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

#586    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,336 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:34 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 08 September 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

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.


#587    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:05 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 September 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

The evidence is not really extraordinary RB.

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

Quote

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.

Quote

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. :yes: The fact that cleanup crews are not wearing protective suits proves there was no dangerous radiation levels at ground zero.

Quote

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 by skyeagle409, 08 September 2013 - 02:22 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#588    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,336 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:19 PM

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. :tu:


#589    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:45 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 September 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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.


Quote



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.


Quote

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.


Posted Image


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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

...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.



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?

Quote

... 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.

Quote

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

Which happens in ordinary house and office fires.

Quote

...to the mysterious autos.

What mysterious autos?


Edited by skyeagle409, 08 September 2013 - 03:43 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#590    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,336 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 09 September 2013 - 01:15 PM

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.


#591    Reann

Reann

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 855 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012

Posted 09 September 2013 - 01:30 PM

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 by Reann, 09 September 2013 - 01:34 PM.


#592    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 September 2013 - 01:57 PM

View PostReann, on 09 September 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

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.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#593    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 September 2013 - 02:11 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 09 September 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

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.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#594    Reann

Reann

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 855 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012

Posted 09 September 2013 - 03:14 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 09 September 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

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.


#595    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 September 2013 - 07:04 PM

View PostReann, on 09 September 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#596    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,336 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:06 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 09 September 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

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. :td:

Edited by Babe Ruth, 09 September 2013 - 08:08 PM.


#597    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 September 2013 - 11:08 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 09 September 2013 - 08:06 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote


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. :td:


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.



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. :td:

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 September 2013 - 11:37 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#598    aztek

aztek

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,379 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 09 September 2013 - 11:26 PM

here we go again

RESIDENT TROLL.

#599    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 September 2013 - 11:40 PM

View Postaztek, on 09 September 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

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.

Quote


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:

  • 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.
  • The fact that radioactive iodine concentrations were actually lower in the upper/WTC debris-filled layers.
  • 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.
  • Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium, actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background level for WTC dust.
  • 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.
  • No fatalities due to radiation "burning" were reported near ground zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse.
  • No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers.
  • 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 by skyeagle409, 10 September 2013 - 12:01 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#600    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 September 2013 - 12:43 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 September 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users