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


  • Please log in to reply
2239 replies to this topic

#1096    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 September 2013 - 08:19 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 September 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

If one assumes that no R&D was done by the government(s) (of the world) in nuclear science and weapons, then yes, your statement is essentially true.

EMP, is EMP.

A high-altitude nuclear detonation produces an immediate flux of gamma rays from the nuclear reactions within the device, and let's not forget what happened in Hawaii when an EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific that resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii hundreds of miles away. No such thing occurred at ground zero.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1097    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,143 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 26 September 2013 - 08:24 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 September 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

Do you know what's pretty important in assessing historical events?  Facts and analytical thinking. :tu:
You know what's even more important?

Not coming up with scenarios that require the known laws of Physics to change.


#1098    david icke is right

david icke is right

    Astral Projection

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 643 posts
  • Joined:27 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 September 2013 - 09:07 PM

View PostTiggs, on 26 September 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

You know what's even more important?

Not coming up with scenarios that require the known laws of Physics to change.

But could the laws of physics change?


#1099    poppet

poppet

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined:09 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2013 - 09:23 PM

https://www.youtube....h?v=goGGQhhTcDY

in the video you can see core columns that have survived the initial collapse and then seem to start their own collapse so fast the dust that has settle on them is left blowing in the wind.



The steel core columns were tapered in thickness from 6″ thick in the subbasements to 5″, 4″, and so on up to the highest floors, where it was only 1/4″ thick. Thus, the relative mass of the steel for the top 14 floors of the North Tower, for example, which were alleged to have been weakened by the intense fires and collapsed onto the 96 floors below, represented on 1.4% of the mass of the steel.  The very idea that that minuscule relative mass could overcome the lower 98.6% is a physical absurdity.

Edited by poppet, 26 September 2013 - 09:45 PM.


#1100    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 September 2013 - 10:07 PM

View Postpoppet, on 26 September 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

https://www.youtube....h?v=goGGQhhTcDY

in the video you can see core columns that have survived the initial collapse and then seem to start their own collapse so fast the dust that has settle on them is left blowing in the wind.

That is not evidence of a nuclear detonation.

Quote

The steel core columns were tapered in thickness from 6″ thick in the subbasements to 5″, 4″, and so on up to the highest floors, where it was only 1/4″ thick. Thus, the relative mass of the steel for the top 14 floors of the North Tower, for example, which were alleged to have been weakened by the intense fires and collapsed onto the 96 floors below, represented on 1.4% of the mass of the steel.  The very idea that that minuscule relative mass could overcome the lower 98.6% is a physical absurdity.

On the contrary, the structure of the WTC buildings below the descending upper mass was unable to arrest that descending mass. You can also review this video depicting the Verinage demolition method which doesn't use explosives.



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1101    poppet

poppet

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined:09 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2013 - 10:34 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 26 September 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

That is not evidence of a nuclear detonation.



On the contrary, the structure of the WTC buildings below the descending upper mass was unable to arrest that descending mass. You can also review this video depicting the Verinage demolition method which doesn't use explosives.



I suggest you watch your video again and notice the collapse slowing down and coming to a stop just after where the explosives were set and you can just see the outline of the structure still standing as the smoke begins to clear.If the video had just run on for a second or two it would have been perfectly obvious that this was nothing like the collapse of the towers.


#1102    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 September 2013 - 10:52 PM

View Postpoppet, on 26 September 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

I suggest you watch your video again and notice the collapse slowing down and coming to a stop just after where the explosives were set and you can just see the outline of the structure still standing as the smoke begins to clear.If the video had just run on for a second or two it would have been perfectly obvious that this was nothing like the collapse of the towers.

There were no explosions as the WTC buildings collapse. In addition, each floor level could only support a certain amount of weight before total failure occurs and it is obvious the combined weight of the upper mass far exceeded the ability of each of the lower floors to arrest the inertia of that upper mass. As the descending upper mass reached each of the lower floor level, those floors failed and added to the mass, so once again;

*  No explosions seen on video

*  No bomb explosions heard on audio

*  No bomb explosions detected on seismic monitors in the area

*  No explosive-related hardware found on within the rubble at ground zero.

In other words, there is no evidence that explosives were used at ground zero.

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 September 2013 - 11:08 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1103    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,089 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 26 September 2013 - 11:01 PM

View Postpoppet, on 26 September 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

https://www.youtube....h?v=goGGQhhTcDY

in the video you can see core columns that have survived the initial collapse and then seem to start their own collapse so fast the dust that has settle on them is left blowing in the wind.



The steel core columns were tapered in thickness from 6″ thick in the subbasements to 5″, 4″, and so on up to the highest floors, where it was only 1/4″ thick. Thus, the relative mass of the steel for the top 14 floors of the North Tower, for example, which were alleged to have been weakened by the intense fires and collapsed onto the 96 floors below, represented on 1.4% of the mass of the steel.  The very idea that that minuscule relative mass could overcome the lower 98.6% is a physical absurdity.

Do you actually want to sit there and have us believe that the upper 14 floors were made up of just...steel?

That fact that you believe that is just assumption from a false premise.

All falling masses have energy.  

Think about that for a while then come back to us when you realized that the the upper falling mass only has too overcome the resistance of the floor beneath it to continue propagating collapse.

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

#1104    poppet

poppet

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined:09 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2013 - 11:04 PM

Sky

Quote

I recently came across debunker vids on YouTube, such as this that boast of the Verinage demolition technique used to bring down buildings without explosives. According to Wikipedia, “The technique. . .is used in France to weaken and buckle the supports of central floors promoting the collapse of the top part of a building onto the bottom resulting in a rapid, symmetrical collapse”. This is offered as a refutation to the 9/11 Truth claim that the WTC buildings were brought down via controlled demolition, arguing that gravity alone can cause a symmetrical, freefall collapse without the use of explosives.
Do they have a case here? A moment’s reflection will reveal that not only does this NOT support their case (that fire weakened steel causing gravitational collapse), but rather it strongly supports the controlled demolition theory regarding the towers. How so?
Consider their example. What is the Verinage method? It is controlled demolition! So they are using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory!! This is obviously self-refuting. In order for them to have a case, it would seem to me that they would have to provide examples of fire alone initiating specific and simultaneous structural failure in order to cause a symmetrical collapse that resemble anything like the WTC buildings. Consider that the Verinage method employs a team of structural engineers who “rig the physics” in a purposeful and deliberate manner in order to accomplish the desired result; a symmetrical, rapid collapse. This strongly supports the controlled demolition theory, NOT a fire initiated, gravitational collapse theory. To say that fire can do exactly what a team of engineers and demolition experts do is not only absurd, but it is an insult to their profession in my opinion. It is argued that the Verinage method emulates the WTC conditions for this kind of collapse. But how can that be without fire? This is question begging as the whole debate is centered on whether random office fires can bring down buildings in the exact manner as controlled demolition, exhibiting all, or most of, their characteristics. The Verinage example refutes their own case.

Also, a closer look at theVerinage method reveals other problems for the debunkers. For example, what type of building is the method used for? Are any steel framed high rises? No.
To bring down steel framed buildings, explosives are generally used.
Does the method employ a gravitational collapse of the top 15 % of the building in order to crush the bottom 85%, like we see in the WTC’s? No, they weaken the columns on the CENTRAL floors and let physics do the work.
Lastly, it is argued, in the WTC collapses, that the squibs were the result of pressurized air, not explosives. In the Verinage example, no explosives were used so wouldn’t westill expect to see many squibs like in the WTC’s, assuming they are the samekind of destructive event? Compare the WTC squibs with these Verinage examples. Where are the squibs in the lower floors in the Verinage examples? . The squibs in the WTC’s, in contrast, look exactly like those seen in controlled demolitions using explosives.

So, does the Verinage example carry any weight for the debunkers? Not at all. It not only does NOT support their case but rather it’s a strong support for the controlled demolition theory in that it takes HUMAN AGENCY, a team of EXPERTS, to set up the NECESSARY CONDITIONS in order to accomplish this kind ofcollapse. For more detailed info on the problems of the Verinage method brought up by debunkers, see here and here.

http://911debunkers....demolition.html


#1105    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 26 September 2013 - 11:16 PM

View Postpoppet, on 26 September 2013 - 11:04 PM, said:


Once again, you used a reference from a person who has no idea what he is  talking about, and remember, the collapse of the WTC buildings began at the impact points, which is a clear indication the collapse of the WTC buildings was the result of structural failure and nothing to do with explosives and to underline that fact, there were no secondary explosions when the aircraft impacted the buildings and since the impacts were severe enough to dislodge fire protection from the structures, there was no way that explosives would have remained firmly attached to the structural columns and for explosives to be effective, the structural columns must be pre-weakened, which would have taken many months and explosives must be firmly attached to the structural columns, otherwise,  you will have this result.

Posted Image

Notice the steel columns remained standing within the crater of that huge bomb beneath WTC1.

Quote

Also, a closer look at theVerinage method reveals other problems for the debunkers. For example, what type of building is the method used for? Are any steel framed high rises? No.
To bring down steel framed buildings, explosives are generally used.

Let's take another look and  take a look at time line 1:46 and notice that no explosives were used to bring down WTC6, just cables.



That points out  another error in your reference because it said that only explosives could demolish a steel frame building, but the video shows only cables collapsing WTC6 without the aid of explosives. In other words, another bust for your reference.

Quote

Does the method employ a gravitational collapse of the top 15 % of the building in order to crush the bottom 85%,

It doesn't come down to the lower 85% per se, it comes down to the inability of each floor level to arrest the initia of the descending upper mass.


Quote

Lastly, it is argued, in the WTC collapses, that the squibs were the result of pressurized air, not explosives.

I already knew that as well.

Quote

...In the Verinage example, no explosives were used so wouldn’t we still expect to see many squibs like in the WTC’s,..assuming they are the samekind of destructive event? Compare the WTC squibs with these Verinage examples. Where are the squibs in the lower floors in the Verinage examples? . The squibs in the WTC’s, in contrast, look exactly like those seen in controlled demolitions using explosives.

So, let's take another look and notice the squibs and remember, no explosives are used in this demolition process.



Which simply means your reference is busted again. How many times have I warned you against using such websites of people who have no more knowledge of what is going on than you?

Edited by skyeagle409, 26 September 2013 - 11:40 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1106    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,143 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 26 September 2013 - 11:38 PM

View Postdavid icke is right, on 26 September 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:

But could the laws of physics change?
In general? Because there's so much evidence previously stacked up for them, they tend to be refined more than changed, per se.

But sure.

If, however, your conspiracy theory is at the stage where you need the fundamental form that matter exists in and the manner in which it interacts to have changed in precisely the way that would allow EvilGuv™ to conveniently stage a nuclear explosion without leaving behind any of those pesky telltale signs of a nuclear explosion (including seismic evidence) and then flipping neatly back in such a way that no scientist in the rest of the world either suspects or notices - twice - then, my advice would be that you probably need to find a new theory.


#1107    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,838 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 27 September 2013 - 02:40 AM

View PostTiggs, on 26 September 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

You know what's even more important?

Not coming up with scenarios that require the known laws of Physics to change.
Love that One Tiggs !
:whistle: What Goes Up can Come Down ! ITs a simple fact

This is a Work in Progress!

#1108    ambelamba

ambelamba

    Just an average guy who tries to be...NORMAL!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,355 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Entertainment Capital of the World

  • It's good to be mildly skeptical to remain sane. But too much of it will make you a douche.

Posted 27 September 2013 - 02:53 AM

I wonder why anyone would waste money to build a nuke that can be substituted with conventional explosives.

They came with a Bible and their religion. stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now they tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved.

-Chief Pontiac (1718-1769)

#1109    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,267 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 27 September 2013 - 03:09 AM

View Postambelamba, on 27 September 2013 - 02:53 AM, said:

I wonder why anyone would waste money to build a nuke that can be substituted with conventional explosives.

I brought that up a while ago...

View PostCzero 101, on 20 September 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

The most ludicrous aspect of the whole "no fallout nuke" (one of the many) is this: Why would anyone go to all the trouble to develop a nuke that leaves no or virtually no traces of its nuclearness when there are PLENTY of conventional explosives that would do the trick just nicely.

Certain CT's like to pretend they actually understand the precept and invoke Occam's Razor without realizing cuts both ways. The same thing that they think proves their point actually destroys it.

No one has bothered to address that yet. I guess its more fun for BR, Poppet and DIIR to live in the safe little fantasy world they've created.





Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#1110    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,089 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 27 September 2013 - 03:29 AM

View Postpoppet, on 26 September 2013 - 11:04 PM, said:


The obvious failure in that article is from the false premise stemming from this:

Quote

Consider their example. What is the Verinage method? It is controlled demolition! So they are using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory!! This is obviously self-refuting. In order for them to have a case, it would seem to me that they would have to provide examples of fire alone initiating specific and simultaneous structural failure in order to cause a symmetrical collapse that resemble anything like the WTC buildings.


Well of course the verinage demolition is controlled demolition.  Nobody refutes that point.

The reason why the verinage is important is because it debunks the theory that a smaller falling upper mass doesn't have enough energy to continue propagating collapse unless explosives are involved.

The author of the article knows this, and it is obvious he is either feigning ignorance or putting his own personal spins.  Regardless, the article is badly written anyways.

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users