WMD at WTC

[Einstein700]

I am almost without a doubt the WTC buildings were brought down with explosives, there is no way it would collapse like it did naturally. But even with convential demo. explosives it wouldn't of happened like it did.

there is a new 9/11 eyewitness release coming, I found a clip of it on google video, check it out here:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...9388&q=wtc+wmd

There is 20 strong points that correlate with the use of a mini nuclear device or similiar. If any of you skeptics can dispell those 20 points adequately I would be impressed.

I believe that a small nuclear device or a couple of them would be far more realistic and quite importantly, far more easy to set up than creating the same effect with absurd amounts of planted c4 and cutter charges.

Watch the video, what do you think?

[Raptor Witness]

Interesting piece. All these theories for the molten metal intrigue me. The molten steel has yet to be explained scientifically and nobody is asking the tough questions about this. You can't get a fire that hot without the help of explosives or some unknown reaction.

[twistedbutgiftid]

Originally Posted by Raptor Witness

Interesting piece. All these theories for the molten metal intrigue me. The molten steel has yet to be explained scientifically and nobody is asking the tough questions about this. You can't get a fire that hot without the help of explosives or some unknown reaction.

YES!!!!!

those bastards need to explain the so called "metal melting". the goverment has a thousand questions to answer, and all there answers are basically BS and then they just say,"moving along". and thats end of story. bastards....

[Justice]

No I don’t think they used mini nukes as we know them because it would be hard to ensure that the building came down on it’s footprint and nor do I think the planes were holograms or other ridiculous claims put out by big brother to discredit anyone that questions it being an inside job.

Is big brother playing a little game of divide and concur with us ?

Apparently you only needed ten tons of C4 to pull the towers and a bit of thermite to weaken it in key places first.

From my understanding you can not make conventional micro nukes as you need a minimum amount of fusion material to reach a critical mass and you could not hide the flash or the radiation and the blast would had been a single blast and not a series of blasts as shown in other clips taken on 9/11

I think the reason concrete was turned to dust and such like is because they needed a lot of explosive power to topple the immense structure and plenty of conventional explosive could do this.

Don’t get me wrong the atomic bomb was built when we were going around using steam engines and it would be obvious they have moved on from this but by how much I don’t know.

Whilst true a blast would give out a large amount of magnetic energy and would effect the video cameras, this was not recorded an all the clips taken that day and it would had fried the chips in computers for many miles around the towers from what I understand.

[Einstein700]

Originally Posted by Justice

No I don’t think they used mini nukes as we know them because it would be hard to ensure that the building came down on it’s footprint and nor do I think the planes were holograms or other ridiculous claims put out by big brother to discredit anyone that questions it being an inside job.

just for the record I dont think the planes were holograms..

Is big brother playing a little game of divide and concur with us ?

Wouldn't be the first time

Apparently you only needed ten tons of C4 to pull the towers and a bit of thermite to weaken it in key places first.

I read differently that the amount required would be staggering, especially to create the atomic sized particles. Even 10 tons would take alot of time and manpower to distribute throughout the building, still that does make it more possible.

From my understanding you can not make conventional micro nukes as you need a minimum amount of fusion material to reach a critical mass and you could not hide the flash or the radiation and the blast would had been a single blast and not a series of blasts as shown in other clips taken on 9/11

Well I am not sure about the flash being hidden, but if it were deep inside a building wouldnt that go some way to hiding it? Also, I have seen underground nuclear explosion testing and there were no flashes visible with them.

Also a great point about single blast vs series of blasts, of course one bomb may only make one blast and there were several massive explosions present, which is why i suggest that maybe a series of mini nukes were used, perhaps 4 placed at each corner of the core directed upward, or a series stratigically placed throughout the building including the area the plane should crash into.

Also on the point of making such a device - f it were terrorists who provided the bomb then I seriously doubt they made them, they would of been bought on the black market. We have all heard about Bin Laden and terrorist organizations trying to obtain nuke devices pre 9/11, and reports like that of suitcase nukes disappearing.

I think the reason concrete was turned to dust and such like is because they needed a lot of explosive power to topple the immense structure and plenty of conventional explosive could do this.

perhaps, but if that were entirely true then why don't people just ignore that little fact, why are experts so quick to point out the scale of destruction? I read such pulverization of concrete to atomic sized particles can only be achieved with a few methods.

Don’t get me wrong the atomic bomb was built when we were going around using steam engines and it would be obvious they have moved on from this but by how much I don’t know.

a good point, what I believe though is this was by no means a typical atomic/hydrogen bomb with typical payload, in the last 40 years many advancements have been made in the field of WMD research most of which would be highly top secret. If anything it was an advanced version of type of directable micro nuke, not unlike a directable bunker buster nuke, which could also combine low yield radiation fallout and EMP characteristics.

Whilst true a blast would give out a large amount of magnetic energy and would effect the video cameras, this was not recorded an all the clips taken that day and it would had fried the chips in computers for many miles around the towers from what I understand.

well there appears to be evidence of EMP too, albiet a rather minor EMP. Whos to say these bombs were not taylored for low emission radiation and EMP? Also, EMP and radiation fallout are dependent on whether the blast is airborne or not. A nuclear blast in the atmosphere creates huge amounts of EMP, enough to blackout a large city, however when blasted at ground level or lower the EMP is significantly reduced.

area affected by EMP: http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas...hle/plate5.htm

Also, if you watch that video link i posted above you will see Rick included two different cameras that picked up distortions caused by minor EMP just prior to collapse.


Also check out this page:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm

I thought the nuke idea was absurd to begin with, but as time has gone on it seems more logical that something along these lines were used to annihilate the towers.

[Justice]

Einstein700

you may well be correct in what you say and i did find out that micro nukes could be as small as 0.01kt and is called a david crochet or something like that.

would you not agree that we do question what each of us say even if we are both on the same side.

Regards

[Einstein700]

Originally Posted by Justice

Einstein700

you may well be correct in what you say and i did find out that micro nukes could be as small as 0.01kt and is called a david crochet or something like that.

would you not agree that we do question what each of us say even if we are both on the same side.

Regards

I am on your side if there is a side, I really don't buy the official story as all the information produced by the media and government agencies for the public is drastically edited and cropped. I would say this is not a destabilizing theory put in place to divide us, more just a debate about the WMD possibilities.

I have looked into all the demo. theories it just seems to me this could be a very simple and logical explaination that, as an operation, could be much easier for a terrorist or government organisation to carry out. Think about that, the complexity of the other theories seems to diverse too much into many variables and unreliable factors that for any of them to go wrong could flaw or ruin the operation.

(Thats not to say WTC annihilation went according to plan)

The more complexity to the operation the more likely things could go wrong if that makes sense, so often the simpliest solution is the best. (I.E rather than a complex setup tons of c4 and cutter charges that takes weeks of prep. just get a few advanced light weight highly powerful bombs taylored to the job that can easily be placed and setup in a few hours)

Not to mention the manpower required, shifting atleast 10 tons of c4 is no joke, just 1 ton would be troublesome for a group of individuals to set up. But just a few bombs the size of suitcases, tennis balls or rucksacks? (who knows!) That would make the operation more realistic for a small group of terrorists to achieve.

[donniedarko]

Good lord, why can't they just get to the point in these videos, they always take so freaking long and try and make it all "dramatic", it just erodes their credibility, if they had any to begin with.

No detected fallout. None. Any thermonuclear device would have left some detectable fallout, no matter how small. Of course, this could be part of the conspiracy, they used some NEW nuke that isn't really a nuke but acts like one, and does all this stuff that they claim. The "thermite theory" was better, I would stick with that.

[Now]

Whatever it was, would we agree that it would need to be a reliable and tested form of controlled demolition? I mean, that's a pretty big job even for the CD guys, and it was rather, shall we say, public? It certainly wouldn't be the time to test out a new method, which might suggest that it was something tried and tested.

Of course, it could have just been fire and that brand new marvel of physics...THE PANCAKE THEORY!!!!

Bahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!

Interesting stuff gentlemen.


Regards, Now.

[Einstein700]

Originally Posted by Now

Whatever it was, would we agree that it would need to be a reliable and tested form of controlled demolition? It certainly wouldn't be the time to test out a new method, which might suggest that it was something tried and tested.

yes i thought this also, surely it would be a tried and tested method as that is how they would know if anything works, but how many bunkers do you know of that have had bunker busting weapons tested on them?

Perhaps they have been used before at test sites. Whats to stop them experimenting and testing iron structures, scaled models or recreated sections of a steel frame like structure, or perhaps gone to foreign locations and experimented with destroyed buildings with such devices, something we may not hear about. Maybe this wasn't the first time it had been used, just the first time we have known about it.

No doubt they would test how well such devices perform against dense metal plates and concrete strutures and how they react, not to forget with computer modelling and simulation of physics getting so good they could of run hundreds of different modelled scenarios on a high end computer.

The military know inside and out the capabilities of their weapons, and exactly what will happen to a particular structure when impacted with any of their weapons, they need to, thats part of their job. And whats more that sort of information may sometimes leak to foriegn military sources, if you have heard about the amount of times the military get their networks hacked and the amount of double agents and spies that are in the system its no wonder some of their top secrets are sprawled across the net.

[Now]

Yes, true enough that it is certainly possible that a lot of testing could have been done out of the public eye. As we already know, there were power downs in the towers 3 days before 9/11, giving plenty of opportunity for the setup, particularly if it were the case that some more recent, more efficient form of explosive device were to be used for the demolition. It is also possible that different forms of explosive were used for different purposes. The underground explosions to which eye witnesses testified which occurred as the planes impacted in each respective tower may have been more conventional stuff, and the later explosions used to pulverize the buildings into sub 100 micron dust may have been a completely different explosive technology.

Either way, it will be interesting to see the whole movie. It is amusing to hear someone complaining about how "dramatic" these kinds of presentations are when we consider how "dramatic" this particular false flag operation was, not to mention the ensuing 72 hour media blackout which extended as far as my homeland in Australia! Now, THAT'S dramatic!

Now.

[Ningishiddza]

Originally Posted by donniedarko

Good lord, why can't they just get to the point in these videos, they always take so freaking long and try and make it all "dramatic", it just erodes their credibility, if they had any to begin with.

No detected fallout. None. Any thermonuclear device would have left some detectable fallout, no matter how small. Of course, this could be part of the conspiracy, they used some NEW nuke that isn't really a nuke but acts like one, and does all this stuff that they claim. The "thermite theory" was better, I would stick with that.

Correct. A nuke is a nuke. Note that 0.01 kt is still 10 TONS of TNT. The largest gravity bomb in the US air force arsenal now is just 3,000 lbs, or 1.5 TONs.

A nuke is simply out of the question. At that level close to Earth, even a 0.01 kt nuke would have produced limited EMP in the surrounding area and that didn't happen.

There was no fireball. The towers would have vaporized, not collapsed, and adjacent buildings with 1 block would have been vaporized or toppled by blast effect. There would have been fallout and dozens of radioactive isotopes that would be the by-products of the fission process with their decay products, each with their own signatures.

[Ningishiddza]

Originally Posted by Einstein700

The more complexity to the operation the more likely things could go wrong if that makes sense, so often the simpliest solution is the best. (I.E rather than a complex setup tons of c4 and cutter charges that takes weeks of prep. just get a few advanced light weight highly powerful bombs taylored to the job that can easily be placed and setup in a few hours)

Not to mention the manpower required, shifting atleast 10 tons of c4 is no joke, just 1 ton would be troublesome for a group of individuals to set up. But just a few bombs the size of suitcases, tennis balls or rucksacks? (who knows!) That would make the operation more realistic for a small group of terrorists to achieve.

That's where you all are wrong. It wouldn't take that much C4, and who says they would have used C4? There are numerous plastic explosvies like baritol and PETN.

Also, it would only be necessary to place explosives in the central core on just a dozen floors, not the whole building. They don't call it controlled demolitions for nothing. Once 6 to 12 floors got started, then the building really would pancake on itself.

Don't forget that Giuliani was standing outside of the south tower just 10 minutes before it collapsed. Someone, and no one is sure who, knew the building was going to collapse and pulled Giuliani away from the building, telling him it was going to collapse. Giuliani left his colleagues, subordinates and friends standing there to die, and die they did. A man like that does not deserve to be president, so I'm sure you'll all vote according in the primaries, if Giuliani runs for president.

This was recorded in a press conference which also mentions the capture of 5 USraeli spies (including 2 Mossad agents) who were caught about 4:00 PM in Liberty Park celebrating the destruction of the WTC. They were seen and reported earlier in the morning parked in an apartment lot complex video taping the event, during which time they were giving Hi-5s, dancing, and other acts of celebration, including holding up lighters like concert-goers do.

[Einstein700]

found another new 9/11 eyewitness clip! It shows clear evidence of the powdering of building yet paper remains intact, which is supposed to be a clear indication of the use of a thermonuclear device

watch this video:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...1221&q=wtc+wmd

Ningishiddza

There was no fireball. The towers would have vaporized, not collapsed, and adjacent buildings with 1 block would have been vaporized or toppled by blast effect.

The building didn't collapse it was mostly annihilated into fine dust particles in 10 seconds flat. The core vaporised, the concrete was pulverised. The building didn't collapse, it was eradicated.

Well didn't the steel vaporize as many videos and images suggest? Steel is supposed to soak up the radiation from the thermonuclear device like a sponge, heating up well beyond melting point to evaporating temperatures, so perhaps the radiation was soaked up by the core leaving little to no trace? I am not sure.

Would normal explosives create the powder and paper effect we see in the 9/11 eyewitness video?

Ningishiddza

There would have been fallout and dozens of radioactive isotopes that would be the by-products of the fission process with their decay products, each with their own signatures.

How about elevated levels of tritium weeks after 9/11? Also Radiation was detected, but this was blamed on the DU used in the planes wings and other devices in the building that contain radioactive elements. They went through the motions that you would expect for decontamination like high pressure water spraying and filling in ground zero with concrete, what about the 200,000 gallon water tanks for the sprinkler systems yet no water in the ruins? There was a localized black out and distortions captured on camera suggesting EMP too..

[mickydoolittle]

Originally Posted by Einstein700

blech

in homage to the title of the thread...

Originally Posted by Adrian Cronauer

Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P.

[2Hybrids]

yeah man - you are so totally right! Also, if you look verrrryyyy carefully at still footage of WTC a fraction of a second before impact of the second plane, you'll see the UFO (probably flown by govt agents) guiding the plane in.

....it was flown by Elvis.

idiot.

[Einstein700]

thats a rather poor comeback on the last two posts, did you even watch the videos?

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...9388&q=wtc+wmd

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...1221&q=wtc+wmd

[Justice]

You can tell when someone has lost the debate and has nothing to say.

I would come out with something like that if I was to comment on flower arranging cus I know nothing about it.

Maybe this guy should pick a core issue that is questioned BY BILLIONS OF PEOPLE across the world and present his case as to why he believes the official story is true and lets see if it stands up

[2Hybrids]

Originally Posted by Justice

You can tell when someone has lost the debate and has nothing to say.

I would come out with something like that if I was to comment on flower arranging cus I know nothing about it.

Maybe this guy should pick a core issue that is questioned BY BILLIONS OF PEOPLE across the world and present his case as to why he believes the official story is true and lets see if it stands up

Actually, I was making a point with my post - and you didn't get it.

[Einstein700]

here's another:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...51210315608217

This video shows the aftermath of the twin towers demolition, you can see that nearby cars are turned into charred wrecks by an intense blast of heat, yet not crushed by any falling debries. Clearly a very powerful energy source is required to achieve this. Obviously that little fact wasn't mentioned in the 9/11 commission report. What could of caused this?

Anyone know about the mini nuke blast in Bali? Here is a headline i found:

Bali Micro Nuke - Lack of Radiation Confuses "Experts"
"The bomb flashed and exploded like a micro nuke, but our Geiger counters don't show any radiation"

http://joevialls.net/nuke/bali_micro_nuke.htm

sound familiar?

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by Einstein700

here's another:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...51210315608217

This video shows the aftermath of the twin towers demolition, you can see that nearby cars are turned into charred wrecks by an intense blast of heat, yet not crushed by any falling debries. Clearly a very powerful energy source is required to achieve this. Obviously that little fact wasn't mentioned in the 9/11 commission report. What could of caused this?

Anyone know about the mini nuke blast in Bali? Here is a headline i found:

Bali Micro Nuke - Lack of Radiation Confuses "Experts"
"The bomb flashed and exploded like a micro nuke, but our Geiger counters don't show any radiation"

http://joevialls.net/nuke/bali_micro_nuke.htm

sound familiar?

you come up with some damn good points

[Einstein700]

here are some images of cars practically melted after WTC collapse, how is this possible without some massive and rather intense blast of heat? You would not expect this with convential explosives.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles.../240806EMP.htm

Bali bomb car wrecks:



It seems there are other numerous reports of terrorist gangs using mini nuke devices elsewhere too:

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-...on.cgi.23.html
interesting thread about Oklahoma city bombs correlating with micro nuke device


http://www.cuttingedge.org/NEWS/n1715.cfm
alternative news article suggesting micro nukes used at Bali

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Conspiracies5.htm
a general look at usage of micro nukes in a few different scenarios. Interesting pics here of craters (which wouldn't be expected with convential bombs), reminded me of the nevada test site...

http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/...uitcase-nukes/

some info outlining some of the suitcase/micro nuke devices, just goes to show these devices exist and can be easily deployed.

[Justice]

Einstein700


Yes I confess I came back to this thread to basically say I’ve considered all the points you had made and still I could not go with the mini nuke theory but to be honest with you I’m finding it very hard to disagree with much of your research apart from saying that many of the car damaged would be from car fuel takes catching fire next to them.

Keep it up and you may get a convert one day.

[Einstein700]

How do you explain that 99% of the concrete was pulverized to hot particles of under 100 microns? Why did it take the fire department 100 days to cool the glowing steel, even though they sprayed water on top of them continuously, night and day? Is this what happens in other "collapses" and "controlled demolitions"? Tell me an example?

A pure H-bomb produces one hundreth of the pollution of an atomic bomb of comparable size. And they are really not detectable with a Geiger counter (alpha particles and tritium particles). In addition they can mostly be washed away with spraying water.

[stewey]

If it were mini-nukes, one would imagine EMP would follow