I agree



can you please post a link for this?

>the recent video completely ending all doubt in the oklahoma murrah demolition and ensuing govt lie >surrounding it

link?

> and the air traffic controller coming out recently detailing his belief in the fact that 9/11 was an inside job >and that there is an ensuing gag and cover up should convince even the hard core skeptic--

link?

You only read the first portion of your own link, or you didn't understand what you were reading. If you read further, you would have known that the smaller the explosion the greater the release of radiation. In fact, 10-15 times greater. The neutron bomb kills people, while leaving structures in better condition. Perfect for an invading force.

Here is what you didn't post in your link.

Cohen in 1958 investigated a low-yield 'clean' nuclear weapon and discovered that the 'clean' bomb case thickness scales as the cube-root of yield. So a larger percentage of neutrons escapes from a small detonation, due to the thinner case required to reflect back X-rays during the secondary stage (fusion) ignition. For example, a 1-kiloton bomb only needs a case 1/10th the thickness of that required for 1-megaton.

So although most neutrons are absorbed by the casing in a 1-megaton bomb, in a 1-kiloton bomb they would mostly escape. A neutron bomb is only feasible if the yield is sufficiently high that efficient fusion stage ignition is possible, and if the yield is low enough that the case thickness will not absorb too many neutrons. This means that neutron bombs have a yield range of 1-10 kilotons, with fission proportion varying from 50% at 1-kiloton to 25% at 10-kilotons (all of which comes from the primary stage). The neutron output per kiloton is then 10-15 times greater than for a pure fission implosion weapon or for a strategic warhead like a W87 or W88.

You refuse to watch good , informative documentaries on certain topics,
because they reveal certain truths that you would rather dismiss
as 'theories' , or whatever other term you use to try and distract people
and dissuade them. Also you claim to be some expert on every single weapons
technology available to humanity. Uh, sure. We are supposed to believe that
you are more an expert than the Finnish physicist. Only an idiot would
consider you credible. btw, Are you paid to do this?

Conspiracy theorists little rants are getting annoying.

as far as the guilianni comment which link were you refering to? the case where an unarmed man was shot 41 times and all offending officers were pardoned or one refering to gulianni shipping all the steel to china under armed escort??
**************
heres the oklahoma info which got a revealing thread shut for no reason(and complaining about ressurecting old threads is contradictive to the "why didnt you use the search feature" excuse for closing threads for no reason)-- oklahoma info read the whole thread for all the info
**************
heres the info on the boston air traffic contoller who came forward recently
whistle blower link

No, I don't watch them because they are boring and simplistic. about two years ago, I used to watch them regularly, so that I could give an honest accounting of my opinion when asked, but the material rapidly became repetitive and remained deceptive in nature, gradually reducing my respect in the subject to the point were my only interest in it today lies in the engineering aspects of it, which is an area of personal interest to me.

I do? I was unaware of having claimed any such thing. Could you do me a favor and show me were I even implied that I was any sort of expert of any sort of weapon?



The only reason you do not consider me credible is because I am disagreeing with you. If I had stated that I agreed, you would be praising me to the board. You know it's true.

Comments such as yours mean very little to me, ultimately. When a person can do no more to support their side than try and cast insults at others, then they have displayed in a far clearer way their inability to present clear and sound arguments.



No, I am a volunteer moderator. It's a little odd; you are the second conspiracy theorist who has implied that my employment or payment was responsible for my opinion.

Is it really so impossible for you to believe that aperson can disagree with you based on actual reason and logic, as opposed to blindness and denial? Are you so absolutely sure you and only could possibly be correct, and therefore anyone who does not think as you do must be completly incapable of thinking on their own?

Is there absolutely no possible way that you might...be wrong?

Nope but you can believe whatever you want thats what makes this country great. But I believe if you were to bring all the evidence about 911 to light you would see that Binladin would be far from suspect #1 and a lot closer to US involvement but thats just by looking at all of the evidence we defintely had more motive and much more to gain by this event taking place and also the means.

i was there as it happened, i felt no shocks, before buildings fell, i wached them collapse, and btw there was no concrete used in wtc constraction, it was steel shell with sheetrock on the inside, what made this huge amount of dust was the fireproof coating on steel beams. also when buildings fell it sounded like a rumble, very similar to jet engine sound, a lot of people thought it was another plane that hit the street. but no shockwave.

According to some...you should be dead of radiation poisoning. From an advanced fusion device..... A non-radiating device at that.

There was concrete used, just not all that much. Each floor had about 600 cubic yards of concrete spread over an acre of area.

I repeat the same question that I asked on the locked thread that NOBODY wants to even try to answer:

What is the NAME of the FORCE that ACCELERATED the MASS of the huge dust clouds upward against the downward pull of GRAVITY.

Was it MOMENT THROW, COLLISION RECOIL, THERMAL CONVECTION, COMPRESSED AIR, or some other FORCE?

What made the huge dust clouds rise up ABOVE the top of the buildings, while the building was falling down?

I am not going to fall in the trap of changing of the subject being changed like last time, so if you can answer that simple MECHANICS question I would like to hear your Nobel prize winning answer, if you do not answer that question, then I do not want to hear it.

If the "official explanation" cannot answer this simple MECHANICS question, then is not the "official exlanation" WRONG?


Before the invention of EXPLOSIVES (excluding a volcano), NOBODY was able to create a dust cloud from solid material and throw it high up in the air in seconds!

The best one could do before then, was to grind up the material into dust the usual way using abrasives, set the dust in a pan resting on the short end of a lever, drop a heavy weight from a height on the long end of the levers, to generate a MOMENT that ACCELERATES the dust upward against the downward pull of GRAVITY.

How come NOBODY can build a scale model of the WTC, and simply by bending and weakening the structural members of the model, make it fall and turn the model's building materials turn into dust cloud in almost free fall time, plus make the dust cloud rise above the top of the model, and finally make the cloud rain dust all around model's surrounding area?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/streets1.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/dust.html

yes you're right floor was concrete, i missed that one. all modern buildings have sheetmatel floor with concrete poured over it, i deal with it everyday, drilling holes to put wires and pipes thru.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c...s/concrete.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/volume.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c...ushrooming.html

have you ever seen a building demolition??? do this, throw a rock in the sand, see how sand behaves.
nuton law action and opposite reaction

No one can name the force because it DIDN'T HAPPEN. There was no dust cloud above the height of the buildings, only SMOKE.

well fire and bombs can't shoot beams 100s of feet, so what did? and thre was a 2.1 scale earth quake, it's true a college received it that was like 1 mile away, I forgot the name though.

well fire and bombs can't shoot beams 100s of feet, so what did? and thre was a 2.1 scale earth quake, it's true a college received it that was like 1 mile away, I forgot the name though.

First the sand is already dust, and the WTC was not sitting in a pile of "concrete' dust!

Try dropping that rock on silica ore that is not already dust, and then come back and tell us how that works out!

When can a COLLISION can genereate a higher RECOIL FORCE than its IMPACT FORCE?

When you drop a super ball from 6 feet, do you think will not bounce back higher than 6 feet?

If you drop a rock in the sand from 6 feet, it will not throw a sand cloud higher that 6 feet.

Sorry COLLISION RECOIL could not have provided the FORCE to ACCELERATE the huge MASS of the dust clouds above the height of the WTC!

Another thing I find hilarious on this topic.. The government spent a nominal $14 million investigating 9/11. They spent $100 million investigating the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.

Where exactly are these pictures of dust going higher than the WTC and what the **** is the deal with capitalizing words?

Why do you persist on calling the dust clouds smoke, when everyone else even the 9-11 commision calls them dust clouds?

This is what smoke looks like, see the dark color:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/fires.html


This is what dust looks like, see the light color:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/dust.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/dust.html


Look at the both dust and structural member MASS being ACCELERATED upward AGAINST the FORCE of GRAVITY while the building is falling downward.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc2exp1.html


I guess all this white powder on the streets around the WTC is NYC summer snow!

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/streets1.html


Saying the dust clouds are smoke, will not make it true no matter how many times you post and say it!

But you have to LIE and say that the DUST is SMOKE, because you cannot answer the question of what FORCE ACCELERATED the dust clouds outward, yet alone what FORCE ACCELERATED the dust clouds upward and above the tops of the buildings!

These are the dust clouds rising above the towers just like a volcano.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p.../wtc2dust1.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/dust.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/dust.html


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/streets1.html

Now that we have established that it is a FACT that there are huge dust clouds rising way above the WTC and raining dust down for blocks arround the WTC. lets hear the name of the FORCE that ACCELERATED them upward against the FORCE of GRAVITY.

Was it COLLISION RECOIL, MOMENT THROW, THERMAL CONVECTION, COMPRESSED AIR, or some other FORCE?

The air is getting pushed out of the building as it collapses. The air forced out of the building then hits the building surrounding the WTC creating a updraft. From videos you can see there was also a good breeze blowing.

I didn't see a single picture where the dust clouds go above the height of the towers. They get higher than some of the surrounding buildings and they spread out horizontally for quite a distance, but they do not appear to be higher than the WTC towers.

You want to see it with your own two eyes fastforward the time on this video the event takes place at 26minutes 50 seconds so go a minute before so you can see the build up enjoy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7...tness&hl=en

Thats a pretty funny video.

The CTs are always telling us normal people to do our own research yet many things they have said are repeated word for word in that video. Odd isn't it.

That video loses what little credibility it had when it uses the NOVA models timing of the collapse. It gets even worse after that.

did you even watch the plume rise over the height of the tower? just face it man you are in total denial.

Do you know how to read?

whatever man believe what you want that does not look like air to me that is a plume of high energy explosive by the way as a child you probably were never really good at puzzels were you ? Try and connect the dots.

To get those results the explosives would have to be huge and outside of the building. I doubt that would go unnoticed.

The force of an explosive dissipates very quickly in air.

You conspiracy theorists drive me nuts. It was 19 middle eastern men, affiliated with the terrorist group Al Qeada led by Osama Bin Laden(sp), they hijacked 4 planes, 2 hit the twin towers, 1 hit the pentagon, and another crashed in a field in pennsylvania. They made numerous videos claiming responsibiliy and mentioning specific facts about the event of 9/11, we are in a war in Afghanistan that was widely supported by most of the world, and Osama bin Laden hasn't showered since 2001. The End. Tomorrow I teach you how to count to ten.

Yeah i also have a story to tell you and it involves a girl and three pigs ......Please I prefer reality but you can believe your little childrens story if it will make you sleep better I'll keep searching for a more logical answer as to what happened that day .

Goodluck. Don't waste too much of your life. By the way, what story involves a girl and three pigs?

I've never heard that one either.

I think he means bears

I like how he avoids any facts posted. Although it is quite unoriginal.

That's pretty much three pages of nothing more than people blustering about how much they know and providing little in the way of empirical support for what they are saying happened. That's enough of the hand-waving and pretense. If someone has something to present that would support the idea that a fusion device was used at the WTC, please present the evidence, and for heavens sake, use your own words, even if you are going to present a link. Otherwise, I'm shutting this thread down tonight.

It means that the guy doing the comentary doesn't understand how the building was constructed, I'm an arcitectural technician & been working in a professional architects practice for 25 years, & taking into account how the building is constructed, the collapse is exactly what you would expect if a plane crashed into it a third of the way down the building, taking out 1/3 to 1/2 the support columns in the central core, leaving the remaining columns (on fire) to support the weight of the remaining third of the building. What other outcome would you expect?

Lol!...Please man, If you truly understood how the World Trade Centers were built youd know that they were built to withstand
any sort of impact wether if be Terrorist attack or what have you, the support structures of the World Trade Towershas intricate metal
meshing for 110 stories, if a plane flew into the building it would be no different than poking a pencil through a screen door...a plane hitting
the 80th or so floor would not have causes enough structural damage to bring down two building (What brought down World Trade tower #7 later that day?)
More Internal Fires??...I highly doubt it

As I said in another thread, thermite was used in the demolition because it was the only thing hot enough to melt the steel

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6...owers&hl=en -- Im going to post this again because I believe it

it should be watched, anyone looking for proof of any claims needs only to look at this film

Also note the demeaning jabs, another common CT trait.

I could state how the fire in the twin towers was fanned by 50 mph winds making the fire burn hotter. Smelting of metal is done by feeding more oxygen to the sourse of the fire to raise it's temperature high enough to melt metal. But as aquatus1 and I have found in numerous threads on this topic, facts and commom sense are ignored. Remember RationalFrank aqautus1 ? We made him so mad he started a new thread inviting anyone to debate him with the exception of Eggy, aquatus1, and stardive. Common sense drives em nuts.lol

Example: The free fall theory. CT's say the towers fell at free fall speed.

Common sense fact: No one knows how long it took the towers to fall due to the smoke and dust cloud obscuring the view of the base of the towers, making the amount of time it took the towers to fully collapse impossible to know.

**EDIT**
When a building of any description is demolished, it takes months of prep. work, existing (large) sections of the buildings structure is removed beforehand. The explosive charges are wired together with thousands of feet of cable (highly visible), to enable a syncronized detonation. How was this achieved without anyone noticing?
**EDIT**

**Itsnotouthere, can the personal insults.**

Actually...stardrive open fires cannot get near hot enough to melt steel, not with 50mph winds helping the cause...

The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

"It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire."

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html - To quote the above

arson!

itsnotoutthere...ill prove you wrong all day man, Who was a director in the company that supplied electronic security
for both the World Trade Towers and Washington Dallas airport (Both involved in September 11th?) ...President Bush's younger Brother
Marvin P Bush. ...between 1996-2000 an 8.3 Million dollar contract with Securacom was taken out for a new WTC "Security system"

Wirt D Walker III - a cousin of the bush brothers was CEO of Securacom from 1999 - 2002, interestingly enough, these facts were never made public
during the attacks, but can be found easily with a little searching

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securacom - Securacom on Wiki reference
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...bush_death.html - Just another interesting article I found

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

All your questions answered...next.

Yep you can find all kinds of **EDIT** on the internet.

**The language filters are there for a reason.**

Since no one is addressing the actual topic, despite my warning this morning, I will now close the thread as it has gone off-topic and has returned to the same old recycled arguments that keep on being brought up time and time again.

Anyone who wishes to open any future threads, be advised that threads concerning 9/11 (and the Apollo moon hoax) need to have a specific point of argument in order to avoid being closed.