Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

America Nuked 9/11


poppet

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copy and paste the data here.

Can you copy & paste data from an E Book? I've never used one of things, so I wouldn't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Nota bene: Except, of course, for the two jetliners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you copy & paste data from an E Book? I've never used one of things, so I wouldn't know.

Depends on the e-reader software. The problem here is BR is quoting information on a book not scientifically published journals. I have yet to see any qualifications Jeff Prager has in regards to Nuclear Physics, Epidemiology, or a Medical Degree to make such asinine assertions.

It was much the same as listening to DRG try to explain physics of collapsing buildings, or Harriett et AL talk about forensic analysis of dust. It usually ends up a hilarious failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 tons of toxic material (a veritable chemical soup) that were in the pile?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copy and paste the data here.

If not successful with the copy and paste, I will at least provide the footnotes from CDC and other sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tons of toxic material (a veritable chemical soup) that were in the pile?

That would seem to be a likely answer, but the data does not bear it out, at least according to Prager.

Asbestosis is offered as another possible reason, but asbestosis does not bring those rare cancers. Restricted pulmonary efficiency, but not rare cancers.

And even more interesting, it seems that the DELTA Group and USGS samples are very very low in asbestos readings. That is, afterwards there was not very much asbestos present there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.