America Nuked 9/11

[skyeagle409]

So... on the basis of what you believe is the only possible indicator of nuclear fusion or fission you deny even the possibility of the existence of technology you know nothing about.

Good thinking!

You sound like those who persecuted Galileo because it was obvious that all the evidence proved the earth was flat.

A nuke is a nuke is a nuke.

There was no evidence of a nuclear detonation at ground zero. No blinding flash, no massive shock wave, no EMP, no radioactive fallout nor radioactive residue, and let's remember, nukes generate temperatures in the millions of degrees, the attributes of a nuclear detonation that was not present at ground zero.

To sum it up, no nukes at ground zero.

You sound like those who persecuted Galileo because it was obvious that all the evidence proved the earth was flat.

I am not on that side by any means. 911 conspiracist took a serious hit on the issue of nukes because the story was determined to be false, just as they took a serious hit when they claimed that United 93 landed at Cleveland airport. When the facts came rolling in, it was determined the conspiracist actually confused Delta 1989, a B-767, with United 93, a B-757. That is because they didn't bother to do their homework, which they also failed to do in regard to nuclear weaponry.

Let's do a recap. This is a detonation of just 35 tons of explosives.

That is nothing compared to a mini-nuke that is many times the explosive yield of 35 tons of explosives. Now, let's take a look at this video and explain to us why you do not see an explosion as WTC2 collapsed.

[media=]

Compare the two videos and then, explain to us why no nuclear detonation occurred at ground zero.

Edited September 8, 2013 by skyeagle409

[RaptorBites]

So... on the basis of what you believe is the only possible indicator of nuclear fusion or fission you deny even the possibility of the existence of technology you know nothing about.

Good thinking!

You sound like those who persecuted Galileo because it was obvious that all the evidence proved the earth was flat.

Doesn't matter.

Point is, claiming a nuke was used to bring down the towers is an extraordinary claim. To prove it, you must provide extraordinary evidence.

To start, you can first provide where such nukes were located to show the collapse we saw. Then explain how the perpetrators were 100% sure collapse initiation would happen the way it did.

[Babe Ruth]

Since I am on military duty today, I will have limited time to respond to your other post till later.

What laws of physics were suspended by the official narrative BR? Please be specific.

Many, if one embraces the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Perhaps the biggest is the horizontal displacement of large structural pieces of steel by way of jetfuel and gravity. It's impossible, given the NIST report.

The cellphone calls were another, and a crucial part of the story. As described by the OCT, they were impossible.

Just finished the halfway point of Prager's book RB. With your open and analytical mind, you would be most impressed.

Biggest piece of trivia for me was the story of Taylor Wilson. At age 14 he became the youngest person to design and build the equipment for, and to successfully accomplish, nuclear fusion. He was the 32nd person on the planet to have done so. Inside his little reactor plasma was heated to 580 million degrees, hotter than we estimate the core of the sun to be.

17 year old Thiago Olsen in Michigan fused 2 H to form He, star in a jar.

If those young men working in their garages could do that, what do you suppose the DoD could do with 60 years of constant research in weapons development?

[Babe Ruth]

Doesn't matter.

Point is, claiming a nuke was used to bring down the towers is an extraordinary claim. To prove it, you must provide extraordinary evidence.

To start, you can first provide where such nukes were located to show the collapse we saw. Then explain how the perpetrators were 100% sure collapse initiation would happen the way it did.

The evidence is not really extraordinary RB. It's quite ordinary, if one studies nuclear physics and such, as Taylor Wilson does. If your curious and analytical mind were to ACTUALLY take the time to read Prager's book, you would discover that the evidence is abundant.

It's just that Brian Williams and Diane Sawyer don't talk about it. Much of it has been suppressed, or at least ignored.

The USGS analysis of the dust, and 2 girders, show without question that nuclear fission took place at WTC that day. The molten metal in the bowels of the buildings was actually a miniaturized version of the China Syndrome as it applies to runaway nuclear reactors.

[skyeagle409]

The evidence is not really extraordinary RB.

Your claims are extraordinary, and yet, no extraordinary evidence to back what you have claimed.

It's quite ordinary, if one studies nuclear physics and such, as Taylor Wilson does. If your curious and analytical mind were to ACTUALLY take the time to read Prager's book, you would discover that the evidence is abundant.

His evidence abundantly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 911 nuke story is false.

The USGS analysis of the dust, and 2 girders, show without question that nuclear fission took place at WTC that day.

False, and you know it. The fact that cleanup crews are not wearing protective suits proves there was no dangerous radiation levels at ground zero.

The molten metal in the bowels of the buildings was actually a miniaturized version of the China Syndrome as it applies to runaway nuclear reactors.

Nothing to do with nukes and you are confusing the overheated nuclear core of a power plant with a nuclear weapon, which has no core left after detonation to produce a continuous meltdown through the earth. And, the temperatures at ground zero were nowhere near the level needed to produce a "China Syndrome" incident, which was evident when red-hot steel beams were pulled from the rubble, which were like thermometers and indicated that temperatures were far too low to melt steel, much less melt through the earth.

As I have correctly asserted, you have absolutely no understanding of what you are posting and your anti-government rhetoric is all the more evident.

Edited September 8, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

For where your head is right now, it's still September 12, 2001.

I have moved on, and it's almost 12 years later. Much has been learned in that time, much data gathered, much analysis done, much disease manifested, etc etc.

Prager does a terrific job showing the data and studying the data and the matter of nuclear fission and fusion in general terms.

Tactical nuclear weapons at WTC is the simple solution required by Occam, and it fits perfectly. All manner of anomaly is explained by the nuclear scenario, from the EMP causing the NYC radio system to crash temporarily, to the multiple reports of humans engulfed in fireballs and/or with skin dripping off their bodies, to the mysterious autos. That Unexplained Mystery has now been explained.

[skyeagle409]

Sky

For where your head is right now, it's still September 12, 2001.

My head is among the verified evidence that proves you have no understanding what you are posting.

I have moved on, and it's almost 12 years later. Much has been learned in that time, much data gathered, much analysis done, much disease manifested, etc etc.

Go back and look what you have been posting. In multiple reports and court cases, the cancers were attributed to toxic materials at ground zero and nothing to do with nukes, but you knew that since it has been brought to your attention on many occasions.

Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks

The dust from the collapsed towers was "wildly toxic", according to air pollution expert and University of California Davis Professor Emeritus Thomas Cahill.

The thousands of tons of toxic debris resulting from the collapse of the Twin Towers consisted of more than 2,500 contaminants,[4] more specifically: 50% non-fibrous material and construction debris; 40% glass and other fibers; 9.2% cellulose; and 0.8% of the extremely toxic carcinogen asbestos, as well as detectable amounts of lead, and mercury.

There were also unprecedented levels of dioxins and PAHs from the fires which burned for three months. Many of the dispersed substances (asbestos, crystalline silica, lead, cadmium, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) are carcinogenic; other substances can trigger kidney, heart, liver and nervous system deterioration. This was well known by the EPA at the time of collapse.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) funded case report performed by Mt Sinai observed carbon nanotubes in dust samples and in the lungs of several 9/11 responders.

http://www.nytimes.c...r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.c...TH_GRAPHIC.html

Now, ask Jeff Prager why he was unaware of health effects related to toxic materials found at ground zero. Those of us who have an understanding of nukes see your post as nothing more than the spewing of false and misleading information nothing on the level of reality, but more on the level of fantasy and fiction.

Prager does a terrific job showing the data and studying the data and the matter of nuclear fission and fusion in general terms.

Mr. Prager has no understanding of what he is talking about anymore than you. A simple look at photos of cleanup workers at ground zero will tell you why there was no nuclear contamination at ground zero.

And videos of working vehicles should have told why no nuclear detonation occurred at ground zero. Now, ask him how EMP affects electronics in automobiles, computers, aircraft, etc.

Tactical nuclear weapons at WTC is the simple solution required by Occam, and it fits perfectly.

False. A tactical nuke produces temperature in the range of millions of degrees and yet, temperatures did not even reach the melting point of steel. There was no EMP, radiation residue that can be attributed to a nuclear detonation and in fact, no detonation of any explosives as the WTC buildings collapsed.

Nukes produce shock waves that can be detected on seismic monitors and yet, no such detection of any explosive was detected by seismic monitors in the general area, which was another indication there was no nuclear detonation at ground zero and no nuclear shockwave as the WTC buildings collapsed.

Just how much sound do you think would have been generated as a fireball of millions of degrees come in contact with the cooler surrounding air? No such sound was heard as the WTC buildings collapsed, which was another indication that Mr. Prager didn't know what he was talking about.

Ground zero was not condoned off as would be expected during nuclear incidents and yet, people are roaming around ground zero which was another indication that no high radiation levels were detected but I guess Mr. Prager overlooked that one very important fact as he has in other cases.

All manner of anomaly is explained by the nuclear scenario,...

No one found evidence of a nuclear detonaton at ground zero. No radioactive residue nor fallout, nor thermo-related evidence that can be attributed to a nuke.

...from the EMP causing the NYC radio system to crash temporarily,

Well, let's take a look here because CNN continued to broadcast with no problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjwDv_IONgA&feature=player_embedded#t=14

You will notice in other videos that video cameras, vehicles, and even aircraft continued to operate in the area as the WTC buildings collapsed, so what does EMP do to electronics?

... which goes to show to the multiple reports of humans engulfed in fireballs

You do not need a nuclear detonation to engulf people in fireballs! A simple BBQ in the backyard or a house fire is all it takes.

...and/or with skin dripping off their bodies,

Which happens in ordinary house and office fires.

...to the mysterious autos.

What mysterious autos?

Edited September 8, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Great advances have been made in nuclear technology Sky, and you might not like to admit it, but the DoD has been developing and refining nuclear weapons, including very small tactical nuclear weapons for the better part of 60 years.

If Taylor Wilson at age 14 could design and build a fusion reactor essentially in his back yard, and successfully accomplish a fusion reactor, what do you suppose the military labs might accomplish?

The nuclear theory is the only one that adequately explains all the weird things that happened at WTC that day. It meets the Occam's Razor standard.

[ellapenella]

I have not read this entire topic but, was wanting to know the opinion of others regarding an interview i happen to stumble across, not intentionally looking for anything on this subject matter at all.

The link to the video interview can be found on you tube by simply typing in : False Flags by 2REM FM Radio Station on 9th July 2013.( part 1 of 4). I'm more so interested in what they are talking about , being that the woman interviewing was at one time a skeptic who has now changed her views.??? I don't know???It's all really odd behavior...

In the interview , she mentions also 911 and some theory that she says not even Alex Jones would touch , because , it was something that would of came across as impossible , but it is the only theory that lead her to change her views regarding 911, where she once did not believe any of the theories at all that were circulating around as it being , or leaning towards it being ,that of an inside job.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Reann

[skyeagle409]

I have not read this entire topic but, was wanting to know the opinion of others regarding an interview i happen to stumble across, not intentionally looking for anything on this subject matter at all.

The link to the video interview can be found on you tube by simply typing in : False Flags by 2REM FM Radio Station on 9th July 2013.( part 1 of 4). I'm more so interested in what they are talking about , being that the woman interviewing was at one time a skeptic who has now changed her views.??? I don't know???It's all really odd behavior...

In the interview , she mentions also 911 and some theory that she says not even Alex Jones would touch , because , it was something that would of came across as impossible , but it is the only theory that lead her to change her views regarding 911, where she once did not believe any of the theories at all that were circulating around as it being , or leaning towards it being ,that of an inside job.

Considering that warnings from around the world had warned the United States government of an imminent attack by Muslim terrorist and the use of aircraft as weapons in their attacks, that is not what I would consider an inside job.

[skyeagle409]

Great advances have been made in nuclear technology Sky, and you might not like to admit it, but the DoD has been developing and refining nuclear weapons, including very small tactical nuclear weapons for the better part of 60 years.

It doesn't matter because a nuke is a nuke is a nuke. In other words, the nuclear physics does not change.

[ellapenella]

Considering that warnings from around the world had warned the United States government of an imminent attack by Muslim terrorist and the use of aircraft as weapons in their attacks, that is not what I would consider an inside job.

There is truth and there is the truth. If warned what exactly were precautions taken before hand , and , what exactly were the details of the attack as of date place time ect.?

Would the mission or plans of such an event have had more details leaked ?other than suggesting warnings were sort of a he said she state of mind?Seriously?Really?

We both agree on one thing: The information was known and leaked .Yet you suppress that those informed actually knew more than you would like to think or, that you would like for everyone to think.

[skyeagle409]

There is truth and there is the truth. If warned what exactly were precautions taken before hand , and , what exactly were the details of the attack as of date place time ect.?

I blame the Bush administration for dropping the 911 ball and the failure of our intelligence services. In other words, nothing to do with a government 911 conspiracy.

Would the mission or plans of such an event have had more details leaked ?other than suggesting warnings were sort of a he said she state of mind?Seriously?Really?

We both agree on one thing: The information was known and leaked .Yet you suppress that those informed actually knew more than you would like to think or, that you would like for everyone to think.

The United States was warned by the Philippine government as far back as 1993 that terrorist were planning to used airliners to kill thousands of people, but there were those within our government who did not take those warnings seriously enough. I might add that one of the targets of the terrorist was CIA headquarters.

On another note, al-Qaeda has indicated that the Capitol Building was the target of United 93.

[Babe Ruth]

It doesn't matter because a nuke is a nuke is a nuke. In other words, the nuclear physics does not change.

More ignorant statements from you Sky.

No, a nuke is not a nuke, anymore than a horse is a horse or a dog is a dog. There are varieties and species of all.

Fission, Fusion, combination. Strategic, which you guys in USAF are involved with, and tactical which other branches are more concerned with.

Dirty v. clean. Large v. small, and dozens of other distinguishing differences.

In 1961 the Russians detonated the largest nuclear bomb ever, and it was designed to produce 97% less radiation.

In that same year, the US detonated the smallest ever for the time. It measured 11 inches by 11 inches by 17 inches.

Your gross ignorance shows.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Babe Ruth

[skyeagle409]

More ignorant statements from you Sky.

I am right on the money. Nukes produce temperatures of millions of degrees. EMP, radiological hazards and shock waves for which did not occur at ground zero. People were standing within close proximity of the WTC buildings as they collapsed and none were affected by temperatures of millions of degrees nor was there radioactive contamination at ground zero.

Why? Because the nukes at ground zero story was false.

No, a nuke is not a nuke, anymore than a horse is a horse or a dog is a dog. There are varieties and species of all. Fission, Fusion, combination.

Let me clue you in on something. It takes the high temperature of a fission bomb to detonate a fusion bomb. As I have said, a nuke is a nuke is a nuke.

The damage from nukes is caused by several things:

• A wave of intense heat from the explosion
  
• Pressure from the shock wave created by the blast
  
• Radiation
  
• Radioactive fallout (clouds of fine radioactive particles of dust and bomb debris that fall back to the ground)
  
• EMP, which can destroy electronic circuits, etc.
  

At the hypocenter, everything is immediately vaporized by the high temperature (up to 500 million degrees Fahrenheit or 300 million degrees Celsius). Outward from the hypocenter, most casualties are caused by burns from the heat, injuries from the flying debris of buildings collapsed by the shock wave and acute exposure to the high radiation. Beyond the immediate blast area, casualties are caused from the heat, the radiation and the fires spawned from the heat wave. In the long term, radioactive fallout occurs over a wider area because of prevailing winds. The radioactive fallout particles enter the water supply and are inhaled and ingested by people at a distance from the blast.

None of that was evident at ground zero.

In that same year, the US detonated the smallest ever for the time. It measured 11 inches by 11 inches by 17 inches.

Your gross ignorance shows.

Let's take another look. Modern tactical nuclear warheads have yields up to the tens of kilotons, or potentially hundreds, several times that of the weapons used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Let's review this video where 35 tons of explosives were detonated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYKxwWZ-aRM

Now, a close up video of WTC2.

You will notice there is no explosive detonation of any kind, which once again, proves that you do not understand what you post.

Edited September 9, 2013 by skyeagle409

[aztek]

here we go again

[skyeagle409]

here we go again

Babe Ruth should have taken a course in nuclear physics because he has proven that he doesn't understand what he post. Even Steven Jones debunked the false nuke story and that is saying a lot.

The absurdity of the "WTC was nuked" hoax

An excellent refutation of the "WTC was nuked" claims was provided by Dr. Steven E. Jones, entitled "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers". He summarized a few key points as:

1. Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis.
   
   
2. The fact that radioactive iodine concentrations were actually
   lower
   in the upper/WTC debris-filled layers.
   
   
3. Radioactive hot-spots in NYC were found to be due to
   radium
   , which is traceable to industrial uses (not bombs). This in itself does not rule out mini-nukes, but these data certainly do not support the mini-nuke hypothesis.
   
   
4. Lioy
   et al.
   report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium, actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background level for WTC dust.
   
   
5. Nuclear activation or residual "fall-out" radioactivity (above background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131 measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis.
   
   
6. No fatalities due to radiation "burning" were reported near ground zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse.
   
   
7. No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers.
   
   
8. One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.)
   
   

Edited September 10, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

The cellphone calls were another, and a crucial part of the story.

The two cell phone calls were made at and below 5000 feet, not at 30,000 feet and the majority of phone calls were made from airfones, not cell phones.

Biggest piece of trivia for me was the story of Taylor Wilson. At age 14 he became the youngest person to design and build the equipment for, and to successfully accomplish, nuclear fusion. He was the 32nd person on the planet to have done so. Inside his little reactor plasma was heated to 580 million degrees, hotter than we estimate the core of the sun to be.

Since temperatures at ground zero reached only 2000 degrees F., not the millions of degrees which are generated by nukes, simply means no nukes at ground zero.

[DONTEATUS]

I hear that ! WHers all theses 14 year olds when we need them? Aint gonna fly Babe Ruth !

[Likely Guy]

I was reading today that Jeff Prager has no scientific credentials, at all. Apparently he's a retired magazine editor.

Is that true?

Edit: ...and not investigative type magazines, magazines like, 'Senior's Magazine'.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Likely Guy

[RaptorBites]

I was reading today that Jeff Prager has no scientific credentials, at all. Apparently he's a retired magazine editor.

Is that true?

Edit: ...and not investigative type magazines, magazines like, 'Senior's Magazine'.

es. That is true. Mentioned this already to BR. Prager may have written a book regarding his belief that nukes were used at WTC. Books aren't the be all end all of scientific proof. Publishing in a reputable scientific journal holds more credibility than a book will ever have.

Prager has no scientific credentials what-so-ever.

Prager has a right to his opinions, regardless if they are complete garbage.

[Space Commander Travis]

So... on the basis of what you believe is the only possible indicator of nuclear fusion or fission you deny even the possibility of the existence of technology you know nothing about.

Good thinking!

You sound like those who persecuted Galileo because it was obvious that all the evidence proved the earth was flat.

Oh no, not the "technology you know nothing about" argument. if we're going to go down that road, we may as well speculate about inter-dimensional weapons and phasers.

[Space Commander Travis]

All manner of anomaly is explained by the nuclear scenario, from the EMP causing the NYC radio system to crash temporarily, to the multiple reports of humans engulfed in fireballs and/or with skin dripping off their bodies, to the mysterious autos.

What were those?

[Likely Guy]

es. That is true. Mentioned this already to BR. Prager may have written a book regarding his belief that nukes were used at WTC. Books aren't the be all end all of scientific proof. Publishing in a reputable scientific journal holds more credibility than a book will ever have.

Prager has no scientific credentials what-so-ever.

Prager has a right to his opinions, regardless if they are complete garbage.

That's true. Apparently he's written some 30 odd 'free books', none of which he's an authority on.

So, let's say that 'Joe the Garbage Man' posts his essay on any given topic, much as Mr. Prager has done and I'll lend it as much credance (except about garbage collection).

Edited September 10, 2013 by Likely Guy

[Babe Ruth]

I was reading today that Jeff Prager has no scientific credentials, at all. Apparently he's a retired magazine editor.

Is that true?

Edit: ...and not investigative type magazines, magazines like, 'Senior's Magazine'.

I have no idea, but having read most of his book, he has provided all sorts of documentation, including USGS, DELTA Group air samples, AVIRIS and NASA data, statements of Red Cross helpers that interviewed so many people with bizarre stories, etc.

But certainly the most compelling bit of data is that regarding the various cancers as they have manifested in the group working at Ground Zero, a sample of about 40,000 individuals, of whom more than 1000 had died from these radiation-caused cancers by 2011.

This bit of criticism--he was a former editor of unscientific magazines--is so typical of the ad homs that flower when the argument itself withers. When the argument is lost, resort to slander. As old as mankind, and valid insight into the weakness of any given argument.