9/11 Fourteen Years Later
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
So you don't want to discuss the silliness of your radiation free nuclear bomb that is able to selectively destroy buildings?
What I posted above you has to do with that. How else can the Russians prove it.So you don't want to discuss the silliness of your radiation free nuclear bomb that is able to selectively destroy buildings?
http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/satellites-can-detect-underground-nuclear-explosions
What is the difference between an old concept of an atomic demolition and that of a modern nuclear demolition? The main difference is that in an old atomic demolition with atmospheric nuclear explosion, while in a modern nuclear when buried deep underground, produces a typical deep underground nuclear explosion which has very different physical properties compare to an atmospheric nuclear blast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallman12q/Nuclear_Demolition
Little is understood about nuclear devises by the common man other than its very destructive power when used for that perpose, yet we tend to forget that
some of our power plants are based on this concept. Btw the Cheapest form of power as well as Demolition, when in a controlled environment.
I think some of you should read up on nuclear energy and remove the negative part of its tremendous power which
can be put to good use. Enrico Fermi (Physicist) was the inventor of this power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi. I won't go into details.
Einstein who was a visionary and believed in this energy, was worried about how it could be used, I won't go into details with that.
Check this out T.
A 450 kiloton device (total yield according to that nuclear demolition website you linked us to) is at least 20 times more powerful than each of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.
You would've had building foundations sinking into the ground, then streets, cars, people, etc., and not just the Twin Towers (good point Basketcase). Seismologists would've noted the underground explosion from afar, like an earth quake or tremor.
Obviously GB you didn't watch or bother looking at what I posted, A repositioning of the nuke solved that problem, and he explains that in detail.
Please watch this. Unfortunately the audio is very low. No matter what he is explaining is how to get around this problem.
Please watch this. Unfortunately the audio is very low. No matter what he is explaining is how to get around this problem.
This just talks about detecting nuclear blasts by the pulse wave they generate from above with satellites. Nothing about 9/11.What I posted above you has to do with that. How else can the Russians prove it.
http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/satellites-can-detect-underground-nuclear-explosions
Obviously GB you didn't watch or bother looking at what I posted, A repositioning of the nuke solved that problem, and he explains that in detail.
Please watch this. Unfortunately the audio is very low. No matter what he is explaining is how to get around this problem.
I see the vibration of a tower preceding it's collapse in THIS video, which is very interesting, but I'd like to see that in one of the original videos and not just from this guy's own presentation.
There are many things here that I find difficult in believing:
a) An underground nuclear device at 77 meters below the foundation might push the ground up. Nobody sensed anything like that, or an earthquake or ground tremor BEFORE the buildings collapsed (as I recall, the towers burned serenely prior to the collapse).
b) If it creates a cavity, why didn't excavators discover that when they built the memorial or Freedom Tower?
c) Underground explosions do not cause fall out but there would still be detectable radiation from ground to surface leaks, if not by engineers or hazmat teams later.
d) I do not believe for a second that most of the towers were converted to dust (he mentions something like 300 or 350 meters above). Even if a nuclear detonation was possible, how in the hell does it pulverize the building above it when the explosion occurs underground?
Agreed,but it,s still funny listening to these conspiracy half wits ramble on like they actually know what they are talking about.You would have to be a total moron to think that it wasn't Al Qaeda. A moron willfully blinded to the facts by some anti American ideology.
9/11 conspiracy theories prove the internet is full of unthinking gullible fools.
Oh cool. A link that explains why there was no radiation, no massive underground chamber, or how these magic nukes were able to topple the two towers without collapsing any of the other buildings nearby?What I posted above you has to do with that. How else can the Russians prove it.
http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/satellites-can-detect-underground-nuclear-explosions
Oh wait, your link has nothing about any of those.
What is the difference between an old concept of an atomic demolition and that of a modern nuclear demolition? The main difference is that in an old atomic demolition with atmospheric nuclear explosion, while in a modern nuclear when buried deep underground, produces a typical deep underground nuclear explosion which has very different physical properties compare to an atmospheric nuclear blast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallman12q/Nuclear_Demolition
Little is understood about nuclear devises by the common man other than its very destructive power when used for that perpose, yet we tend to forget that
some of our power plants are based on this concept. Btw the Cheapest form of power as well as Demolition, when in a controlled environment.
I think some of you should read up on nuclear energy and remove the negative part of its tremendous power which
can be put to good use. Enrico Fermi (Physicist) was the inventor of this power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi. I won't go into details.
Einstein who was a visionary and believed in this energy, was worried about how it could be used, I won't go into details with that.
I've read this Wikipedia article on nuclear demolition, but it has no real references to support any of the contentions. I can maybe believe that X-rays and gamma-rays are absorbed by surrounding rock in a deep underground explosion, but it doesn't say if there's residual radiation embedded in the rock itself.
2 out of the 3 footnote links do not work. One of them (on nuclear explosive melt) only shows the bibliography of the original article.
To my amazement though, this unsupported Wikipedia article is the main backbone of Dimitri Khalezov's nuclear demolition theory for the 9/11 attack. He basically copies it in his presentation.
T, if they tried to pull off a nuclear detonation underground, chances are, it could be detected. There's only one nation that could pull that off, in downtown NYC, with the greatest ease - the USA. But this attempt would be political suicide for Bush or the military or intelligence agencies.Stay in your fraim of mind, I'm surrounded by disbelief, That's ok, I understand.
Getting back to the pulverization theory by Dimitri above, the WTC were mostly steel-framed buildings, and not concrete or masonry. How can you pulverize steel into dust? Concrete and masonry especially, would come down and break up, even pulverize, but not steel. The dust you see in the WTC collapse videos is mostly from the light-weight concrete slabs on metal deck breaking up as the floors come crashing down, and any interior drywall and masonry, being crushed.
If you want to believe in a conspiracy, it might be that the intelligence agencies or the President, didn't act on real threats, and after the tragedy, used that as a pretext for a phony war against Saddam and his WMDs. Even if it was sheer incompetence that allowed AQ to commit this terrible crime, a conspiracy might have existed at the upper echelons of power, to have instigated the war in Iraq.
Your wrong, if the total mass of the steel came down, it would have been 10 stories high. WTF happened.T, if they tried to pull off a nuclear detonation underground, chances are, it could be detected. There's only one nation that could pull that off, in downtown NYC, with the greatest ease - the USA. But this attempt would be political suicide for Bush or the military or intelligence agencies.
Getting back to the pulverization theory by Dimitri above, the WTC were mostly steel-framed buildings, and not concrete or masonry. How can you pulverize steel into dust? Concrete and masonry especially, would come down and break up, even pulverize, but not steel. The dust you see in the WTC collapse videos is mostly from the light-weight concrete slabs on metal deck breaking up as the floors come crashing down, and any interior drywall and masonry, being crushed.
If you want to believe in a conspiracy, it might be that the intelligence agencies or the President, didn't act on real threats, and after the tragedy, used that as a pretext for a phony war against Saddam and his WMDs. Even if it was sheer incompetence that allowed AQ to commit this terrible crime, a conspiracy might have existed at the upper echelons of power, to have instigated the war in Iraq.
The debris field was actually 16 acres, not on the buildings' footprints of 2 acres.Your wrong, if the total mass of the steel came down, it would have been 10 stories high. WTF happened.
The debris pile was still big, but not as big if it fell around the footprint.
Your mind is completely disconnected from reality, the reality in which the building visibly collapsed from the impact site and not from some underground or ground level explosion.Stay in your fraim of mind, I'm surrounded by disbelief, That's ok, I understand.
Why do you persist in nattering away when we have shown that you are talking pure nonsense?
Because I know what happened is wrong, whether you believe that or not is indifferent to me.Your mind is completely disconnected from reality, the reality in which the building visibly collapsed from the impact site and not from some underground or ground level explosion.
Why do you persist in nattering away when we have shown that you are talking pure nonsense?
The building was not destroyed by a ground level explosion of any kind. Everybody with eyes can see that it collapsed from the impact site.Because I know what happened is wrong, whether you believe that or not is indifferent to me.
That is a fact. Whether or not you like it.
Here's a link that shows a diagram of the debris field.
http://911review.com/attack/wtc/groundzero.html
http://911review.com/attack/wtc/groundzero.html
Fugi your like FOX network. I rest my case.That is a fact. Whether or not you like it.
