Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10
poppet

America Nuked 9/11

2,270 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification Swanny.

The events of the day were highly irregular to say the least. Not just where the debris fell, but all the other evidence, photographic, witness statements, location of debris, and virtually everything else, so it was an explosion, a demolition, of some sort.

Obviously, exactly what kind of demolition--conventional or nuclear--remains to be seen, but with the epidemiology piling up steadily and surely 12 years later, the most likely culprit is nuclear.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification Swanny.

The events of the day were highly irregular to say the least.

True, not much of a precedent for airliners being deliberately flown into buildings.

Not just where the debris fell, but all the other evidence, photographic, witness statements, location of debris, and virtually everything else, so it was an explosion, a demolition, of some sort.

If you consider that all evidence points to a demolition, whatever that evidence happens to be, then you naturally say that. I don't have that mindset, so when I look at the evidence, I find that it rules out a demolition for several reasons.

Obviously, exactly what kind of demolition--conventional or nuclear--remains to be seen, but with the epidemiology piling up steadily and surely 12 years later, the most likely culprit is nuclear.

There you go again. To you, the evidence favours nuclear, but other conspiracy theorists, eg Steven Jones, look at the same evidence and rule out nuclear. It's this cavalier attitude to evidence and logic that makes conspiracy theorists so entertaining.

http://911review.com.../wtc/nukes.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The events of the day were highly irregular to say the least. Not just where the debris fell, but all the other evidence, photographic, witness statements, location of debris, and virtually everything else,...

All of which debunks 911 truther claims that explosives were used.

...so it was an explosion, a demolition, of some sort.

According to demolition experts in the area, they heard no demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed and the sounds the witnesses described were later found to be attributed to things other than explosives.

Obviously, exactly what kind of demolition--conventional or nuclear--remains to be seen,

False! There was no evidence of any kind that an explosive demolition occurred at ground zero.

Obviously, exactly what kind of demolition--conventional or nuclear--remains to be seen, but with the epidemiology piling up steadily and surely 12 years later, the most likely culprit is nuclear.

I already know that you know, no nuclear detonation occurred at ground zero, which simply means that you are just here to have fun and cannot be taken seriously because you stumbled when you back-stepped and added conventional explosives.

Apparently, you were caught in the act trying to deceive us and I hope you didn't think your misstep went unnoticed.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, not much of a precedent for airliners being deliberately flown into buildings.

If you consider that all evidence points to a demolition, whatever that evidence happens to be, then you naturally say that. I don't have that mindset, so when I look at the evidence, I find that it rules out a demolition for several reasons.

There you go again. To you, the evidence favours nuclear, but other conspiracy theorists, eg Steven Jones, look at the same evidence and rule out nuclear. It's this cavalier attitude to evidence and logic that makes conspiracy theorists so entertaining.

http://911review.com.../wtc/nukes.html

The developing epidemiology makes Jones' theory appear to be incorrect.

What besides radiation effects cause multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and leukemia at the rates we see in those who worked on the pile?

How do you rationalize the fact that those (over 1000 dead as of March 2011) who worked on the pile have the same diseases, at the same levels of incidence, as those who survived Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl? And probably soon to be Fukishima?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The developing epidemiology makes Jones' theory appear to be incorrect.

What besides radiation effects cause multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and leukemia at the rates we see in those who worked on the pile?

How do you rationalize the fact that those (over 1000 dead as of March 2011) who worked on the pile have the same diseases, at the same levels of incidence, as those who survived Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl? And probably soon to be Fukishima?

Can you cite references to your data please.

Edited by RaptorBites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The developing epidemiology makes Jones' theory appear to be incorrect.

Well, let's take a look.

* No radiation associated with a nuclear detonation

* No blast or shock wave associated with a nuclear detonation

* No detonation flash associated with a nuclear detonation

* No EMP associated with a nuclear detonation

Just a few facts and simply putting it in simple words, no nuclear detonation because the story was a hoax.

What besides radiation effects cause multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and leukemia at the rates we see in those who worked on the pile?

The evidence has been presented to you that the cancers had nothing to do with radiation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And probably soon to be Fukishima?

Speaking of Fukushima, let's take a look.

Japan vows quick action on Fukushima as tainted water crisis deepens

TOKYO - Japan vowed quick, decisive action, including the use of public funds, to tackle the worsening problem of contaminated water pouring from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant, as the authorities step in to help the facility's embattled operator.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said the government "will step forward and implement all necessary policies" to deal with the flood of radioactive water from the plant, a legacy of the world's worst atomic disaster in a quarter century.

http://worldnews.nbc...is-deepens?lite

No such radioactive contamination was ever found at ground zero.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really dosnt matter Skyeagle in about twenty years were all going to be radioactive. DONT EAT THE FISH. so LONG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you cite references to your data please.

The ebook I'm still reading. If it had been published on old-fashioned paper, I would have already finished it. :tu: I hate reading on the computer. Too much bothers my eyes.

He cites CDC and other data. I remember some years back when it was a political issue. But being up in New York, I did not pay close attention. I do remember something about a Zadroga Bill.

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ebook I'm still reading. If it had been published on old-fashioned paper, I would have already finished it. :tu: I hate reading on the computer. Too much bothers my eyes.

He cites CDC and other data. I remember some years back when it was a political issue. But being up in New York, I did not pay close attention. I do remember something about a Zadroga Bill.

Copy and paste the data here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.