what? There is plenty of dust coating the vehicles -- but no evidence of any damage by falling debris.

What set these cars on fire? Jet fuel? Not a chance.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html

Bronco_Beerslug

10-23-2006, 11:35 AM

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 11:49 AM

Here is the abstract from the 2002 paper by UC Berkeley documenting elevated tritium at the WTC two days after 911.

Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory
(University of California, University of California)
Year 2002
Paper LBNL50782
Elevated tritium levels at the World
Trade Center
This paper is posted at the eScholarship Repository, University of California.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/lbnl/LBNL-50782
Copyright c 2002 by the authors.

Elevated tritium levels at the World
Trade Center

Abstract

Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at [the]World Trade Center
(WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A method of ultralow-
background liquid scintillation counting was used after distilling HTO from the samples. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.174 plus or minus 0.074 (2s) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53 plus or minus 0.17 and 2.83 plus or minus 0.15 nCi/L, respectively. Several water and vegetation samples were analyzed from areas outside the ground zero, located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Kensico Reservoir. No HTO above the background was found in those samples. All these results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure.

American Chemical Society National Meeting, Orlando, FL, April 7-11, 2002
Division of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology

Proceedings of the Symposium on Radioanalytical Methods at the Frontier of Interdisciplinary Science: Trends and Recent Achievements

Elevated Tritium Levels at the World Trade Center

by
Thomas M. Semkow
Ronald S. Hafner
Pravin P. Parekh
Gordon J. Wozniak
Douglas K. Haines
Liaquat Husain
Robert L. Rabun
and Philip G. Williams

Abstract

Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at [the]World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A method of ultralow-background liquid scintillation counting was used after distilling HTO from the samples. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.174±0.074 (2?) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected
on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. Several water and vegetation samples were analyzed from areas outside the ground zero, located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Kensico Reservoir. No HTO above the background was found in those samples.

Rohirrim

10-23-2006, 11:52 AM

I think those building were brought down by an invisible death ray which, in all likelihood, emanated from a cloaked Klingon bird of prey. (I think the tritium levels are the smoking gun)

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 12:07 PM

Only two phenomena on earth produce pyroclastic flows, volcanos and nuclear explosions.

These flows have unique characteristics, and consist of superheated gases, vaporized particles, dust etc.

Scroll down for visual comparison of an underground nuclear test and the WTC collapse.. You will see that the profile and appearance is a match.

This is powerful visual evidence -- yet has been ignored.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/soldier5.htm

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 12:10 PM

ps Bear in mind that the text on this page is a translation from Finnish -- done by someone who's English is less than polished.

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 12:14 PM

And I'm still waiting for Cindy Garrison (Get Wild, ESPN) to take me fishing with her. Probably isn't going to happen but my fantasy is ultimately more based in reality than yours.

http://www.fallonfly.com/1542.jpg

I'd like to go out with Cindy too -- but how does this relate to the hard evidence I have just posted?

Obviously you are incapable of dealing with facts that are at odds with your view of reality.

OUT TO LUNCH.

Rohirrim

10-23-2006, 12:46 PM

All of this together is diagnostic that mini nukes were used on 911.
If, just for fun, we were to ignore the extraordinary ludicrousness of the above statement, who would have used them, why would they have used them, and how did they coordinate with the pilots who steered the planes into the towers (I'm presuming) simultaneously?

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 01:23 PM

The following editorial against research into pure fusion weapons was posted back in 1998 by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. This was poste shortly before the US Senate refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which -- had it become binding -- might have stopped the continuing research at Sandia Lab.

No doubt 99% of Americans were unaware at the time that this cutting edge research was underway -- I include myself. As I said I only learned about this new weapons design last week. We all have a lot of catching up to do.

Dangerous Thermonuclear Quest

By: Arjun Makhijani and Hisham Zerriffi
http://www.ieer.org/reports/fusion/summrec.html

Summary and Recommendations

A great qualitative change in the nature of nuclear weapons occurred four-and-a-half decades ago when nuclear fission and nuclear fusion were combined into thermonuclear weapons, popularly called "hydrogen bombs." Even so present-day generation nuclear weapons produce considerable levels of fallout in the form of highly radioactive fission and this has been one of the main factors limiting their military application.

Pure fusion weapons -- that is, weapons that would not need a fission trigger -- have long been thought of as desirable by the nuclear weapons establishment because they would not produce fission product fallout. Yet, the lethality of the weapons due to neutron radiation as well as explosive force would still be great. Moreover, thermonuclear reactions do not require a minimum critical mass to be assembled. Hence pure fusion weapons could range in size from a few kilograms to multi-megatons of TNT equivalent.

Pure fusion weapons have been unattainable so far because it is very difficult to create the conditions that enable a large enough number of nuclear fusion reactions to occur in a small enough space and short enough time. Fusion reactions involve the fusion of light nuclei, which results in a release of nuclear energy. (Fission, on the other hand, releases energy through the splitting of heavy nuclei.) Positively-charged nuclei exert repulsive (opposing) electrical forces on each other, which are very strong at close range. These forces must be overcome if the nuclei are to be brought close enough together so that the probability of fusion reactions may be high. This is done by heating the fuel to extremely high thermal temperatures (hence the term "thermonuclear") -- comparable to or higher than temperatures in the interior of the sun. This allows the kinetic energy of the nuclei to be large enough to overcome the repulsive force. The even greater attractive force between nuclear particles, which operates to a significant degree only at very close range, is then able to overcome the repulsive electrical force and produce nuclear fusion.

Keeping together a dense enough mass of nuclear material for long enough to produce a large number of nuclear reactions, but short enough to produce an explosion, has proved possible by only one means. That has been to create the extremely high temperatures and pressures by a fission explosion. The barriers for producing pure fusion weapons -- that is, weapons that would not require this "primary" fission explosion (called the trigger of the thermonuclear warhead) -- have so far proved insuperable. However, work in the last decade or so has resulted in a great deal of technical progress, to the point that it is possible to conceive of pure fusion explosives that could be compact enough to be used as weapons. If such weapons were to be developed, it would represent a fundamental transformation in the potential employment of nuclear weapons as instruments of war and have a substantial adverse effect on non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.

Summary of Findings

Pure fusion weapons can, in theory be made in varying sizes from small to huge. By reducing the sizes of possible nuclear explosions, pure fusion weapons could lower the threshold of nuclear weapons use. This would tend to erode the norm against use of these weapons of mass destruction that has been built up for over half a century.

The scientific feasibility of pure fusion weapons has not yet been established. Until recently, there were no devices that could establish such feasibility.

Major advances in the last decade in plasma physics and in various technologies to achieve fusion reactions at high rates in laboratory setting have opened up new possibilities for pure fusion weapons.

Three major technologies could contribute to the establishment of the scientific feasibility of pure fusion weapons, and other weapons that do not require fission triggers: (i) inertial confinement fusion programs designed to achieve ignition (such as the National Ignition Facility being built at Livermore), (ii) capacitor or high explosive driven electromagnetic devices such as the Magnetized Target Fusion program at Los Alamos and Arzamas-16, and (iii) other non-fission methods of generating intense x-rays, such as the wire-array z-pinch program at Sandia Lab. These programs reinforce each other in the development of fusion technology.

In some respects it will be less difficult to make pure fusion weapons than to generate commercial power from pure fusion, once thermonuclear ignition has been achieved in a laboratory setting.

One major roadblock to the development of pure fusion weapons is the achievement of ignition in the plasma. This requires sufficient compression and heating of the fuel pellet in a precise way. The second problem is to get large enough non-fission energy sources ("drivers") to perform the work of compression and heating of the fuel pellet to thermonuclear conditions within practical limits of size and weight.

Several technologies could help overcome the technical hurdles facing pure fusion weapons. They include development of advanced materials manufacturing technology, which could lead to reduced driver size and help make better ICF targets.

Once ignition has been demonstrated at a laboratory level, it will be difficult to contain the development of pure fusion weapons. Fusion weapon proliferation controls will be far more difficult than with fission weapons because the materials are not currently under the same level of international control and because more of the relevant literature is non-classified. In fact, pure fusion weapons would by-pass most of the system of international non-proliferation safeguards. Political pressures to develop such weapons would also be likely to intensify.

The main mechanism to prevent a radically new and dangerous nuclear weapons situation from developing in the world is to ban the construction of machines that could achieve ignition of thermonuclear plasma without a fission trigger. Devices that use high explosives either directly or indirectly as part of the driver pose special dangers because they could be converted to practical weapons with less difficulty once feasibility is established. Other less restrictive mechanisms could include a ban on the use of tritium in devices involving the use of high explosives.

The NPT allows for a broad range of ICF research. But the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty CTBT is much more stringent. For instance, while the NPT allows peaceful nuclear explosions, but Article I of the CTBT bans nuclear explosions altogether. Unfortunately, it does no define them. However, there is no technical basis on which laboratory thermonuclear explosions can be excluded from this ban.

Our review of the CTBT indicates that experiments, and hence facilities, designed to achieve thermonuclear explosive ignition are illegal. This includes large laser facilities such as the NIF in the US and the Laser Mégajoule project in France, as well as the planned wire-array z-pinch facility called X-1. However, this question is still a matter of international debate and controversy because there is no official public negotiating record on this issue in the specific context of the CTBT negotiations that led up to Article I which bans all nuclear explosions.

There is as yet no official interpretation of the CTBT in regard to experimental fusion explosions and the facilities designed to achieve them. Hence, the US and other countries are proceeding as if their plans for facilities like NIF and LMJ are legal under the CTBT. An official opinion on this issue is urgently needed. In this context, it is important to note that our research shows that neither facility is essential to maintaining the safety of existing nuclear stockpiles or to their reliability for deterring nuclear attacks.

Recommendations

It is essential to prevent the development of pure fusion weapons. Such weapons would greatly complicate the already difficult task of achieving enduring non-proliferation and complete nuclear disarmament, as required by Article VI of the NPT. A set of policies that restrict explosive confinement research is needed to accomplish this goal:

Ignition of the fusion fuel should be used as the definition of a fusion nuclear explosion for purposes of CTBT compliance, by analogy with hydronuclear fission experiments. This would prohibit all explosive ignition experiments. Therefore construction of the National Ignition Facility at Livermore, California, the Laser Mégajoule project in France and planning of all other explosive research facilities designed to achieve thermonuclear ignition should be stopped.

The combination of high explosive drivers and the use of tritium in fusion research should be banned.

The total fusion energy output in explosive fusion research should be limited to 1014 neutrons per shot. This would prevent attempts to gain useful information by increasing the energy of the driver and fusion energy output while staying below ignition. Explosive fusion research should be distinguished from other fusion research by defining explosions in this context as events occurring in less than one millisecond.

The next CTBT conference, which may be held as early as September 1999, should issue a formal opinion explicitly including laboratory thermonuclear explosions within the prohibition of nuclear explosions in Article I of the CTBT.

Magnetized Target Fusion experiments that would achieve ignition should be stopped.

ICF research and other research not designed to achieve ignition should be reevaluated for its potential to contribute to pure fusion weapons development and that of nuclear weapons that do not require a fission trigger. In the meantime it may be allowed to continue since it is not prohibited by any treaty.

Stockpile stewardship programs, under which ECF research is conducted, should reflect the spirit of the CTBT and exclude weapons design aspects.
The nuclear weapons states should declare formally that they are not going to design new nuclear weapons or upgrade old weapons. As part of this declaration, they should explicitly renounce the development of pure fusion weapons and all other weapons that do not require fission triggers.
A widespread public debate on the disarmament and non-proliferation consequences of pure fusion weapons is needed to forestall the emergence of serious new problems.

The CTBT should be ratified by all countries without conditions. In other words, ratification should not be conditional on projects such as NIF and LMJ.

TheDave

10-23-2006, 01:24 PM

Hey Mhgaffney,

Do you typically believe in Conspiracies (2nd gunmen, UFO's, etc.) or is 9/11 infatuation something new?

W*GS

10-23-2006, 01:32 PM

Scroll down this page and take a long look at the photo at the very bottom. It shows an entire parking lot of cars burned out on 911 -- by what?

A fire?

W*GS

10-23-2006, 01:49 PM

Scroll down for visual comparison of an underground nuclear test and the WTC collapse.. You will see that the profile and appearance is a match.

Hardly.

I've seen plenty of video of underground nuke tests and they look nothing like the collapse of the WTC.

From where do you get this silliness?

PS - Elvis shot JFK with the assistance of Sasquatch.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-23-2006, 01:50 PM

I'd like to go out with Cindy too -- but how does this relate to the hard evidence I have just posted?
Obviously you are incapable of dealing with facts that are at odds with your view of reality.
OUT TO LUNCH.
That's exactly it!!!!! But it's you that can't except facts and reality.

And I'm pretty sure Cindy would never have anything to do with someone who is going around preaching the U.S. government blew up the WTC's with nuclear bombs so once again, your fantasy's are the stuff that fills the wards of mental institutions (or Bush's secret CIA camps).

defenseman

10-23-2006, 01:55 PM

I'm still waiting for someone to explain the Electromagnetic pulse (EMP), the elevated tritium, the seismic spike, and the pyroclastic flow on 911.

Instead of dealing with the evidence you attack me.

I understand skepticism, but these are facts. A nuclear explosion is a signature event. There are definite effects -- well known -- and all of these effects are present on 911 at the WTC, with the lone exception of the fallout.

I have presented powerful evidence (the letter from Hans Bethe and the paper by Sam Cohen) that a next generation nuclear design may indeed exist -- a pure fusion weapon. Such a design has no uranium or plutonium, hence would not produce detectable fallout with the usual equipment.

So deal with these facts.

What got wacked was America. We are the only species on the planet capable of denial. And you are a perfect example of the syndrome.

tritium occurs naturally in nature. It can be present either in the air or in liquid form, naturally I might. Various weather conditions can and will generate lots of it all by itself. Bottom line is, I've seen it 50 to 100 times (and even greater) the normal levels in the desert, next to the water, various other locations throughout these United States. The fact that it may be present for a period near ground zero in and of itself means ABSOLUTELY nothing. More information is required to determine if you want me to buy into to what your are presenting. Lots more specifically on the weather that day. All the facts simply aren't there to justify your take wrt tritium and the amount there at the site that particular day...............dman

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 02:01 PM

Some will argue that a next generation of nukes cannot be developed without live tests -- and since the US stopped underground testing some years ago -- ergo no no weapons. But as this article from Nature explains, nuclear designers now use supercomputers to similate tests.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7098/full/442018a.html

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 02:14 PM

Hardly.

I've seen plenty of video of underground nuke tests and they look nothing like the collapse of the WTC.
.

Sure. If the test is deep underground there won't be a visible pyroclastic flow. But they would be expected with a shallow test.

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 02:21 PM

Hey Mhgaffney,

Do you typically believe in Conspiracies (2nd gunmen, UFO's, etc.) or is 9/11 infatuation something new?

Look, the official story about 911 is itself a conspiracy theory. If you accept it then you by definition are a conspiracy theorist.

I find it unbelievable.

defenseman

10-23-2006, 02:25 PM

tritium occurs naturally in nature. It can be present either in the air or in liquid form, naturally I might. Various weather conditions can and will generate lots of it all by itself. Bottom line is, I've seen it 50 to 100 times (and even greater) the normal levels in the desert, next to the water, various other locations throughout these United States. The fact that it may be present for a period near ground zero in and of itself means ABSOLUTELY nothing. More information is required to determine if you want me to buy into to what your are presenting. Lots more specifically on the weather that day. All the facts simply aren't there to justify your take wrt tritium and the amount there at the site that particular day...............dman

Another data point for you. Tritium is a Beta emitter. low energy I might add. Scintillation detectors are normally applied with alpha emitters vice beta emitters. I see no data there where they shielded the sample with a simple piece of paper to detect whether or not alphas were present. In any case, the samples in question and very low levels (picocuries) at the very best , anything LESS THAN 4 picocuries is harmless, and not to be worried about. Nor did they check for radon daughters (a group of 4 with half lives of about 30 minutes a piece). A simple measurement 5 minutes AFTER the original sample would have determined this. Like I said, LOTS AND LOTS of data not available to us, they should have been more thorough..dman

W*GS

10-23-2006, 02:41 PM

As one who knows a lot about simulations, models, and supercomputers, you can't assume the real world matches your simulation, especially considering the complexities of modeling nuclear weapons.

Again, why bother with "mini-nukes" when conventional explosives (granted, a very large amount) would have sufficed without all these allegedly tell-tale markers of a nuke detonation?

You're trying to show that the WTC towers were demolished without the difficulties created by conventional techniques (which have been listed here time and again), but you've only gotten yourself further into an explanatory hole.

What's next? Infrared particle beams originating at the top of the Empire State Building?

W*GS

10-23-2006, 02:45 PM

Have a look at the seismic spikes recorded on 911 -- still unexplained.

Wrong.

http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

W*GS

10-23-2006, 02:48 PM

Look, the official story about 911 is itself a conspiracy theory. If you accept it then you by definition are a conspiracy theorist.

Not all conspiracies are rendered equal.

I find it unbelievable.

Wadda shocker.

W*GS

10-23-2006, 02:54 PM

elsid13

10-23-2006, 04:09 PM

broncocalijohn

10-23-2006, 04:32 PM

If you ask me, your hysterical reaction to anyone who questions the official BushCo account of what happened on 9/11 is just as insane.

So Bush got nucs, placed them in the towers knowing the terrorist were coming, then on cue the nucs destroyed the buildings not the planes. So LABF and other quacks think Bush is responsible for killing thousands of humans to plan his ploy against the middle east? Ok, that makes since. Where do i sign up for this mentally insane group? I cant even say it would be the DNP. This is way past just being leftist or Anti bush. This is Anti American. I knew LABF had it in him. Secret meetings and such. Yummy.
BTW: Ive never done acid. Can I still join?

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 04:37 PM

If, just for fun, we were to ignore the extraordinary ludicrousness of the above statement, who would have used them, why would they have used them, and how did they coordinate with the pilots who steered the planes into the towers (I'm presuming) simultaneously?

Good questions -- and important. I have some ideas about these.

But let's focus for the moment on the primary question: did a nuclear explosion occur on 911?

That's the biggee.

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 04:40 PM

Another data point for you. Tritium is a Beta emitter. low energy I might add. Scintillation detectors are normally applied with alpha emitters vice beta emitters. I see no data there where they shielded the sample with a simple piece of paper to detect whether or not alphas were present. In any case, the samples in question and very low levels (picocuries) at the very best , anything LESS THAN 4 picocuries is harmless, and not to be worried about. Nor did they check for radon daughters (a group of 4 with half lives of about 30 minutes a piece). A simple measurement 5 minutes AFTER the original sample would have determined this. Like I said, LOTS AND LOTS of data not available to us, they should have been more thorough..dman

In the coming days I will be talking to the scientists at UC Berkeley who discovered the elevated tritium at the WTC. Thanks for the talking points. When I have an answer I will report back. Bank on it.

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 04:51 PM

As one who knows a lot about simulations, models, and supercomputers, you can't assume the real world matches your simulation, especially considering the complexities of modeling nuclear weapons.

Again, why bother with "mini-nukes" when conventional explosives (granted, a very large amount) would have sufficed without all these allegedly tell-tale markers of a nuke detonation?

The Israelis used computers to develop their nukes -- and accomplished the job with only one known test -- a small one -- in the south Atlantic in conjunction with S Africa. So you are just plain wrong.

The US did many tests over the years -- and has a vast archive of data -- and with the supercomputers who knows what they could do?

As for why mini nukes, why don't you ask your fearless leader Bush? He's been stumping for them since he took office. (And I mean took)

As for 911 -- we are talking about a weapon the size of a briefcase. Very easy to handle and hide. No conventional weapon can compete.

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 04:56 PM

Wrong.

http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

This is a pathetic attempt to debunk the hard evidence of the seismic spikes.

You'll have to do a lot better than that.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-23-2006, 04:58 PM

So Bush got nucs, placed them in the towers knowing the terrorist were coming, then on cue the nucs destroyed the buildings not the planes. So LABF and other quacks think Bush is responsible for killing thousands of humans to plan his ploy against the middle east? Ok, that makes since. Where do i sign up for this mentally insane group? I cant even say it would be the DNP. This is way past just being leftist or Anti bush. This is Anti American. I knew LABF had it in him. Secret meetings and such. Yummy.

Two recommendations for you:

1) Try not to use so many strawman arguments.

2) Try "Hooked On Phonics."

BTW: Ive never done acid.

Coulda fooled me. :crazy:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-23-2006, 05:05 PM

I'd like to go out with Cindy too -- but how does this relate to the hard evidence I have just posted?

Obviously you are incapable of dealing with facts that are at odds with your view of reality.

This is exactly why I said that those people who dismiss anyone who dares to question the official account of 9/11 as "crazy" sound hysterical and irrational themselves.

They refuse to even look at evidence or facts which might cast doubts on the official account.

To me, that is the epitome of irrationality - no matter what sort of conclusions one might draw from the facts.

Spider

10-23-2006, 06:18 PM

Hey Mhgaffney,

Do you typically believe in Conspiracies (2nd gunmen, UFO's, etc.) or is 9/11 infatuation something new?
there was someone in the grassy Knoll ,Short guy , Now I know of 1 person short enough to pull this off ...........Gary Coleman ......... And as for proof of UFO'S .....Explain raider and Chief fan

broncocalijohn

10-23-2006, 07:43 PM

Two recommendations for you:

1) Try not to use so many strawman arguments.

2) Try "Hooked On Phonics."

Coulda fooled me. :crazy:

Well, we know LABF has done the acid. Dont need hooked on phonics. I know what i see here and i know what i type here. You two are loons. LABF, please just post that you actually think that Bush MIGHT have planted nukes in the towers to detonate to appear that the known hijackers of 9/11 was responsible for this disaster/terrorist plot and action. Also, add what the conclusion of this mass murder was to accomplish, in of course, your own words.

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 08:30 PM

...please just post that you actually think that Bush MIGHT have planted nukes in the towers to detonate to appear that the known hijackers of 9/11 was responsible for this disaster/terrorist plot and action. Also, add what the conclusion of this mass murder was to accomplish, in of course, your own words.

Well I see we can't pass on this for the moment and stay focused on just the central question: were nukes used?

The neo cons broadcast their intentions to the world long before Bush entered the White House. They posted their goals and their philosophy on their PNAC web site. You can still download the key paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which lays out the blueprint for global domination. The link is below -- you can download the pdf file.

I think on page 52 of this paper -- or somewhere in there -- they state very explicitly that the American people will not support this agenda -- unless some great catalyzing event were to occur, such as another Pearl Harbor.

It's incredible how open they are about all of it.

mhgaffney

10-23-2006, 08:31 PM

oops here is the link
http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-23-2006, 09:15 PM

Well, we know LABF has done the acid.

This from a guy who can barely form a coherent English sentence?

That's rich. :rofl:

Dont need hooked on phonics.

W know. Literacy is no big deal to you. We get it.

I know what i see here and i know what i type here. You two are loons. LABF, please just post that you actually think that Bush MIGHT have planted nukes in the towers to detonate to appear that the known hijackers of 9/11 was responsible for this disaster/terrorist plot and action. Also, add what the conclusion of this mass murder was to accomplish, in of course, your own words.

Got reading comprehension?

I didn't say anything at all on the subject of nukes. I said that people like you, i.e., people who dismiss anyone who questions the official BushCo account of 9/11 as a "loon," are just irrational as the "conspiracy nuts" you disparage.

But don't let this trifling distinction keep you from setting up your next straw man.

broncocalijohn

10-24-2006, 12:38 AM

mhgaffney

10-24-2006, 02:19 AM

I just want to know if you think Bush could have put nuke bombs in the WTC to set up his "master plan". This would have been to include he knew the towers and other sites would be attacked. I want to know if you just hate Bush or you actually think that the conspiracy of 9/11 is plausible. Just answer the question instead of curtailing it as u like to do. I want to know how you think of this, that is all.

Bush and company are capable of anything. That's what I think. But no I don't hate them -- I don't hate anyone. But I do hate the things they stand for.

As for a 911 conspiracy -- if you believe the official explanation you are a believer in a conpiracy. It isn't a question of whether it's a conspiracy or not -- it's a question of WHICH conspiracy you accept.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-24-2006, 02:26 AM

I just want to know if you think Bush could have put nuke bombs in the WTC to set up his "master plan".

I guess you've missed my previous posts on this topic.

Bush is incapable of eating a pretzel without adult supervision. Therefore, if there was a 9/11 conspiracy, then Bush was probably just along for the ride, as has been the case with everything else in his life. Bush is simply a puppet.

I want to know if you just hate Bush or you actually think that the conspiracy of 9/11 is plausible.

Both.

Even if the Bush junta's only role in 9/11 was to intentionally ignore all the warnings and let the attacks happen, such actions (or, inaction, as the case may be) already constitute a conspiracy in and of themselves.

mhgaffney

10-24-2006, 02:32 AM

The same LDEO graph gaffney has provided us:

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-graph1-lg.jpg

with a 30-minute time span.

A more detailed graph, also from LDEO, shows the interpretations offered by gaffney and his fellow whackos to be wrong:

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-graph2-lg.jpg

These attempts to debunk the seismic spikes are garbage -- BUT on second thought this is very important, because it's instructive. The debunkers always try to link the seismic spikes with the end of the collapse, i.e., when the rubble hits the ground -- instead of the ONSET of the collapse.

Remember we are talking about a difference of just 8-9 seconds. Still, it's a very important 8-9 seconds.

This is where the eyewitness accounts are extremely important, because they link the seismic spike (the explosion) with the ONSET of collapse -- not the end of it.

The people who were standing outside the WTC - nearby -- say the grouond shook under their feet. They heard a roaring freight train at this moment. Others describe it as an earthquake. Many were knocked off their feet. This was the nuclear blast going off -- at the start of the collapse -- not the conclusion. The timing here is critical. The nuclear explosions occurred either at the same moment as the initial charge (up top) -- or maybe a split second after -- but long long long before the rubble hit the ground.

In those 8-9 seconds thousands of lives were snuffed.

mhgaffney

10-24-2006, 02:41 AM

You're trying to show that the WTC towers were demolished without the difficulties created by conventional techniques (which have been listed here time and again), but you've only gotten yourself further into an explanatory hole.

Baloney. As I've stated the use of nukes drastically reduced the number of charges that had to be set in the buildings. It's a key point and you ignore it.

24champ

10-24-2006, 02:57 AM

mhgaffney

10-24-2006, 04:54 AM

It's been stated on this board that the WTC fell due to the impact of a Boeing 767, which according to Beerslugger, was much larger than a 707 -- and thus caused more damage -- exceeding the specs of the tower.

The following page shows this is false. The page offers a comparison of a Boeing 767 and a Boeing 707. Notice that the two planes have almost the same fuel capacity. The 767 is only slightly larger --

In fact, the 767 cruising speed is actually LESS than a 707 -- meaning that a 707 would have even greater kinetic impact than a 767.

The truth is that the WTC was over built -- and easily survived the impacts on 911. The planes had nothing to do with the collapse.

Beerslugger must be held accountable for his innaccurate and misleading statements on this board.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

mhgaffney

10-24-2006, 05:17 AM

Beerslugger denied on this board that there were pools of molten steel in the ruins of the WTC. He claimed this was just another wacko conspiracy theory.

He got it wrong.

The pools of molten steel were confirmed way back in 2002 by Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, one of the contractors who cleared the site.

His statements were also confirmed by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc, another contractor who cleared the wtc site.

In fact, the pools in some cases were not even discovered until many weeks later -- AFTER the wreckage was cleared away. The molten pools were underneath the pile at the very bottom of the site.

Imagine the incredible heat necessary to melt all of that steel. And jet fuel did this? Baloney.

Here''s the link
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm

mhgaffney

10-24-2006, 05:36 AM

Two things I learned over the years when comes to the technical solution . 1 the more complex and increased number of steps involved for something to happen, the more likely it will fail. Especial with things that go boom 2. People are lazy and take the path of least resistance.

Every time you analyze this crap remember those two rules and you can pretty much figure out if it true or not.

You are forgetting the principles of compartmentalization and need-to-know.

Complex operations can be kept secret by compartmentalizing each part of the whole. The only people who know the whole story are the few at the very top. Every one else is in the dark -- they don't see the whole. They are told only what they need to know to accomplish their specific task.

This is standard practice in the military and intelligence communities. It's how the US government has kept so many things secret over the years. It works.

W*GS

10-24-2006, 07:31 AM

The Israelis used computers to develop their nukes -- and accomplished the job with only one known test -- a small one -- in the south Atlantic in conjunction with S Africa. So you are just plain wrong.

The evidence for an Israeli nuke test on the S Atlantic is still questionable.

The US did many tests over the years -- and has a vast archive of data -- and with the supercomputers who knows what they could do?

Supercomputers don't provide better answers - they just provide answers faster. GIGO still applies.

As for why mini nukes, why don't you ask your fearless leader Bush? He's been stumping for them since he took office. (And I mean took)

Wanting and having are two different things - I tell my kids that.

As for 911 -- we are talking about a weapon the size of a briefcase. Very easy to handle and hide. No conventional weapon can compete.

Why bother with a mini-nuke (and all the alleged telltale evidence of its use) when conventional munitions could have worked? Never mind the planes...

gaffney, you're working yourself into a corner with all this flitting about from one untenable argument to another.

Rohirrim

10-24-2006, 07:37 AM

Gaffer, as one human being to another (just imagine my arm around your shoulder). Get some help.

W*GS

10-24-2006, 07:39 AM

These attempts to debunk the seismic spikes are garbage -- BUT on second thought this is very important, because it's instructive. The debunkers always try to link the seismic spikes with the end of the collapse, i.e., when the rubble hits the ground -- instead of the ONSET of the collapse.

Remember we are talking about a difference of just 8-9 seconds. Still, it's a very important 8-9 seconds.

Why doesn't the "spike" at the onset of the collapse show up on the second graph? It more than amply covers the relevant time period.

Another series of graphs from LDEO:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html

Bronco_Beerslug

10-24-2006, 07:41 AM

W*GS

10-24-2006, 07:42 AM

Baloney. As I've stated the use of nukes drastically reduced the number of charges that had to be set in the buildings. It's a key point and you ignore it.

You think you've gotten rid of the problems associated with the conventional demolition nonsense, but all you've done is substitute them with even more difficult problems - you're going backwards.

broncocalijohn

10-24-2006, 01:28 PM

W*GS

10-24-2006, 02:20 PM

(On the oft-feared PNAC missive)

It's incredible how open they are about all of it.

Indeed. Why would this group of such evil men be so blatant?

mhgaffney

10-24-2006, 03:59 PM

Gaffer, as one human being to another (just imagine my arm around your shoulder). Get some help.

Lord of the Rohirrim, thank you for your concern, which I know is sincere. I don't need, help, however, I've never felt better in my life -- and I am confident the facts will bear me out as we go forward with this discussion.

Now I have a request of you. Please read the following amazing interview with David Ray Griffin author of 2 books about 911. His first was THE NEW PEARL HARBOR, which I read and highly recommend. A must read, in fact. His second book is about the 911 Commission -- which is one of the topics of the interview.

Did you know that the man who engineered the 911 Commission Report was the same Bush*te who wrote the 2002 National Security Review that changed the nuclear policy of the US to a first strike policy? Here you have the facade of an independent 911 panel when in fact the man running the investigation, deciding what is to be included and what is to be ignored, is a neo con doing Bush's bidding. His name is Philip Zelikow. It's a disgrace -- yet the press has never mentioned one word about it.

Griffin also discusses the amazing story by Norman Mineta , secretary of transportation, who was in the bunker under the White House on 911 and was right there when the man came in and told Cheney the bogey was coming in toward the pentagon -- 50 miles out -- 40 miles out etc and asks Cheney if the orders still stand. And Cheney turns around and almost chews the guy's head off : "Of course they still stand!!" Meaning: Stand down. Let it hit the pentagon.

And lots more shocking material.

Yet, the US press sleeps on and the American people are clueless.. Check it out. It will change your point of view.

http://wholelifetimes.com/2006/09/griffin0609.html

mhgaffney

10-24-2006, 04:02 PM

Also, how did the stairs survive? If someone set up explosives up ground level, how would they know where the planes would hit? Which floor? Why blow up the buildings if the planes landing inside the WTC WOULD be good enough to fight terrorism? Why the extreme of actually blowing up the buildings.

Most of these questions are answered in Griffin's interview.

I would only add. Griffin is a theologian at the Claremont School down in LA-- and his comments about Christianity are also on the mark. He is exactly right.

http://wholelifetimes.com/2006/09/griffin0609.html

mhgaffney

10-24-2006, 04:07 PM

Your ignorance reaches new heights with every post you make. Only an obsessed individual who is off center would believe the WTCs collapsed at ground level and not from the top down.

You never studied physics, did you? No, and that's a good reason why you should approach 911 with an open mind. And consider it a learning experience.

But all you do is repeat the same old sorry excuse. Same old same old.

Which ends the conversation.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-24-2006, 04:13 PM

You never studied physics, did you? No, and that's a good reason why you should approach 911 with an open mind. And consider it a learning experience.
But all you do is repeat the same old sorry excuse. Same old same old.

Which ends the conversation.
Not past High school but per your posts, it wasn't your major either. But your problem isn't related to education, it's a deficiency in diet, bad drinking water or closed head wound.

mhgaffney

10-24-2006, 04:13 PM

The evidence for an Israeli nuke test on the S Atlantic is still questionable.

The Israeli nuclear test on Sept 22, 1979 is covered in exhaustive detail in my book about the Israeli nuke program, DIMONA THE THIIRD TEMPLE. In fact, the Jack Ruina panel report about the S Atlantic test is included in the book as an appendix. You should check it out.

The investigation was politically controlled -- to arrive at the desired result. Maybe that's why the CIA chief Stansfield Turner viewed it with contempt when he said: "Yes of course there was a test."

The US Vela satellite had never before registered a false positive -- and it indeed saw the explosion.

mhgaffney

10-24-2006, 04:38 PM

Not past High school but per your posts, it wasn't your major either. But your problem isn't related to education, it's a deficiency in diet, bad drinking water or closed head wound.

For the record I own a BS degree in physical science -- though it is true I was always more excited ahout writing than physics class.

I'm still learning, however. Are you?

If so, check out the Griffin interview. He has some profound things to say about the WTC collapse. Did you know that the chief of the NIST Michael Newman has made it known that none of his scientists will defend the NIST report in a public debate?

It's that weak. Newman knows that if his men go up against the 911 truth movement they will have their heads handed to them.

http://wholelifetimes.com/2006/09/griffin0609.html

loborugger

10-24-2006, 04:59 PM

Let me get this straight...

The Johnson admin couldnt bury the fact that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie.

The Nixon admin couldnt bury the Watergate incident.

The Reagan Admin couldnt bury the Iran/Contra affair.

Hell, Clinton couldnt even get a BJ in the oval office without everyone on THE PLANET finding out.

Yet, we are to believe that this admin perpetrated a bigger sin than all of these combined, and has gotten away with it?

What a joke.

And, going back to the Fellatio-gate, its worth noting that was a "conspiracy" of 2. A conspiracy of 2, in the WH, and one talked. But we are to believe that 100s, no 1000s were involved in a conspiracy, and no one has talked.

All the psuedo science, all the facts that are bent, and all the ignored details that dont fit your plan ignore one simple thing. It utterly and completely IGNORES human nature to assume that someone - no, everyone - involved in this conspiracy has kept their mouth shut. No one thought, "hey, I could blackmail Bush with this info." Further, no one has broken from the sin the commited. Deep Throat came forward, couldnt wait to break the silence, tell everyone it was him that busted Nixon. But, yet we are to believe that someone, somewhere, put nuke weapons in the WTC and is sitting silently on it.

And I thought that people who believed in Communisn and that everyone will only take what they need while working as hard as they can is naive.

TheDave

10-24-2006, 05:24 PM

You never studied physics, did you? No, and that's a good reason why you should approach 911 with an open mind. And consider it a learning experience.

Not sure if Slug did or not, but i did. The BS you are posting here is so full of assumptions and an obvious lack of basic physics it's not worth arguing.

Stop while you're behind, this is getting embarrassing...

chadta

10-24-2006, 05:36 PM

this is a joke right ? you guys didnt spend 5 pages talking about the fact that 911 was a bomb , yikes and i thought i had alot of spare time,

anybody wana buy a bridge ? ill give ya a good deal.

TheDave

10-24-2006, 05:36 PM

Did you know that the chief of the NIST Michael Newman has made it known that none of his scientists will defend the NIST report in a public debate?

Thats because reasonable people do not debate with idiots whether the Pyramids were built by aliens, or whether the Earth is flat, or whether Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon, or whether "mini" nukes were used on 9/11.

mhgaffney

10-24-2006, 08:46 PM

and no one has talked.

It utterly and completely IGNORES human nature to assume that someone - no, everyone - involved in this conspiracy has kept their mouth shut.
.

The answer is very simple.

People are afraid.

Of losing their jobs. Their careers. The next promotion.

And yes they are also afraid of being snuffed.

It's so much easier to go along to get along. As they say in the service -- don't make waves. I'm sure you good ol boys understand this very well.

W*GS

10-25-2006, 08:32 AM

Weak, gaffney.

Out of the hundreds, if not thousands, of people necessary for your 9/11 whacko ideas to be true, not a single one, even under fear of death (heh), is willing to take the plunge and give us their story.

Wow.

I vote for the "closed head wound" option, BB.

mhgaffney

10-25-2006, 10:10 AM

Your ignorance reaches new heights with every post you make. Only an obsessed individual who is off center would believe the WTCs collapsed at ground level and not from the top down.

I'm pasting in the below discussion -- which mentions some key facts that should make you realize that the WTC did not fall from the top down. I'll sum up the key points here.

The pools of liquid steel found at the bottom of the elevator shafts had to have melted during the event -- the collapse - not after as some have said. It could not have been paper, carpet, and other compressed burnables that did this for a couple of reasons. First, these materials do not burn hot enough to melt steel -- (2800 F) -- not nearly hot enough. Second, because the pile of compressed rubble itself prevented oxygen from reaching the smoldering fires. Each time the workmen removed beams and other meterial from the pile in the cleanup -- this allowed oxygen in and the fires temporarily would flame up. This is dscussed in a new book about 911, AFTERMATH, by Joel Meyerowitz, a photographer who roamed ground zero for months after the event amassing a photographic record. The ground was so hot it often melted the boots of the workmen. But this was residual heat.

No, the steel must have been melted during the event. Consider the implications of this. What could possibly melt the enormous steel piers at the root of the building? Jet fuel? That's ridicuous. The jet fuel was consumed within 20 minutes up top. Very little of it ever reached the lower floors. In any event jet fuel does not burn hotter than 1520 F -- not nearly hot enough even at the worst to melt steel.

Therefore some other vastly greater energy source must have been present at the time of collapse to produce all of that liquid steel. Add to this the video evidence that the N tower's communications mast moved first -- indicating that the central support of the building failed first.

Then ponder the remark (below) by the president of Controlled Demolition Inc Mark Loizeaux, who said that if he were going to bring the tower down he would first cut the 47 piers at it central root. Well, use your imagination -- you know -- that mysterious space between your ears.

"MOLTEN STEEL"
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm

In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the debris from the site.

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland, for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures."

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius). Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel."

Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement."

Kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, however, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.

Eric Hufschmid, author of a book about the WTC collapse, Time for Painful Questions, told AFP that due to the lack of oxygen, paper and other combustibles packed down at the bottom of elevator shafts would probably be "a smoky smoldering pile."

Experts disagree that jet-fuel or paper could generate such heat. This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons like jet-fuel, burning in air is 1520° F (825° C). Because the WTC fires were fuel rich (as evidenced by the thick black smoke) it is argued that they did not reach this upper limit of 825° C.

The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basements. Five days after the collapse, on September 16, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site's hot spots. Dozens of hot spots were mapped, the hottest being in the east corner of the South Tower where a temperature of 1377° F (747° C) was recorded. This is, however, less than half as hot at the molten steel in the basement.

The foundations of the twin towers were 70 feet deep. At that level, 47 huge box columns, connected to the bedrock, supported the entire gravity load of the structures. The steel walls of these lower box columns were 4 inches thick.

CENTRAL COLUMNS SEVERED

Videos of the North Tower collapse show its communication mast falling first, indicating that the central support columns must have failed at the very beginning of the collapse. Loizeaux told AFP, "Everything went simultaneously."

"At 10:29 the entire top section of the North Tower had been severed from the base and began falling down," Hufschmid writes. "If the first event was the falling of a floor, how did that progress to the severing of hundreds of columns?"

Asked if the vertical support columns gave way before the connections between the floors and the columns, Ron Hamburger, a structural engineer with the FEMA assessment team said, "That's the $64,000 question."

Loizeaux said, "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."

baja

10-25-2006, 10:18 AM

Well mhgaffney that last post was troubling. Wonder if there will ever be a real investigation. At this point would it do more harm than good to know the truth?

W*GS

10-25-2006, 10:23 AM

"Pools" of liquid steel explained:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm#molten

No "mini" nukes required.

baja

10-25-2006, 10:34 AM

bendog

10-25-2006, 10:50 AM

Gaffer, as one human being to another (just imagine my arm around your shoulder). Get some help.

You can get banned for saying stuff like that.

GonzoLays

10-25-2006, 11:58 AM

Face it bro, your recruit is making a fool of himself in this forum. It might be better for you to start distancing yourself from him at this point.

Coming from the biggest clown on this board, that is one hell of a statement.

mhgaffney

10-25-2006, 11:59 AM

"Pools" of liquid steel explained:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm#molten

No "mini" nukes required.

Well, the author is correct about several things. I agree that thermate (or thermite) is ruled out as a cause of the molten steel found in the basement. The piers under the building were so massive that thermate could not cut through them in the required short time frame and with certain results.

Your author is right when he states: "The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount."

Very very large amounts of thermate would have been required -- impossible to hide. Yes, I agree.

In fact, I have not argued in this thread that thermate was used to cut the main piers.

Your author's rust theory is loony, as Baja has pointed out. I suppose the 50 ton steel press in the WTC basement just rusted away in the blink of en eye during the event? Or maybe a thief dug through the wreckage when no one was looking and carted it away?

Ask yourself: what could melt or vaporize a 50 ton steel press in a matter of a few seconds?

BTW thanks for that link. Its a doozy -- one to flag for future reference.

Rohirrim

10-25-2006, 12:50 PM

If you saw a lumberjack striking a tree with an axe, and you subsequently saw the tree fall, would you reason that the lumberjack had felled the tree, or would you look for ulterior reasons? And why?

Spider

10-25-2006, 12:53 PM

"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

Why didn't I think of that, the WTC rusted really fast thus bringing it down.
Stack of hey same way .......... though fires are rare(pop bottle Rockets can get a stack going pretty good DONT ASK;D ) , they can happen .......
Plenty of times I have opened up a Bail of hey and seen smoke and felt heat ....................

TheDave

10-25-2006, 01:05 PM

Bronco_Beerslug

10-25-2006, 01:10 PM

If you saw a lumberjack striking a tree with an axe, and you subsequently saw the tree fall, would you reason that the lumberjack had felled the tree, or would you look for ulterior reasons? And why?
Absolutely, since I don't trust the U.S. government, I would immediately assume that this was some type of mirage, ploy, plot, etc... (see story on new cloaking device) to trick me into believing what I just seen happen with my own eyes didn't happen at all.

baja

10-25-2006, 01:15 PM

Stack of hey same way .......... though fires are rare(pop bottle Rockets can get a stack going pretty good DONT ASK;D ) , they can happen .......
Plenty of times I have opened up a Bail of hey and seen smoke and felt heat ....................

yes I know about hay bale combustion but I doubt it could melt 4 inch steel beams

W*GS

10-25-2006, 01:17 PM

Your author's rust theory is loony, as Baja has pointed out.

Pity you missed the joke.

Ask yourself: what could melt or vaporize a 50 ton steel press in a matter of a few seconds?

Why does it have to be a "few seconds"?

What evidence do you have that shows that this 50t press was fine, and a few seconds later, was melted and/or vaporized?

Clearly the exothermic nature of iron oxidation is lost on you.

baja

10-25-2006, 01:17 PM

Spider

10-25-2006, 01:18 PM

yes I know about hay bale combustion but I doubt it could melt 4 inch steel beams

;D melted the shed ...........

Spider

10-25-2006, 01:19 PM

baja

10-25-2006, 01:19 PM

So that was your motive...

No trips with dad and his belt to the shed if there is no shed.

Spider

10-25-2006, 01:22 PM

So that was your motive...

No trips with dad and his belt to the shed if there is no shed.:~ohyah!:

Rohirrim

10-25-2006, 01:30 PM

Absolutely, since I don't trust the U.S. government, I would immediately assume that this was some type of mirage, ploy, plot, etc... (see story on new cloaking device) to trick me into believing what I just seen happen with my own eyes didn't happen at all.

But they would have to have a motive, unless they're just flat-out psycho killers. Why would the "government" or let's say, the neocons, want to bring down the WTC?

To invade Afghanistan? We already knew Al Queda ordered the Cole and the African embassy bombings and an attempted bombing of the USS Sullivan. We knew the Taliban were harboring Al Queda. Clinton had already fired missiles at Al Queda training areas. We didn't need any other excuse to attack the Taliban. We already had all we needed.

To invade Iraq? The President and his cabal lied us into Iraq. The Al Queda connection was part of the lie, but not all of it. The legalistic argument was based on Saddam's refusal to abide by UN sanctions and WMDs. The WTC argument wasn't absolutely necessary.

Finally, if this was all a government plot, why did Flight 93 crash in a Pennsylvania field?

Bronco_Beerslug

10-25-2006, 01:36 PM

But they would have to have a motive, unless they're just flat-out psycho killers. Why would the "government" or let's say, the neocons, want to bring down the WTC?

To invade Afghanistan? We already knew Al Queda ordered the Cole and the African embassy bombings and an attempted bombing of the USS Sullivan. We knew the Taliban were harboring Al Queda. Clinton had already fired missiles at Al Queda training areas. We didn't need any other excuse to attack the Taliban. We already had all we needed.

To invade Iraq? The President and his cabal lied us into Iraq. The Al Queda connection was part of the lie, but not all of it. The legalistic argument was based on Saddam's refusal to abide by UN sanctions and WMDs. The WTC argument wasn't absolutely necessary.

Finally, if this was all a government plot, why did Flight 93 crash in a Pennsylvania field?
Damn it, how come you're trying to piss on my parade by using logic and common sense Ha!

baja

10-25-2006, 01:37 PM

how about to have an excuse to erode personal freedom and gain power. Nothing motivates people like fear.

I will keep America safe whatever it takes - bush

baja

10-25-2006, 01:41 PM

Just because one looks at conspiracy as a possibility does not mean they embrace the idea that the government was involved. i will never be able to except the current explanation of how building #7 came down. I have no answers but I definitely have questions.

alkemical

10-25-2006, 01:41 PM

Pink Floyd - Mother Lyrics

Mother, do you think they'll drop the bomb?
Mother, do you think they'll like this song?
Mother, do you think they'll try to break my balls?
Ooooowaa Mother, should I build a wall?
Mother, should I run for President?
Mother, should I trust the government?
Mother, will they put me in the firing line?
Ooooowaa Is it just a waste of time?
Hush, my baby. Baby, don't you cry.
Momma's gonna make all of your nightmares come true.
Momma's gonna put all of her fears into you.
Momma's gonna keep you right here under her wing.
She won't let you fly, but she might let you sing.
Momma's gonna keep Baby cozy and warm.
Oooo Babe.
Oooo Babe.
Ooo Babe, of course Momma's gonna help build a wall.
Mother, do you think she's good enough,
For me?
Mother, do you think she's dangerous,
To me?
Mother will she tear your little boy apart?
Ooooowaa Mother, will she break my heart?
Hush, my baby. Baby, don't you cry.
Momma's gonna check out all your girlfriends for you.
Momma won't let anyone dirty get through.
Momma's gonna wait up until you get in.
Momma will always find out where you've been.
Momma's gonna keep Baby healthy and clean.
Oooo Babe.
Oooo Babe.
Ooo Babe, you'll always be Baby to me.
Mother, did it need to be so high?

Rohirrim

10-25-2006, 01:45 PM

But if this was a plot by anyone other than Al Queda, why did Flight 93 crash in that field?

baja

10-25-2006, 01:54 PM

There is evidence that a much smaller plane crashed in that site.

my question is if it was not the flights claimed in both the pentagon and Penn. Then where are the people on those flights.

maybe part to the strategy was to create so many unbelievable scenarios that to doubt the official story would seem ludicrous

alkemical

10-25-2006, 02:03 PM

W*GS

10-25-2006, 02:26 PM

i will never be able to except the current explanation of how building #7 came down. I have no answers but I definitely have questions.

Such as?

Saying "never" while you still have questions is quite rash.

baja

10-25-2006, 02:32 PM

Such as?

Saying "never" while you still have questions is quite rash.

Never in the history of tall steel frame buildings has one crashed to the ground due to fire an several have burned hotter and longer than building #7 and fire is the reason along with some debris that hit the building 12 hours previously. This is what I can never believe. What really happened i do not know.

W*GS

10-25-2006, 02:36 PM

There is evidence that a much smaller plane crashed in that site.

Flight 93 wasn't the first time a jetliner made a relatively small crater when it crashed.

United Flight 585, a 737-200, made only a 39' x 24' crater when it crashed in Colorado Springs in 1991:

http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-ua585.shtml

W*GS

10-25-2006, 02:39 PM

Never in the history of tall steel frame buildings has one crashed to the ground due to fire an several have burned hotter and longer than building #7 and fire is the reason along with some debris that hit the building 12 hours previously. This is what I can never believe.

You do realize that a major chunk of the south face of WTC7 was destroyed by debris from the collapse of WTC1, and that it contained a large amount of diesel fuel?

baja

10-25-2006, 02:44 PM

Flight 93 wasn't the first time a jetliner made a relatively small crater when it crashed.

United Flight 585, a 737-200, made only a 39' x 24' crater when it crashed in Colorado Springs in 1991:

http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-ua585.shtml

Crystal clear cell phone calls in flight from a plane whisking by phone towers in the blink of an eye? One inconsistency you can take but there are so many in the events of 9/11. Steel buildings falling down from a small fire. Terrorist flying planes into buildings exercises being conducted the very same day that 9/11 happened. This and much more give pause to some of us.

mhgaffney

10-25-2006, 03:10 PM

If you saw a lumberjack striking a tree with an axe, and you subsequently saw the tree fall, would you reason that the lumberjack had felled the tree, or would you look for ulterior reasons? And why?

You refer to the planes.

You never saw my previous post? Beerfslugger got it wrong about the 767 exceeding the WTC specs. In fact the 767 is not much bigger than a 707.

A 707 actually had a faster cruising speed -- hence at least as much and probably more kinetic energy on impact.

The WTC was built to withstand a commercial jet flyiing 600+ mph -- wherease the 767 cruises at 500+.

The WTC was vastly overbuilt. Could have survived multiple impacts.

Ergo: the planes had nothing to do with the collapse.

Here's the proof.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

W*GS

10-25-2006, 03:18 PM

A 707 actually had a faster cruising speed -- hence at least as much and probably more kinetic energy on impact.

The WTC was built to withstand a commercial jet flyiing 600+ mph -- wherease the 767 cruises at 500+.

The key point is the kinetic energies of the planes that hit the WTC, not what the cruising speed of a 707 vs. 767 is. That's a red herring.

The WTC was vastly overbuilt. Could have survived multiple impacts.

Ergo: the planes had nothing to do with the collapse.

That's like saying the iceberg had nothing to do with the Titanic sinking.

Did either WTC1 or WTC2 collapse immediately following the planes' impacts? No. Did the Titanic sink immediately after it grazed the iceberg? No.

Did both the planes and the iceberg set into motion a series of events that caused the structures to fail? Yes.

Got that?

mhgaffney

10-25-2006, 03:25 PM

But they would have to have a motive, unless they're just flat-out psycho killers. Why would the "government" or let's say, the neocons, want to bring down the WTC?

Did you check out the PNAC site? The neo cons explain the motive themselves in a key doc, which is still posted there -- for download.

(It didn't come from me. It comes from them.)

REBUILDING AMERICAS DEFENSES
http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

For anyone who can read.

It lays out the agenda for a pax americana: world domination. Plain as day. And it makes the caveat -- well, the American people won't support this without a catalyzing event -- to galvanize the nation -- another Pearl Harbor.

911 was just another in a long series of false flag attacks. Simple as that.

I am well aware of how shocking all of this is.( I'm still in shock myself.) But denial? Sorry, there's no excuse.

Thus far, you are like a rampaging bull reacting to a red flag -- reason, logic, facts going out the window.

mhgaffney

10-25-2006, 03:32 PM

The key point is the kinetic energies of the planes that hit the WTC, not what the cruising speed of a 707 vs. 767 is. That's a red herring.

Got that?

The WTC engineers planned for multiple impacts and for fires due to jet fuel. You didn't even look at the site.The specs were not exceeded on 911.

The buildings survived the impacts. If you want to go on believing the fairy tale that the planes were responsible -- that's your problem.

And it is a big problem, because there are a lot of other anomalies you can't explain: such as the EMP, the seismic spikes, the tritium, the pyroclastic flow etc

W*GS

10-25-2006, 03:35 PM

Did you check out the PNAC site? The neo cons explain the motive themselves in a key doc, which is still posted there -- for download.

Why would a group of such evil men lay out their entire rationale and put it up on the web for the world to see?

Is their arrogance that great, or are you making unwarranted connections?

Occam says the latter.

W*GS

10-25-2006, 03:41 PM

The WTC engineers planned for multiple impacts and for fires due to jet fuel. You didn't even look at the site.The specs were not exceeded on 911.

They planned for the impacts, yes. Not the fires, nor the effect of the impacts on the fire suppression systems and engineering.

The buildings survived the impacts.

The Titanic survived the iceberg. It didn't survive the water pouring in, nor the other aspects of the design that eventually resulted in its sinking.

If you want to go on believing the fairy tale that the planes were responsible -- that's your problem.

You got waaaaay more problems with your mini-nuke whacko nonsense. I do not use the word "theory" on purpose.

And it is a big problem, because there are a lot of other anomalies you can't explain: such as the EMP, the seismic spikes, the tritium, the pyroclastic flow etc

The seismic spikes and the tritium have already been dismissed as evidence of a nuclear weapon. You haven't shown that there was an EMP, and your "pyroclastic flow" evidence is on the ropes.

You remind me soooo much of the whackos from whom I get email from time to time - the ones who think their ideas far surpass and better explain various things better than our current knowledge. They toss in just enough scientific terminology, with a smattering of math, that to a naive eye, they make some sort of sense. A closer examination, however, reveals the truly shallow nature of their knowledge, and the outright blatant errors they make. You are the same.

mhgaffney

10-25-2006, 06:08 PM

Glad that you mentioned the EMP. There's plenty of evidence. Here's an eyewitness account by an emergency medical technician. Patricia Ondrovic worked for the fire department and describes the cars parked on ther street literally exploding into flames. Now what caused this?

Crazed terrorists with molotov cocktails? Problem is, there were no terrorists on the street - only people fleeing for their lives. As they ran away from the WTC the cars were literally bursting into flames in front of their eyes.

Here is powerful evidence of an EMP, which fried the electrical systems in the cars -- causing them to exoplode into flames.

Killtown: What did you do when the South Tower started coming down?

Patricia Ondrovic: I didn't know what was happening, but there was a loud "roar" -- lots of crashing sounds. I was attempting to put my stretcher back into the vehicle. The ground was shaking and I saw a sea of people, mostly the various agencies on scene, Fire, Police, EMS, all running towards me. I had no idea what they were running from, but I decided I'd be ahead of them and just started running west towards the river. As I was running, parked cars were blowing up and some were on fire, the street was cracking a bit as well. Very shortly after I started running, everything became one big black cloud. I was near the West Side Highway and I couldn't see around me anymore.

KT: Before you heard the loud rumbling which was the South Tower coming down, do you remember hearing any strange noises like gunfire or crackling sounds?

PO: No.

KT: You talked about the cars blowing up in your WTC Task Force interview, correct?

PO: Yes.

KT: Can you estimate how many vehicles blew up around you?

PO: At least three and some were on fire as I was running by. I was still on the south side of Vesey running west. The burning cars were between my ambulance and about the middle of the 6 World Trade where the lobby doors were at.

KT: Where you running on the street, or up the sidewalk?

PO: Up the sidewalk.

KT: When these vehicles blew up, was it kind of like what you would see in the movies where the vehicle pops up in the air when it explodes with a fireball coming out?

PO: I remember parts flying off -- I think I got hit with a car door. I remember they were also on fire, but I don't specifically recall the movie type fireball, but there was a loud bang as the door flew off the one car I was running past.

KT: Do you have any idea what was causing these vehicles to catch on fire and/or explode? Was the air temperature really hot as you were running by these cars?

PO: I don't know what was causing them to blow up. I didn't know at the time that I was trying to outrun a skyscraper falling on me, but after I found out what I ran from. I figured it was the impact of the building falling and residual effect. I am not an engineer, so I can only guess at a probable cause. I don't remember feeling any extreme heat.

KT: Could you tell if the vehicles blowing up on the street were only parked next to the WTC 6?

PO: I was only paying attention to my immediate surroundings, if there were any vehicles not near me blowing up, I wasn't aware of them, just the ones closest to me.

KT: What type of vehicles were they (cars, SUVs, trucks -- civilian, non-civilian) that were on fire or had blown up?

PO: They were unmarked cars, most likely privately owned. I didn't see any SUVs, trucks or any "official" vehicles on fire.

KT: Were these cars all parked next to each other?

PO: They were parallel parked. There was no discernable order to what was on fire. It was all very chaotic.

mhgaffney

10-25-2006, 06:08 PM

oops here's the link.
http://911review.org/Wget/Killtown/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.html

Rohirrim

10-25-2006, 06:26 PM

Did you check out the PNAC site? The neo cons explain the motive themselves in a key doc, which is still posted there -- for download.

(It didn't come from me. It comes from them.)

REBUILDING AMERICAS DEFENSES
http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

For anyone who can read.

It lays out the agenda for a pax americana: world domination. Plain as day. And it makes the caveat -- well, the American people won't support this without a catalyzing event -- to galvanize the nation -- another Pearl Harbor.

Isn't it ironic that bin Laden had the same motivations? He wanted the U.S. to invade Afghanistan. When the embassy bombings didn't get the reaction he wanted, he ordered the Cole. When the Cole didn't work, he ordered the WTC. He even stated that with his engineering and heavy construction knowledge, he assumed the buildings would collapse down to the level where the jets entered the buildings. That's why he told the pilots to try and go in as low as possible. There are reasons to fear the madness of the Bush cabal. Adding blame for 911, other than negligence, is over the top.

911 was just another in a long series of false flag attacks. Simple as that.

I am well aware of how shocking all of this is.( I'm still in shock myself.) But denial? Sorry, there's no excuse.

Thus far, you are like a rampaging bull reacting to a red flag -- reason, logic, facts going out the window.

And here I thought that it was me being the logical one and you being the paranoid.
:welcome:

mhgaffney

10-25-2006, 06:37 PM

Here's that photo again. Scroll to the bottom. A whole parking lot of burned out cars.

What did this? Crazed Arabs? No, an EMP.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake.html

mhgaffney

10-25-2006, 06:44 PM

That's why he [bin Laden] told the pilots to try and go in as low as possible. There are reasons to fear the madness of the Bush cabal. Adding blame for 911, other than negligence, is over the top.

And here I thought that it was me being the logical one and you being the paranoid.
:welcome:

Look, I honestly don't know who was in those planes. And frankly, at this point its a secondary question.

As David Ray Griffin points out in the interview -- did you bother to read it? -- given the distance of the hole in the side of the pentagon from the ground -- the engines of a 757, which hang below the wing, would have dragged in the lawn and thus, would have left visible ruts as the plane hit the building.

But hey, nothing. The lawn was untouched.

This lone detail refutes the official 911 story. One key detail and the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

Did you even bother to read it, Dufus?

DBruleU

10-25-2006, 06:56 PM

Well Gaff, I must say, you have definitely turned me into a believer. You have unbelievable, and irrefutable evidence. You are truly a hero for exposing this simple, yet extremely complex conspiracy. God speed mate.

24champ

10-25-2006, 07:02 PM

What did this? Crazed Arabs? No

So we don't need to get Osama Bin Laden then? Right-o buddy.:thumbs:

Everything is Israels fault- Check

American Goverment took down the WTC- Check

Crazed Arabs are not responsible- Check

I must say Gaff you make LABF look sane on this forum and thats sayin something.

mhgaffney

10-25-2006, 07:37 PM

So we don't need to get Osama Bin Laden then? Right-o buddy.:thumbs:

Everything is Israels fault- Check

American Goverment took down the WTC- Check

Crazed Arabs are not responsible- Check

I must say Gaff you make LABF look sane on this forum and thats sayin something.

Thanks, Champ.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-25-2006, 08:10 PM

I must say Gaff you make LABF look sane on this forum and thats sayin something.

An unrepentant supporter of the debacle that is the bush administration believes he's qualified to assess the sanity of others?

Bwwwwaaaaaahahahaha! ROFL!

What a riot. Ha!

http://www.bartcop.com/inside-job.jpg

24champ

10-25-2006, 08:12 PM

Thanks, Champ.

No problem.:stupid:

DBruleU

10-25-2006, 08:15 PM

No problem.:stupid:

haha. Poor Gaff.

W*GS

10-25-2006, 09:36 PM

Here's that photo again. Scroll to the bottom. A whole parking lot of burned out cars.

What did this? Crazed Arabs? No, an EMP.

In the real instances of an EMP with which I'm familiar, cars spontaneously bursting into flame from their electrical systems being "zapped" is something I've never read about.

Besides, assuming the "mini nukes" were somewhere in one of the WTC basement levels, how would the EMP pass through the surrounding earth, concrete, and so on, to "zap" cars sitting on the surface some distance away? Why did we see damaged fire trucks and other vehicles, closer to the WTC, with their lights still on and flashing? Wouldn't they have been "zapped" too?

Let's see...

Seismic spikes - dismissed.
"Pyroclastic" flows - questionable and readily explicable.
EMP - on the ropes.
Elevated tritium levels - dismissed.

Your evidence for "mini nukes" is rapidly eroding, gaffney.

SteveTensi13

10-26-2006, 01:33 AM

You are all wrong! I have it under good information that what brought the towers down was actually a UFO under cloaking device concealment and it used a very advanced heat ray! Dont believe me? Just read for yourself!!

http://www.I'magullibledumbass.com/

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-26-2006, 02:24 AM

http://www.I'magullibledumbass.com/

Couldn't have picked a better name for your homepage.

Rohirrim

10-26-2006, 07:12 AM

Look, I honestly don't know who was in those planes. And frankly, at this point its a secondary question.

As David Ray Griffin points out in the interview -- did you bother to read it? -- given the distance of the hole in the side of the pentagon from the ground -- the engines of a 757, which hang below the wing, would have dragged in the lawn and thus, would have left visible ruts as the plane hit the building.

But hey, nothing. The lawn was untouched.

This lone detail refutes the official 911 story. One key detail and the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

Did you even bother to read it, Dufus?

Dufus is usually spelled "Doofus." Adios, cupcake.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-26-2006, 07:27 AM

Dufus is usually spelled "Doofus." Adios, cupcake.

FireFox is so cool (right clicking on "Doofus" gets this...)

1. doofus

Someone who hasn't got a clue!
They live in blissful ignorance of the world, fashion, personal hygiene and social skills.

Invariably laughs like a baboon being repeatedly punched.

alkemical

10-26-2006, 08:15 AM

In the real instances of an EMP with which I'm familiar, cars spontaneously bursting into flame from their electrical systems being "zapped" is something I've never read about.

Besides, assuming the "mini nukes" were somewhere in one of the WTC basement levels, how would the EMP pass through the surrounding earth, concrete, and so on, to "zap" cars sitting on the surface some distance away? Why did we see damaged fire trucks and other vehicles, closer to the WTC, with their lights still on and flashing? Wouldn't they have been "zapped" too?

Let's see...

Seismic spikes - dismissed.
"Pyroclastic" flows - questionable and readily explicable.
EMP - on the ropes.
Elevated tritium levels - dismissed.

Your evidence for "mini nukes" is rapidly eroding, gaffney.

yeah from my own work with EMP's a car on fire is not very likley.

alkemical

10-26-2006, 08:17 AM

Why would a group of such evil men lay out their entire rationale and put it up on the web for the world to see?

Is their arrogance that great, or are you making unwarranted connections?

Occam says the latter.

Do you think "W" shaved with Occam's Razor when he threw jokes around like his "dictator" comment?

I mean, i guess my question is - would a dictator need to wear a kahki suit to be a dictator?

Spider

10-26-2006, 08:17 AM

Hasnt the myth busters done anything with this yet ? ;D

alkemical

10-26-2006, 08:24 AM

You do realize that a major chunk of the south face of WTC7 was destroyed by debris from the collapse of WTC1, and that it contained a large amount of diesel fuel?

WTC7 then be the only steel structure that was felled due to fire. Even when building(s) in spain, here, etc burnt up to 12hrs without collapsing. I understand that there are %'s that are played.... But to play with those %'s you also have to accept a broader range of %'s that would happen as well. So in the case of WT7, if you were to accept that diesel fuel which burns at a heat rate that can A) weaken steel, but B) isn't hot enough to melt steel, and C) no steel structure was felled before due to fire - you'd also have to start accepting the probability that what you make "think" as improbable - could infact be very much in the % of things that "COULD" happen.

One reason 9/11 is so much a 'hot topic' - is that i think more people than not don't trust the gov't. (I'd probably say a good 35%). So the root of the cause isn't so much the 'conspriacists' - but what and why doesn't fit with the 911 commission's report on 911.

I mean really - the 9/11 commish's report basically states that all this 'randomness' magically 'worked' for 9/11. If, if if - that's the case - maybe we should really examine why then - the universe allowed all the randomness to be allowed to happen to "us". Maybe Fallwell is right when he said god hates us.....

mhgaffney

10-26-2006, 09:51 AM

Last night, I finally got to the bottom of the story of the 50 ton steel press -- and I discovered this byte of information has been misunderstood -- and misinterpreted by many people, including myself.

This was evidently a 50 ton hydraulic press in the WTC basement -- that achieved 50 tons of pressure. Many machine shoops have them. In fact I have used one myself. But the press itself probably weighed no more than 500 pounds. Therefore, it's unexplained disappearance is less dramatic than has been suggested.

The retraction of one data point, however, in no way alters the 911 equation. Other evidence that mini nukes were used on 911 remains valid.

As for the EMP, this is not a simple phenomenon. It's effects have been compared with those related to lightning strikes -- yet also different. You can't see an EMP for example. There is no doubt that an EMP can generate extremely high voltages. Electrical wiring will pick up currents that can easily overload and destroy electrical equipment that is not "hardened".

The range of EMP effect associated with a tiny underground nuclear explosion would be small -- less than a mile. I'm still waiting for someone to provide an alternative explanation why hundreds of cars parked blocks away from the WTC -- and otherwise unaffected by the collapse -- would suddenly burst into flames. Entire parking lots were affected. It has never been explained -- and remains powerful evidence for an EMP on 911.

mhgaffney

10-26-2006, 09:52 AM

We've all seen cars burned out by electrical fires. This is what happened on 911.

alkemical

10-26-2006, 10:10 AM

MHG,

have you ever set off an EMP?

If an EMP was setup off that effect 'cars' - X blocks away - it wouldn't be just cars. Power lines, phone lines, buildings, etc - would all have to have the cabling infastructure replaced. Since the EMP you are describing would be a 'radient' and not a 'directed' emp strike.

I won't go into it further on an internet message board MHG - but trust me on this.

mhgaffney

10-26-2006, 10:38 AM

WTC7 then be the only steel structure that was felled due to fire. Even when building(s) in spain, here, etc burnt up to 12hrs without collapsing. I understand that there are %'s that are played.... But to play with those %'s you also have to accept a broader range of %'s that would happen as well. So in the case of WT7, if you were to accept that diesel fuel which burns at a heat rate that can A) weaken steel, but B) isn't hot enough to melt steel, and C) no steel structure was felled before due to fire - you'd also have to start accepting the probability that what you make "think" as improbable - could infact be very much in the % of things that "COULD" happen.

The WTC burned for about an hour. The Windsor Tower in Madrid burned for 20 hours, yet never collapsed. A couple of floors at the top of the tower gave way -- but the building survived.

Here's a link with a photo of the fire in Madrid. It was much hotter than the WTC fires.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm

If you scroll down you will also see a comparison of the WTC collapse and an underground nuclear explosion. Notice that in both cases material is being thrown up and out -- the signature of an explosion.

A gravitational collapse could not do this.

mhgaffney

10-26-2006, 10:44 AM

alkemical

10-26-2006, 10:56 AM

I am aware that cables can be destroyed -- melted and fused together by an EMP. At the moment I am searching for more on this.

no, not just 'metled or destroyed' - in a sense that it's just heat - it can do some structural items to the a cable that may look ok - but the current is now altered on the cable - rendering communication useless....

I also am now aware that an EMP and an Ebomb are two different things. So i may have thought some toys were EMP's and they were ebombs.

Devices that are susceptible to this type of damage, from most to least vulnerable:

Integrated circuits (ICs), CPUs, silicon chips
Transistors
Vacuum Tubes (also known as thermionic valves)
Inductors, motors

mhgaffney

10-30-2006, 12:41 AM

mhgaffney

10-30-2006, 12:43 AM

oops here's the second link
http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/24248.htm

W*GS

10-30-2006, 07:39 AM

You might recall -- we all saw the second impact on 911 -- the Boeing slamming into the south tower. The video clearly shows that a piece of the plane went right on through the towr and out the outher side. This was one of the plane engines -- which landed on Murray Sreet 3 blocks away.

OK so far.

Analysis of this engine holds the potential to positively identify what hit the south tower. Yet I could find no mention of this key piece of evidence in the 911 Commission Report. The report has no index -- so it's hard to use -- and indeed the report itself is a piece of grandstanding about bin Laden and Al Qaeda -- not a serious investigation.

Whatever you say.

Have you actually read the entire report? You do know that the entire thing, plus additional material, is on the web, and thus readily searchable by any decent PDF client.

What became of the engine? No one seems to know. But we do have excellent photos taken on 911. An airline mechanic who works on 767 engines says it's not from a 767 -- no, it's an engine from a Boeing 737, a smaller plane. Notice, this puts a serious wrinkle in the official line (repeated on this board by Beerslugger and others) that the larger 767 exceeded the WTC's specs, etc etc (itself a fallacious argument in any event)

Some errors here. The final dispensation of the engine from Flight 175 (or what you basically state was not Flight 175 but some other plane) isn't really important.

One airline mechanic's opinion rates as more credible than the literally hundreds of videos and photos that clearly show Flight 175, a 767, hitting the south tower. OK.

The impact of a 767 didn't exceed the impact specifications of the WTC - if it had, the building would have collapsed very shortly thereafter. It did not collapse from the impact alone - the impact damage plus the widespread fires made it collapse.

The mechanic's conclusion is corroborated by analysis of an original video from 911 filmed by the Canadian News Service. The footage was used in a French movie. A former Bush*te saw the film, became curious, then tracked down the original video. He claims it clearly shows a 737 -- not a 767.

One film apparently shows a 737, and it alone is more credible than the hundreds of other videos and photos that show a 767?

You're cherry-picking your "evidence"...

yet another key piece of evidence shoots down the official 911 conspiracy theory.

Let's assume it was a 737 that struck the south tower, "napalm bombs" attached or not. So what happened to the real Flight 175, the 767?

You're running into the exact same problem when your fellow whackos assert that it wasn't Flight 77 that struck the Pentagon - what happened to the real plane and its passengers? I've never read anything even remotely credible that explains that wee problem. By claiming that a 737 struck the south tower, you've just landed yourself in an analogous pile o' problems.

Do you really think about the implications of what you claim, or do you just rush headlong, breathlessly, into posting this stuff without giving consideration to the what follows logically? Sheesh.

mhgaffney

10-30-2006, 12:12 PM

Have you actually read the entire report?

Some errors here. The final dispensation of the engine from Flight 175 (or what you basically state was not Flight 175 but some other plane) isn't really important.

One airline mechanic's opinion rates as more credible than the literally hundreds of videos and photos that clearly show Flight 175, a 767, hitting the south tower. OK.

The impact of a 767 didn't exceed the impact specifications of the WTC - if it had, the building would have collapsed very shortly thereafter. It did not collapse from the impact alone - the impact damage plus the widespread fires made it collapse.

One film apparently shows a 737, and it alone is more credible than the hundreds of other videos and photos that show a 767?

Let's assume it was a 737 that struck the south tower. So what happened to the real Flight 175, the 767?

You're running into the exact same problem when your fellow whackos assert that it wasn't Flight 77 that struck the Pentagon - what happened to the real plane and its passengers?

Do you really think about the implications of what you claim? Sheesh.

I have a copy of the 911 commission report and do read parts -- I dip into it as needed. Have you tried reading it cover to cover? It will put you to sleep in 5 minutes or less.

Mindboggling that you think the engine found on Murray St is not important. What are you, brain dead? The engine is one of the most important pieces of forensic data from 911!

So what happened to it? Why did the NIST report barely mention it? The engine should have been subjected to forensic analysis to confirm it is indeed from a 767. And by the way, can you tell a 767 from a 737 at a distance? Correct me if I'm wrong -- but both planes have windswept wings, a similar fuselage, and a single engine below the wing on each side.

As for the actual flight 11 and flight 175 - I have no idea. That is a separate question. Let's get confirmation first that the second impact was in fact a 767. The engine could do that.

But of course a nation that hangs on every word of the great leader won't think such thoughts.

mhgaffney

10-30-2006, 12:13 PM

PS. the 737 is considerably smaller.

W*GS

10-30-2006, 01:22 PM

I have a copy of the 911 commission report and do read parts -- I dip into it as needed. Have you tried reading it cover to cover?

I have read it all the way through. I didn't find it boring in the slightest.

Mindboggling that you think the engine found on Murray St is not important. What are you, brain dead? The engine is one of the most important pieces of forensic data from 911!

Only to people who think a 737 instead of a 767 hit the south tower.

So what happened to it? Why did the NIST report barely mention it? The engine should have been subjected to forensic analysis to confirm it is indeed from a 767.

It was from a 767. Unless you can show that another plane, not a 767, preferably invisible, hit the south tower at the exact same time and the engine in question came from that plane, instead of 175.

And by the way, can you tell a 767 from a 737 at a distance?

Easily. Compare a 737:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/images/exteriorPassenger.gif

with a 767:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/images/767exteriors.jpg

A 767 is quite a bit larger than a 737. The hundreds of photos and videos taken of the plane hitting the south tower show it very clearly to be a 767.

As for the actual flight 11 and flight 175 - I have no idea. That is a separate question.

One that completely undermines the "something other than witnessed hit those buildings" whacko ideas.

Let's get confirmation first that the second impact was in fact a 767. The engine could do that.

We don't need the engine to show that Flight 175, which hit the south tower, was a 767. Period.

I'm a little bummed I was unaware of the three great 9/11 whackos being in town to deliver their whacked-out ideas:

http://www.colorado911visibility.org

I missed it. It would have been good for a laugh at Jones, Ryan, and Barrett.

alkemical

10-30-2006, 02:12 PM

My whole issue is:

I don't buy the 911 commish's report - because there's about 20% of it i am not able to buy. I don't believe the gov't really has much vested interest in any real truth since there's been no real investigation. It's been reduced to an 'argument from/of authority' war.

Now - the good thing with alot of anti-gov't 911 seekers - is that some of these are most def. false. The good point about learning that though - is that you begin to see what is probable.

Which brings me back to my 20%. I still have not been able to find anything that can sway me on that chunk.

While i do believe something/someone more nefarious than islamic jhiadists who (if you take the flight instructors merits) couldn't really fly (and some discussion on how easy it would be to fly a plane once it's in flight - but unless anyone one of us are able to do so - i think the point in some ways is moot) - i am not able to say "whom" is responsible.

I do question the links though between some gov't officials and officials from elsewhere as well as some ties to different corporations.

But all in all - the whole situation for me - is that A) Planes hit WTC 1/2, B) A Plane hit the pentagon.

But beyond that - the rest is in question.

mhgaffney

10-30-2006, 09:42 PM

It was from a 767. Unless you can show that another plane, not a 767, preferably invisible, hit the south tower at the exact same time and the engine in question came from that plane, instead of 175.

Easily. Compare a 737:
.

Yes, I did and for once W*gs I agree with you.

I studied both planes -- side by side -- and even the smallest 767 is 25-30 feet longer than the largest 737. The size difference is very marked -- and I believe does make it possible to tell these planes apart -- even at a diistance.

So this latest report is a false alarm. The engine that hit the street was from a 767.

BTW I am deep into the NIST report. The NIST never even tried to explain the molten steel in the WTC basement. And their metallurgical study showed that the WTC was stronger than expected. 87% of the steel samples they tested exceeded specs. Which rules out a global collapse in a mere hour due to heat induced buckling etc. It didn't happen.

More to come on this.

mhgaffney

10-30-2006, 09:43 PM

the metallurgical study is the crux of the crux.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-30-2006, 11:01 PM

Which rules out a global collapse in a mere hour due to heat induced buckling etc. It didn't happen.

Yep.

Anyone who's not too hysterical to look at the evidence understands this by now.

baja

10-31-2006, 04:47 AM

Ever wonder why Daddy Bush is never seen with Jr.? Maybe he knows something appaling.

W*GS

10-31-2006, 07:12 AM

Anyone who's not too hysterical to look at the evidence understands this by now.

Since when did you do some real research? You never have, on any topic. That's why you're a total fool so damned often.

W*GS

10-31-2006, 07:21 AM

So this latest report is a false alarm. The engine that hit the street was from a 767.

Duh.

BTW I am deep into the NIST report. The NIST never even tried to explain the molten steel in the WTC basement.

Oxidation is an exothermic reaction - consider the billions of gallons of water dumped onto the pile of wreckage. When it reaches the hot steel, it turns to steam, which only increases the speed of the reaction.

And their metallurgical study showed that the WTC was stronger than expected. 87% of the steel samples they tested exceeded specs.

That's part of the reason neither tower collapsed shortly after impact by the planes.

Which rules out a global collapse in a mere hour due to heat induced buckling etc. It didn't happen.

Wrong. Neither tower was designed to withstand the cumulative effects of impact, fire, and damage to the fireproofing by impact. Consider the weight of the volume of the tower above the impact zones, and the damage done to the weight-bearing structures by the combination of the impact and the fires. The fact that the south tower collapsed first, even though it was struck second, fits. Period.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-31-2006, 07:45 AM

And their metallurgical study showed that the WTC was stronger than expected. 87% of the steel samples they tested exceeded specs. Which rules out a global collapse in a mere hour due to heat induced buckling etc. It didn't happen.

More to come on this.

No sh*t?? WOW!!!! Who could have ever guessed that steel manufacturers made steel columns and trusses for the WTCs that EXCEEDED specs?

The composition of the alloyed mild steel used in columns and trusses for steel buildings varies little from structure to structure (as I explained in the original fairy tale thread that you DIDN'T read). And a lot of steel used in the WTCs was manufactured in Japan as well as domestically but it matters not as ALL steel used in steel structures in the U.S. MUST meet or EXCEED specifications.
ASTM specifiactions A36 - A572 basically all have the same basic steel properties, melting points, etc...with different yield points.

You remind me of a chicken with it's head cut off, running in circles with no real place to go.

mhgaffney

10-31-2006, 05:13 PM

You remind me of a chicken with it's head cut off, running in circles with no real place to go.

Beerslugger hurl's insults because he can't handle issues.

He has yet to admit that he was wrong about one of the most important facts pertaining to 911: the matter of the molten steel found on site.

The fact is that neither jet fuel nor anything on site could have melted steel. So how did it get there? This will not go away. W*gs' notion of rust is so far out in Yahoo land it doesn't even deserve a response.

Here's a summary. The notes did not come through. MHG

MOLTEN STEEL FOUND AT GROUND ZERO
a WTC anomaly yet to be explained

Fires burned at the WTC site for many weeks after 911. In fact, it was not until December 19, 2001 that the NYC fire marshall announced that the fires had been extinguished. Infrared photos taken from above by the US Geological Survey documented numerous “hot spots” under the WTC wreckage; and also under WTC 7, with temperatures recorded as high as 1300 F.1

The fires continued even as the cleanup proceeded. The removal of steel beams and debris from the top of the pile allowed oxygen to reach the smoldering fires below, and the flames often flared up, which hampered the work. A photographer, Joel Meyerowitz, noted this phenomenon in his 2006 restrospective book about 911, AFTERMATH. Meyerowitz roamed ground zero for many weeks following the attack, and though police frequently ejected him from the site, he was persistent. Meyerowitz kept returning and eventually amassed an impressive photographic record. He reports that the ground was so hot it sometimes melted the boots of the workmen.

But the first accounts of molten steel came only hours after the attack: from search and rescue teams who were among the first to arrive at ground zero. Sarah Atlas, a member of New Jersey Task Force One Search and Rescue, was one of these emergency responders. Sarah reported molten steel flowing in the pile even as she searched in vain for survivors.2

Some have denied the existence of molten steel at Ground Zero. But there are too many eyewitness accounts to dismiss, including accounts by engineers and other competent professionals who toured the site. One of these, Dr Keith Eaton, Chief Executive of the London-based Institution of Structural Engineers, later wrote in in The Structural Engineer about what he had seen, namely: “molten steel which was still red-hot weeks after the event,” as well as “four-inch thick steel plates sheered and bent in the disaster.”3

A similar account came from Leslie E. Robertson, an engineer who had helped design the WTC, many years before. He is currently a partner at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, a structural consulting firm that on 911 was under contract to the WTC. Robertson wrote: “...as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running.” 4

Public health officials/experts also toured the wreckage. Dr. Allison Geyh was part of such a team from Johns Hopkins. She later wrote that “In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.”5

In fact, the evidence steadily accumulated during the cleanup, as the mountain of debris was removed, piece by piece. Work crews discovered pools of molten steel beneath the pile, where the towers had stood. One such pool was found at the bottom of the elevator shafts. No doubt, these were among the hot spots the USGS had previously detected from above. Some of the pools were not found until 3, 4, even 5 weeks after 911.

Contractors working on-site confirmed the discovery. Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing New York, was one of four contractors engaged by New York City to handle the cleanup. Tully confirmed in an August 2002 interview in the American Free Press that he had seen the molten pools firsthand.6 The same interview also included a statement by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc, who, years before, had ramrodded the cleanup of the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Loizeaux had been called in by Tully to draft the clean-up plan for the the WTC site. Loizeaux said, “Yes, hot spots of molten steel were seen in the basements.” Molten steel was also found under Building 7–––one of the hottest of the hot spots.

The pools of molten steel have never been explained. Loizeaux told the American Free Press that the continuing fires were fueled by “paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they ‘pancaked’ into the basement.” Yet, none of these fires were hot enough to melt steel. Indeed, none of the combustibles in the wreckage burned anywhere near the melting point of construction grade steel beams (2890 °F). As already noted, the smoldering post-collapse fires were for the most part oxygen-starved. The persistence of molten steel under the WTC for many weeks is doubly remarkable, considering that firemen and clean-up crews dumped large amounts of water upon the smoking ruins. The residual heat must have been tremendous.

The Official Reports

In its official report the 911 Commission draws a blank: never once mentioning the pools of molten steel under the WTC.

In its 43-volume report about the WTC collapse released in 2005, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) does indeed mention the pools, but only in passing, to dismiss them. The NIST report not only fails to identify the energy source that melted steel beams and piers under the WTC, it states categorically that NIST inspectors found no evidence of any molten steel at ground zero. Notice, this summary dismissal is directly contradicted by the eyewitness testimony of emergency responders, engineers, health experts, as well as the lead contractors who accomplished the cleanup.7 After brushing aside the issue of molten steel as irrelevant to the WTC collapse, the NIST report goes on to suggest that:

"Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing." (NIST FAQ)

The NIST report never clarifies what the “certain circumstances” might be. Indeed, the statement about “long exposure to combustion” is absurd on its face, given that there was no energy source in the pile of wreckage capable of melting steel. Indeed, the NIST’s conclusion is doubly absurd, since the the hot spots identified by the US geological Survey and the molten pools were surely one and the same. There is no way to avoid the conclusion that the molten steel under the wreckage, as well as the smoldering fires, were a residual product of the 911 event. Something on September 11, 2001 burned hot enough to melt enormous steel piers and beams in the WTC basement. But evidently such a conclusion was too simple or too obvious for the NIST.

When asked about what might have caused the pools of liquid steel Tully suggested that jet fuel might have been responsible. But on this point, at least, the NIST report is surely correct. It’s easy to show that jet fuel was not the causative agent. There is powerful evidence that on 911 burning jet fuel did leak into the WTC elevators moments after each impact, and this leakage probably caused explosions many floors below. A descending fireball apparently reached as far as the WTC 1 Concourse lobby, where heavy doors were blown out and people badly burned. Witnesses saw critically burned people emerging from elevators. Workmen deep in the WTC 1 basement also heard explosions soon after the impact, and even smelled kerosene, i.e., jet fuel. A machine shop was wrecked, as well as a car garage.8

But as serious as these explosions and fires were, jet fuel simply does not burn with sufficient energy to melt steel. Many of the early reports in the US and world media erred in this regard, some mangling the facts as badly as the steel columns in the WTC wreckage. For example, one report on the History Channel, The Anatomy of September 11th, cited James Glantz, a reporter for the New York Times, who claimed that the towers fell because the inferno turned the steel to “licorice.” Another report posted by the BBC on September 13, 2001 quoted so-called experts who argued that the blazing jet fuel melted the central columns, leading to the collapse.9

We should not be surprised by early reports in this vein, since the average journalist has no training in physics. Even so, ignorance of the facts is no excuse. As noted, jet fuel is essentially kerosene, and will not burn in excess of about 1500 °F–––nowhere near the 2890 °F melting point of steel. In fact, the columns of black smoke that poured out of the twin towers on 911 indicate that the WTC fire was diffuse, meaning that much of the fuel burned at much lower temperatures, probably in the 800°F range, or even lower. This was due to the inefficient mixing of oxygen. As we are about to learn, even the NIST conceded that there was nothing–––no combustibles of any kind–––in the WTC capable of melting steel.

MORE TO COME