Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 6 votes

America Nuked 9/11


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
2269 replies to this topic

#526    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 30 August 2013 - 07:30 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 29 August 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

RB

It is at least a 2 part analysis.

1) The presence of certain elements, including Strontium and other elements related to nuclear reactions, and

Can you cite the individual elements and also the amount found in the USGS dust sample analysis?

While you are at it, can you compare that data to a sample data of a nuclear reaction to prove your claim that a nuclear reaction happened in the WTC complex?

I mean, it is your claim.  You should be able to produce the data needed to show proof of such.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#527    cacoseraph

cacoseraph

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 176 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2013

Posted 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM

BAAHAHAHAAAAA!

I can't bring myself to read all of this nonsense, but really, nuked?  Clearly you don't realize that basically every first world nation has at least some kind of sensors devoted to detecting nuclear detonations and fallout right?  Heh, obviously not.   It is just barely possible that a nonscientific, totalitarian nation could lead its people to think a nuke had not gone off in borders when it had.... but when you consider that we are bounded by Canada (who is SUPER close to NYC) and Mexico who have sensors that would register a detonation and then further factor in the other world nuclear powers that mostly have sensors that can feel the freaking vibrations from multiple kiloton detonations this idea is just a ridiculous cash grab.  If you wrote it as fiction I would pay $0.25 to skim it for a laugh.  The fact you are presenting it as truth makes me kinda hate you.


#528    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 30 August 2013 - 01:14 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 29 August 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

Horizontal displacement of debris can ONLY be achieved by nukes?  So you have come to a conclusion that only nukes can explain WTC collapse?

No, horizontal displacement of debris, in particular the horizontal displacement of large sections of the exoskeleton with sufficient force to impale, could be caused by well placed high explosive devices other than nuclear, but considering all the other evidence--pulverized and calcined concrete, iron microspheres in the air and a list of other elements related to nuclear explosions (strontium, tritium and such), the most likely candidate would be nuclear.


#529    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 30 August 2013 - 01:23 PM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 30 August 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

You don't think that if an enormous building collapses, debris is going to go in all directions?

As we saw on TV a few months ago in Russia with the tall building under construction that caught fire, and because of the ever present force of gravity, debris falls straight down.  Simple physics.

In order for debris to be displaced horizontally, a horizontal force, a vector, must be introduced.  Simple physics.

Sure, depending upon the dynamics of any given situation, some pieces may tumble outwards a few feet, but in the case of WTC we are talking about very large sections of the exoskeleton, thousands of tons of mass, having been ejected so forcefully that they impaled themselves into buildings several hundreds of feet away, across the street.  The American Express Building, aka World Financial Center, experienced such damage and pictures were taken.

The force required to do that is substantial, and can only be achieved by way of explosive devices, whether conventional or otherwise.

Given all the other facts, the most likely candidate is tactical nuclear devices.  Ten years later the epidemiology is building, and it shows that those working at Ground Zero are showing the same sorts of diseases at the same incidence as those survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl.

Certainly not a pleasant thought, I agree, but the facts are the facts.


#530    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 30 August 2013 - 01:25 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 30 August 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

Can you cite the individual elements and also the amount found in the USGS dust sample analysis?

While you are at it, can you compare that data to a sample data of a nuclear reaction to prove your claim that a nuclear reaction happened in the WTC complex?

I mean, it is your claim.  You should be able to produce the data needed to show proof of such.

If you are really interested in discovering those things, I would suggest you read Prager's book.  It is linked to at the beginning of this thread.  Not yet halfway through that book (I hate reading on the computer--prefer old-fashioned books instead) it is very well documented, including links to the USGS data and the DELTA Group data.


#531    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 30 August 2013 - 03:48 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 30 August 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

No, horizontal displacement of debris, in particular the horizontal displacement of large sections of the exoskeleton with sufficient force to impale, could be caused by well placed high explosive devices other than nuclear, but considering all the other evidence--pulverized and calcined concrete, iron microspheres in the air and a list of other elements related to nuclear explosions (strontium, tritium and such), the most likely candidate would be nuclear.

Why do you continue to lie?

Your own previous post you said:

View PostBabe Ruth, on 29 August 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:


Further, the energy required to launch huges pieces of structural steel and exoskeleton hundreds of feet horizontally cannot be achieved with anything other than nukes.

You stated yourself that the phenomenon of horizontally displaced debris CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED BY NUKES.

It is reasons like this that we can't take you seriously at all.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#532    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 30 August 2013 - 03:51 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 30 August 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

If you are really interested in discovering those things, I would suggest you read Prager's book.  It is linked to at the beginning of this thread.  Not yet halfway through that book (I hate reading on the computer--prefer old-fashioned books instead) it is very well documented, including links to the USGS data and the DELTA Group data.

I just posted links to USGS and DELTS group's dust survey.  None of which showed any form of nuclear fallout.  Hell BR, I just posted it 1 page back.

I don't need to read the book.  It is your claim, therefore you provide the evidence to convince me it was a nuclear reaction that caused the collapse.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#533    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 30 August 2013 - 03:56 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 30 August 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

As we saw on TV a few months ago in Russia with the tall building under construction that caught fire, and because of the ever present force of gravity, debris falls straight down.  Simple physics.

In order for debris to be displaced horizontally, a horizontal force, a vector, must be introduced.  Simple physics.


Hahaha.  The irony of the situation where BR tries to claim simple physics yet still bastardizes it.  Newton must be rolling in his grave.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#534    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,232 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 30 August 2013 - 05:18 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 30 August 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

No, horizontal displacement of debris, in particular the horizontal displacement of large sections of the exoskeleton with sufficient force to impale, could be caused by well placed high explosive devices other than nuclear, but considering all the other evidence--pulverized and calcined concrete, iron microspheres in the air and a list of other elements related to nuclear explosions (strontium, tritium and such), the most likely candidate would be nuclear.

To put your post in perspective, you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about and this is your way of admitting in so many words that you were duped.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#535    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,232 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 30 August 2013 - 05:23 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 30 August 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

Hahaha.  The irony of the situation where BR tries to claim simple physics yet still bastardizes it.  Newton must be rolling in his grave.

Albert Einstein has been rolling in his grave since BR began posting about mini-nukes and 911.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#536    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,232 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 30 August 2013 - 05:28 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 30 August 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

If you are really interested in discovering those things, I would suggest you read Prager's book.

Why?! If I want comic relief, I would rather buy a comic book because it's cheaper.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#537    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 31 August 2013 - 02:26 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 30 August 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

I just posted links to USGS and DELTS group's dust survey.  None of which showed any form of nuclear fallout.  Hell BR, I just posted it 1 page back.

I don't need to read the book.  It is your claim, therefore you provide the evidence to convince me it was a nuclear reaction that caused the collapse.

OK RB, I stand corrected.  I think I already corrected myself on some other thread.

The horizontal displacement of those large pieces could also have been caused by precise placement of large amounts of C4.  Or even greater quantities of dynamite.  Or even greater quantities of black powder and firecrackers, eh?  Feel better now?  But all things considered, all the other evidence (such as the presence of elements common to nuclear reactions and such) the most likely culprit for providing such energy is a nuclear explosion, of the tactical type.  I use the term 'tactical' because that was the term I was taught in the US Army.  I have no doubt whatsoever that in 60 years worth of R&D, the military has greatly improved and refined tactical nuclear weapons.

I know you WON'T read the book Raptor, because you're deep in denial and have no interest in informing yourself.  And having a serious and rational public discussion with a person who has no interest in informing himself is an exercise in futility.  Like taking Spameagle's stuff seriously.

But you do show flashes of curiosity, but they are short lived.


#538    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 31 August 2013 - 03:19 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 31 August 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

OK RB, I stand corrected.  I think I already corrected myself on some other thread.

The horizontal displacement of those large pieces could also have been caused by precise placement of large amounts of C4.  Or even greater quantities of dynamite.  Or even greater quantities of black powder and firecrackers, eh?  Feel better now?  But all things considered, all the other evidence (such as the presence of elements common to nuclear reactions and such) the most likely culprit for providing such energy is a nuclear explosion, of the tactical type.  I use the term 'tactical' because that was the term I was taught in the US Army.  I have no doubt whatsoever that in 60 years worth of R&D, the military has greatly improved and refined tactical nuclear weapons.

I know you WON'T read the book Raptor, because you're deep in denial and have no interest in informing yourself.  And having a serious and rational public discussion with a person who has no interest in informing himself is an exercise in futility.  Like taking Spameagle's stuff seriously.

But you do show flashes of curiosity, but they are short lived.

Don't need to read the book BR.  The reason why is because books are not the best sources of evidence to anything.  Books are entertainment.

However, if Jeff Prager wishes to provide a paper with his findings to a scientific journal and have it published then I will read it.

So far, I see no reason to believe a person who authors a book about evidence of nukes when it is clear to me he has no expert/professional experience in the field.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#539    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,232 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 31 August 2013 - 05:50 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 31 August 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

OK RB, I stand corrected.  I think I already corrected myself on some other thread.

There are other corrections you need to make as well.

Quote

The horizontal displacement of those large pieces could also have been caused by precise placement of large amounts of C4.  Or even greater quantities of dynamite. Or even greater quantities of black powder and firecrackers, eh?

False! No bomb detonations occurred as the WTC buildings collapsed

Quote

But all things considered, all the other evidence (such as the presence of elements common to nuclear reactions and such) the most likely culprit for providing such energy is a nuclear explosion, of the tactical type.  I use the term 'tactical' because that was the term I was taught in the US Army.

I find your comment highly suspicious considering that a military person in that position would have known why a nuclear detonation did not occur at ground zero.

Quote

I have no doubt whatsoever that in 60 years worth of R&D, the military has greatly improved and refined tactical nuclear weapons.

It doesn't matter how many times a nuclear weapon has been refined, a nuke is a nuke is a nuke. You can change the tires on a Ford van, but changing its tires isn't going to change the fact the vehicle is still a Ford van.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#540    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,970 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 01 September 2013 - 12:01 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 31 August 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

The horizontal displacement of those large pieces could also have been caused by precise placement of large amounts of C4.
Don't you just love the way conspiracy logic works.  Some argue that it is demolition because debris falls outside the building footprint, others argue it's a demolition because the debris falls within the building footprint.  Wherever it falls, it proves its a demolition.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )