Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.conspiracy > #270933 > unrolled thread

The great 9/11 mystery has been solved

Back to article view | Back to alt.conspiracy

Contents

  The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-11 16:40 -0600
    Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-11 23:21 +0000
      Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-12 10:00 -0600
        Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-12 18:16 +0000
          Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-15 01:26 -0800
            Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 04:23 -0600
            Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 06:00 -0500
              Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 06:46 -0600
          Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-15 09:41 -0600
            Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-16 01:55 +0000
              Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-15 20:46 -0600
                Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-16 16:06 +0000
    Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-11-11 15:28 -0800
      Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-12 21:24 +0000
    Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2015-11-13 19:12 -0800
      Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-14 21:16 +0100
        Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2015-11-14 19:41 -0800
          Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-15 05:31 +0100
            Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-15 05:46 +0100
              Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-15 17:37 -0600
            Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 04:21 -0600
              Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-15 21:47 +0100
                Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 17:45 -0600
                  Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-15 18:43 -0600
              Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-15 22:55 +0000
                Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-15 17:15 -0600
                  Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-16 19:17 +0000
                    Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-16 13:37 -0600
                      Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-16 21:36 +0000
                        Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-16 15:56 -0600
                          Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-17 16:57 +0000
                            Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 06:50 -0800
                              Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 08:05 -0800
                              Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-11-30 11:21 -0500
                                Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 09:31 -0800
                                  Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-12-01 16:20 -0500
                                  Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 04:34 -0600
                                  Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 18:12 -0800
                                    Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 04:12 -0600
                                    Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-12-03 10:30 -0500
                              Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-30 16:46 +0000
                        Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-17 05:03 +0100
          Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 10:34 -0800
        Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-15 17:28 -0600
        Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 10:46 -0800
          Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved joeturn <joeturn2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 10:52 -0800
            Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 05:29 -0800
              Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-02 15:12 +0000
                Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved edrhodes@hotmail.com - 2015-12-02 19:35 -0800
          Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 07:04 +1100
            Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-01 20:21 +0000
            Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 04:34 -0600
              Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-12-02 05:51 -0500
                Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 16:13 -0600
              Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 07:43 +1100
                Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 16:13 -0600
          Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-01 20:21 +0000
            Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 04:34 -0600

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#270933 — The great 9/11 mystery has been solved

By considering the type of nukes used on 9/11 we now know why there was very 
little radiation and no very obvious systemic signature.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

 =======================================

Because the sub-basement infrastructure blueprints have all been scrubbed, 
we do not know the precise position of the wastewater main shafts, which is 
where they placed the nukes. All we know (from Eric Darton's 1994 book on 
the WTC, "Divided We Stand") is that those shafts did exist, one underneath 
each tower. The best conjecture I can offer is that the shafts were 
off-centre, thus introducing asymmetries. That would explain both the 
"stairwell B miracle" and the footage here ? and also, incidentally, why the 
top of the South Tower tilted like it did.

Another thing worth keeping in mind is that the nukes employed were of the 
MRR (minimum residual radiation) type, colloquially known as "neutron 
bombs". What this means that the fission primary is very small compared to 
the total yield, and there is no tertiary (fissionable tamper) at all. It's 
easy to show, as I have done elsewhere, that the total yield must have been 
about one kiloton. The primary could be as small as 1% of the total yield, 
with the other 99% coming from the fusion secondary, which puts the "thermo" 
into thermonuclear.

Several observations are in place regardeing MRR designs. One is that most 
of the energy will be thermal not mechanical/kinetic, so the pulverisation 
happened mainly through heat not crushing. Generally speaking, you need at 
least 20 psi overpressure to obliterate reinforced concrete structures, and 
that rule of thumb also applies here. You can then look up in tables the 
appropriate size (yield) of the nuke. The ballpark figure obtains after 
making appropriate adjustments for a directed underground shaft burst rather 
than open airburst, and also doubling or tripling the yield to account for 
the very "thermo" nature of MRRs.

Another important observation is that, as the name suggests, the residual 
footprint in terms of fission-product fallout will be very limited. So 
limited, in fact, that it isn't all that difficult to cover up. Thanks to 
William Tahil's report "The Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Centre", 
we've known for nine years now that 9/11 was a nuclear event. The smoking 
gun is printed right up front on the cover of Tahil's report: it is the 
tight barium-strontium correlation in the USGS dust samples, which reveals 
that the two must have come from the same process. The only known process 
that will generate that is nuclear fission. Tahil's findings have since been 
reinforced by other research, notably the thyroid cancer epidemic amongst 
first responders. Thyroid cancer on this scale can only have one cause: 
iodine-131, a fission product with a half life of about eight days, and 
which accumulates in the thyroid gland, irradiates it and causes cancer. So 
we know 9/11 was nuclear, all right, and the limited footprint tells us they 
used MRR nukes. With ER or pure-fission nukes, the fallout would have been 
much greater and basically impossible to cover up.

Still another crucially important observation about MRR nukes is that none 
of the declared nuclear powers has any in their arsenals. Those arsenals are 
regulated by international treaties including in particular the NPT 
(non-proliferation treaty), so we know the nukes employed on 9/11 came from 
a clandestine arsenal. More specifically, they came from Israel, whose 
clandestine nuclear programme is known to be heavily geared towards this 
kind of "small, clean" nukes. Note also that Israel is not a signatory to 
the NPT. So because the murder weapon is unique to the killer, we also know 
whodunnit.

In other words, the great 9/11 mystery has been solved. What remains to be 
dealt with is the political part, which isn't really my business. I'm 
European not American, but happened to live in NYC at the time and ten years 
afterwards. Finding out what happened became a psychological necessity for 
me. Handling the political ramifications will require regime change in 
Washington, DC, and that's beyond my reach. I'm just glad I don't live there 
any longer. The next time they hit, America won't get away so cheaply. In my 
opinion, 9/11 was just a preview of what's to come.

=======================================

So now the question is how much AM radio interference do you get from MRRs? 
You obviously get enough to pinpoint when the MRR nuke under the South Tower 
was detonated.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

So again nukes pass the duck test especially when you consider that you 
can't relay on seismic signatures or massive radiation to spot an MRR nuke. 
<G>
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#270934

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>Subject: Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved

<snip crap>

Yup, you did a great job at solving the great 9/11 mystery, Rocky! First,
you applied the "Duck Test" to prove once and for all, that it was totally
impossible for nuclear explosives to have been used.  Then you applied the
Sherlock Holmes test, which states that once you eliminate the impossible,
the improbable, no matter how unlikely, must be the answer.  So, Rocky's
genius eliminated the impossible (nukes), so the very improbable event of
three steel-frame buildings collapsing on the same day due to structural
damage and raging fires, must be the reason why the entire World Trade 
Center was destroyed.

Great job, Rocky!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270954

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n20ih1$c3q$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>Subject: Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved
> 2
> <snip crap>
>
> Yup, you did a great job at solving the great 9/11 mystery, Rocky! First,
> you applied the "Duck Test" to prove once and for all, that it was totally
> impossible for nuclear explosives to have been used.

You are a complete idiot because you still think the nukes used on the Twin 
Towers should have left a seismic signature and a lot of radiation when it 
turns out the radiation from those nukes had a half life of 8 days meaning 
after a few week a Geiger counter might not detect anything extra

And if you had read what someone else posted in the OP then you would know 
they only needed about 1kt instead of 150kt meaning the seismic signature 
could have been hidden in the background noise.  See, I told you there was a 
way to use a nuke in Nuke York City without an obvious seismic signature. 
<G>

Too bad you that you are a total idiot when it comes to the NRR nukes that 
were used to vaporize the Twin Towers..
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

And you might want to look closer at the OP because MRR nukes are something 
you still know nothing about.  <G>

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270959

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:n20ih1$c3q$1@pcls7.std.com...

>> Yup, you did a great job at solving the great 9/11 mystery, Rocky! First,
>> you applied the "Duck Test" to prove once and for all, that it was totally
>> impossible for nuclear explosives to have been used.

>You are a complete idiot because you still think the nukes used on the Twin 
>Towers should have left a seismic signature

All nukes leave a distinctive seismic signature.  Remember?  It's part
of your excellent Duck Test disproving nukes!

> and a lot of radiation when it 
>turns out the radiation from those nukes had a half life of 8 days meaning 
>after a few week a Geiger counter might not detect anything extra

Nope.  A whole shitload of fission products and neutron-activated
radioisotopes are produce.  Some have half-lives measured in seconds,
others in thousands of years.  Yes, one of the more dangerous isotopes
(Iodine-131) has a half-life of 8 days, but that's just one of dozens.  
Any site where there was a nuke is still radioactive.  "Trinity" is still
radioactive, and that was in 1945.  It's safe enough to visit, but you are
not allowed to take any of the "trinitite" (radioactive glassy melted
sand) as a souvineer. So the World Trade Center site would measure as
radioactive even today, had there been nukes.  The fact that it isn't is
another part of your awesome Duck Test proof of no nukes.

>And if you had read what someone else posted in the OP then you would know 
>they only needed about 1kt instead of 150kt meaning the seismic signature 
>could have been hidden in the background noise.

They regularly detect quarry blasting on seismometers.  No way to hide 
even a 1kT nuke.

>  See, I told you there was a 
>way to use a nuke in Nuke York City without an obvious seismic signature. 

How?  You can't hide the radioactivity or the seismic signature.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271046

In article <n22l10$r92$2@pcls7.std.com>,
 moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

> 
> >> Yup, you did a great job at solving the great 9/11 mystery, Rocky!

Of course we will never know entirely what really happened.
It's pretty obvious that the official story line is a bunch of lies.'
I mean 3 steel framed buildings fell like we saw.
That is impossible. And the air was safe to breathe. well, that had to 
be a lie. and why , to get the evidence of what really happened 
destroyed. 
start here;
www.ae911truth.org/ or  just Gooble ; 9/11 truth.
-- 
Karma ; what a concept!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271051

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 01:26:10 -0800, Shoe-Chucker 2
<georgewk10@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <n22l10$r92$2@pcls7.std.com>,
> moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>
>> 
>> >> Yup, you did a great job at solving the great 9/11 mystery, Rocky!
>
>Of course we will never know entirely what really happened.

     There may be some minor details we'll never know.

>It's pretty obvious that the official story line is a bunch of lies.'

     No, it's not.

>I mean 3 steel framed buildings fell like we saw.

     Yes.

>That is impossible. 

     Clearly it's not.

>And the air was safe to breathe. well, that had to 
>be a lie. and why , to get the evidence of what really happened 
>destroyed. 

     I await your evidence that the reason for claiming the air was
safe to breath when it was not was for the purpose of destroying
evidence. If your claim is true, you'll provide valid, verifiable
evidence.

>start here;
>www.ae911truth.org/ or  just Gooble ; 9/11 truth.

     Got anything that hasn't been proved to lack any credibility?
Anything at all?
     If you do, please present it.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271053

On 11/15/2015 04:26 AM, Shoe-Chucker 2 wrote:
> In article <n22l10$r92$2@pcls7.std.com>,
>   moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>
>>
>>>> Yup, you did a great job at solving the great 9/11 mystery, Rocky!
>
> Of course we will never know entirely what really happened.
> It's pretty obvious that the official story line is a bunch of lies.'
> I mean 3 steel framed buildings fell like we saw.
> That is impossible. And the air was safe to breathe. well, that had to
> be a lie. and why , to get the evidence of what really happened
> destroyed.
> start here;
> www.ae911truth.org/ or  just Gooble ; 9/11 truth.
>

Who needs science and evidence when we've got people like HVAC here on 
the internet who assure us that all you truthers are a bunch of insane 
kooks! If you can't trust your government, who can you trust? I mean 
government would never expose innocent citizens to dangerous radiation, 
spread bacteria around cities, sell drugs to children, pretend to cure 
disease to watch the patients die or kill innocent people by giving them 
psychoactive drugs without their knowledge, would they?

You are insane. The moderator of this newsgroups says so.

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271054

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 06:00:49 -0500, benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/15/2015 04:26 AM, Shoe-Chucker 2 wrote:
>> In article <n22l10$r92$2@pcls7.std.com>,
>>   moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yup, you did a great job at solving the great 9/11 mystery, Rocky!
>>
>> Of course we will never know entirely what really happened.
>> It's pretty obvious that the official story line is a bunch of lies.'
>> I mean 3 steel framed buildings fell like we saw.
>> That is impossible. And the air was safe to breathe. well, that had to
>> be a lie. and why , to get the evidence of what really happened
>> destroyed.
>> start here;
>> www.ae911truth.org/ or  just Gooble ; 9/11 truth.
>
>Who needs science and evidence when we've got people like HVAC here on 
>the internet who assure us that all you truthers are a bunch of insane 
>kooks! 

     HVAC isn't required for that. You k00ks put a lot of effort into
proving it without the assistance of anyone else. 
     That you've become HVAC's bitch doesn't mean he's actually
necessary to expose you for the k00k you are.

>If you can't trust your government, who can you trust? I mean 
>government would never expose innocent citizens to dangerous radiation, 
>spread bacteria around cities, sell drugs to children, pretend to cure 
>disease to watch the patients die or kill innocent people by giving them 
>psychoactive drugs without their knowledge, would they?
>
>You are insane. The moderator of this newsgroups says so.

     Neither group you posted to has a moderator. Because of this,
your claim cannot be true.
     Do you get anything right? Ever? Serious question.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271057

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n22l10$r92$2@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:n20ih1$c3q$1@pcls7.std.com...
>
>>> Yup, you did a great job at solving the great 9/11 mystery, Rocky! 
>>> First,
>>> you applied the "Duck Test" to prove once and for all, that it was 
>>> totally
>>> impossible for nuclear explosives to have been used.
>
>>You are a complete idiot because you still think the nukes used on the 
>>Twin
>>Towers should have left a seismic signature
>
> All nukes leave a distinctive seismic signature.  Remember?  It's part
> of your excellent Duck Test disproving nukes!

Not mine.  But we can use when the North Tower shook as if it were a tuning 
fork as an earthquake.


>> and a lot of radiation when it
>>turns out the radiation from those nukes had a half life of 8 days meaning
>>after a few week a Geiger counter might not detect anything extra
>
> Nope.  A whole shitload of fission products and neutron-activated
> radioisotopes are produce.  Some have half-lives measured in seconds,
> others in thousands of years.  Yes, one of the more dangerous isotopes
> (Iodine-131) has a half-life of 8 days, but that's just one of dozens.
> Any site where there was a nuke is still radioactive.  "Trinity" is still
> radioactive, and that was in 1945.

But was that nuke manufactured by us or by Israel?  <G>


>  It's safe enough to visit, but you are
> not allowed to take any of the "trinitite" (radioactive glassy melted
> sand) as a souvineer. So the World Trade Center site would measure as
> radioactive even today, had there been nukes.  The fact that it isn't is
> another part of your awesome Duck Test proof of no nukes.

You have already forgotten that the place where the big nukes were detonated 
have been buried in concrete.  You have even seen a photo of that on that 
page that talks about an alleged ice age pothole that was not consistent 
with an ice age pothole but it was consistent with a hole from a nuke that 
was directed more at WTC2 then WTC4.

Nope, MRR Nukes manufactured by Israel and the fact those areas were buried 
in concrete explain how the radiation at GZ could appear to be normal after 
all these years.


>>And if you had read what someone else posted in the OP then you would know
>>they only needed about 1kt instead of 150kt meaning the seismic signature
>>could have been hidden in the background noise.
>
> They regularly detect quarry blasting on seismometers.  No way to hide
> even a 1kT nuke.

And again, if there is a pre existing cavity there will not be any 
noticeable seismic signature so those quarry blast obviously do not have a 
pre existing cavity.  That information was on the same page I get this link 
from:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

> And notice how you still can not explain the multi floor surviving corners 
> but nukes can.  <G>
>
>>  See, I told you there was a
>>way to use a nuke in Nuke York City without an obvious seismic signature.
>
> How?  You can't hide the radioactivity or the seismic signature.

You are wrong on both accounts and there is one thing underground nukes 
leave behind that make it very obvious that underground nukes were used. 
See the multiple floor surviving corners at:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271103

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:n22l10$r92$2@pcls7.std.com...
>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>
>>>You are a complete idiot because you still think the nukes used on the 
>>>Twin
>>>Towers should have left a seismic signature
>>
>> All nukes leave a distinctive seismic signature.  Remember?  It's part
>> of your excellent Duck Test disproving nukes!

>Not mine.

Don't be so modest, Roger! It was you who came up with the excellent Duck
Test that disproves conclusively that nukes could not have been used on
9/11.  You came up with the other excellent Duck Test disproving CGIs as
well!!

>  But we can use when the North Tower shook as if it were a tuning 
>fork as an earthquake.

Perhaps it did shake like a tuning fork as it started collapsing.  But it
did not leave a 5.5 magnitude earthquake (2.3, yes), and it did not 
produce a distinctive nuclear detonation signature, either.  Just like you
showed in your Duck Test!!

>>> and a lot of radiation when it
>>>turns out the radiation from those nukes had a half life of 8 days meaning
>>>after a few week a Geiger counter might not detect anything extra
>>
>> Nope.  A whole shitload of fission products and neutron-activated
>> radioisotopes are produce.  Some have half-lives measured in seconds,
>> others in thousands of years.  Yes, one of the more dangerous isotopes
>> (Iodine-131) has a half-life of 8 days, but that's just one of dozens.
>> Any site where there was a nuke is still radioactive.  "Trinity" is still
>> radioactive, and that was in 1945.

>But was that nuke manufactured by us or by Israel?  <G>

Diversion noted.  As I pointed out, if Ground Zero had been nuked, it 
would still be radioactive.  Just like you noted in your Duck Test!!

>>  It's safe enough to visit, but you are
>> not allowed to take any of the "trinitite" (radioactive glassy melted
>> sand) as a souvineer. So the World Trade Center site would measure as
>> radioactive even today, had there been nukes.  The fact that it isn't is
>> another part of your awesome Duck Test proof of no nukes.

>You have already forgotten that the place where the big nukes were detonated 
>have been buried in concrete.

Doesn't matter.  The whole site would still be radioactive.  It's not.

>  You have even seen a photo of that on that 
>page that talks about an alleged ice age pothole that was not consistent 
>with an ice age pothole but it was consistent with a hole from a nuke that 
>was directed more at WTC2 then WTC4.

Nope, a nuke would have left a crater hundreds of feet in diameter, not 40
feet. Just like you pointed out in your Duck Test!

>> They regularly detect quarry blasting on seismometers.  No way to hide
>> even a 1kT nuke.

>And again, if there is a pre existing cavity there will not be any 
>noticeable seismic signature

Nope.  You're just making crap up again.  What do you think happens when
the blast wave hits the wall of the "pre existing cavity"?  It gets 
transferred to the rock!

>>>  See, I told you there was a
>>>way to use a nuke in Nuke York City without an obvious seismic signature.
>>
>> How?  You can't hide the radioactivity or the seismic signature.

>You are wrong on both accounts and there is one thing underground nukes 
>leave behind that make it very obvious that underground nukes were used. 

Nope.  So far no evidence whatsoever of nukes, plenty of evidence against.
Which you used in your Duck Test Proof!

And you still haven't shown me another example of a "Nuclear Detonation"!
When are you going to show me so I have something to compare to your photo
with all the kookscribbles?  Don't you have a kooksite or kookvid that
shows another "Nuclear Detonation"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271107

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n2bd21$o4a$2@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:n22l10$r92$2@pcls7.std.com...
>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>You are a complete idiot because you still think the nukes used on the
>>>>Twin
>>>>Towers should have left a seismic signature
>>>
>>> All nukes leave a distinctive seismic signature.  Remember?  It's part
>>> of your excellent Duck Test disproving nukes!
>
>>Not mine.
>
> Don't be so modest, Roger! It was you who came up with the excellent Duck
> Test that disproves conclusively that nukes could not have been used on
> 9/11.  You came up with the other excellent Duck Test disproving CGIs as
> well!!

But it was you who changed the rules and tried to make MRR nukes follow the 
same rules as American made nukes.


>>  But we can use when the North Tower shook as if it were a tuning
>>fork as an earthquake.
>
> Perhaps it did shake like a tuning fork as it started collapsing.  But it
> did not leave a 5.5 magnitude earthquake (2.3, yes), and it did not
> produce a distinctive nuclear detonation signature, either.  Just like you
> showed in your Duck Test!!

And I've asked you before and you failed to answer if it started to collapse 
then why did it do nothing for about 12 seconds?

And since when have you seen a collapsing building shake and then do nothing 
and then collapse from near the top down when no other buildings in the 
world have ever collapsed from near the top down?

And they didn't just collapse in a weird way but what they left on the 
ground was even weirder with one wall very high and the staircase closest to 
that wall 6 floors high and the wall furthest from the surviving wall all 
the way down to the ground.  See:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

To date only an off-center deep underground MRR nuke explains the remains of 
both the Twin Towers:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

And given that you think over 90% of Flight 93 was recovered despite the 
fact the photographic evidence of that event proves otherwise proves you are 
a sucker for bullshit stories.


>>>> and a lot of radiation when it
>>>>turns out the radiation from those nukes had a half life of 8 days 
>>>>meaning
>>>>after a few week a Geiger counter might not detect anything extra
>>>
>>> Nope.  A whole shitload of fission products and neutron-activated
>>> radioisotopes are produce.  Some have half-lives measured in seconds,
>>> others in thousands of years.  Yes, one of the more dangerous isotopes
>>> (Iodine-131) has a half-life of 8 days, but that's just one of dozens.
>>> Any site where there was a nuke is still radioactive.  "Trinity" is 
>>> still
>>> radioactive, and that was in 1945.
>
>>But was that nuke manufactured by us or by Israel?  <G>
>
> Diversion noted.  As I pointed out, if Ground Zero had been nuked, it
> would still be radioactive.  Just like you noted in your Duck Test!!

But all you have proven so far is you were wrong about deep underground 
nukes making a flash or an EMP as proven by a video from dmaster on 
alt.conspiracy.

And I've asked you over and over and over to try and find some information 
about deep underground nukes because you seem to think they are no different 
then nukes detonated way above ground.

But now not only do I want you to post info about deep underground nukes but 
on top of that they have to be MRR nukes and not American made nukes.

>>>  It's safe enough to visit, but you are
>>> not allowed to take any of the "trinitite" (radioactive glassy melted
>>> sand) as a souvineer. So the World Trade Center site would measure as
>>> radioactive even today, had there been nukes.  The fact that it isn't is
>>> another part of your awesome Duck Test proof of no nukes.
>
>>You have already forgotten that the place where the big nukes were 
>>detonated
>>have been buried in concrete.
>
> Doesn't matter.  The whole site would still be radioactive.  It's not.

You have already forgotten about MRR nukes and that America does not make 
them so where are you getting your information from?

>>  You have even seen a photo of that on that
>>page that talks about an alleged ice age pothole that was not consistent
>>with an ice age pothole but it was consistent with a hole from a nuke that
>>was directed more at WTC2 then WTC4.
>
> Nope, a nuke would have left a crater hundreds of feet in diameter, not 40
> feet. Just like you pointed out in your Duck Test!

ROTFLMAO and that is more of your Flight 93 bullshit where none of the 
photos taken in Pranksville, PA show anywhere near 93% of Flight 93 being 
found.  <G>

>>> They regularly detect quarry blasting on seismometers.  No way to hide
>>> even a 1kT nuke.
>
>>And again, if there is a pre existing cavity there will not be any
>>noticeable seismic signature
>
> Nope.  You're just making crap up again.  What do you think happens when
> the blast wave hits the wall of the "pre existing cavity"?  It gets
> transferred to the rock!

But that isn't normal rock since it has already been compressed by a lot of 
heat and pressure so what is going to move then?  Don't forget that rock 
next to a nuclear demoltion is called Trinitite and they found that at GZ 
also.

>>>>  See, I told you there was a
>>>>way to use a nuke in Nuke York City without an obvious seismic 
>>>>signature.
>>>
>>> How?  You can't hide the radioactivity or the seismic signature.
>
>>You are wrong on both accounts and there is one thing underground nukes
>>leave behind that make it very obvious that underground nukes were used.
>
> Nope.  So far no evidence whatsoever of nukes, plenty of evidence against.
> Which you used in your Duck Test Proof!

But you used the wrong test for MRR nukes and you keep thinking of American 
made nukes and they don't make MRR nukes.  DUH

> And you still haven't shown me another example of a "Nuclear Detonation"!
> When are you going to show me so I have something to compare to your photo
> with all the kookscribbles?  Don't you have a kooksite or kookvid that
> shows another "Nuclear Detonation"?

You are clearly brainwashed calling people names when you are the one that 
changes rules on MRR nukes where all you have done is proven all you know 
about is American made nukes detonated above ground and America does not 
make MRR nukes and they don't document their underground nukes.

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271114

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
>news:n2bd21$o4a$2@pcls7.std.com...

>>>> All nukes leave a distinctive seismic signature.  Remember?  It's part
>>>> of your excellent Duck Test disproving nukes!
>>
>>>Not mine.
>>
>> Don't be so modest, Roger! It was you who came up with the excellent Duck
>> Test that disproves conclusively that nukes could not have been used on
>> 9/11.  You came up with the other excellent Duck Test disproving CGIs as
>> well!!

>But it was you who changed the rules and tried to make MRR nukes follow the 
>same rules as American made nukes.

MRR nukes?  I don't have a kooktionary so I don't know what your made-up
kookwords mean.  I assume that the M stands for "magic"?  Since you proved
that the only ways nukes could have been used must involve magic or 
something.

>>>  But we can use when the North Tower shook as if it were a tuning
>>>fork as an earthquake.
>>
>> Perhaps it did shake like a tuning fork as it started collapsing.  But it
>> did not leave a 5.5 magnitude earthquake (2.3, yes), and it did not
>> produce a distinctive nuclear detonation signature, either.  Just like you
>> showed in your Duck Test!!

>And I've asked you before and you failed to answer if it started to collapse 
>then why did it do nothing for about 12 seconds?

>And since when have you seen a collapsing building shake and then do nothing 
>and then collapse from near the top down when no other buildings in the 
>world have ever collapsed from near the top down?

But did it "shake and do nothing for 12 seconds" before collapsing?  You
never proved anything like that.  But it doesn't really matter.  We will
never know the fine details of the sequence of internal failures before
the full collapse started, as any witnesses were killed, but it is easy to
see how some major structural component could have failed causing internal
collapses and lots of vibration/noise, then nothing for several seconds,
then another major failure that led to global collapse.

>And they didn't just collapse in a weird way but what they left on the 
>ground was even weirder with one wall very high and the staircase closest to
>that wall 6 floors high and the wall furthest from the surviving wall all 
>the way down to the ground.  

Nothing weird about the collapse.  Just a huge pile of debris and remains
of a broken building, just like you show us over and over again in that
NOAA photo with the kookscribbles added.

>To date only an off-center deep underground MRR nuke explains the remains of 
>both the Twin Towers:

You heve never explained how "only" a nuke could do that, much less 
explained how a nuke could have even happened, with all the disproofs of
nukes being used you gave us in your excellent Duck Test.

>And given that you think over 90% of Flight 93 was recovered despite the 
>fact the photographic evidence of that event proves otherwise proves you are 
>a sucker for bullshit stories.

What photographic evidence "proves" 95% of Flight 93 was not recovered?
There isn't any such thing, as you cannot prove a negative like that.

>> Diversion noted.  As I pointed out, if Ground Zero had been nuked, it
>> would still be radioactive.  Just like you noted in your Duck Test!!

>But all you have proven so far is you were wrong about deep underground 
>nukes making a flash or an EMP as proven by a video from dmaster on 
>alt.conspiracy.

Nope, no such proof has been provided.  (And remember, if you saw that
"proof" in a kookvid, remember that you were the one who proved that all
kookvids lie!)

>And I've asked you over and over and over to try and find some information 
>about deep underground nukes because you seem to think they are no different 
>then nukes detonated way above ground.

I already gave you information about deep underground nukes, none of which
applies anyway, since you kookclaim your magic nukes were only 27 meters 
underground.

>But now not only do I want you to post info about deep underground nukes but 
>on top of that they have to be MRR nukes and not American made nukes.

As I said, I don't have a kooktionary so I don't know what your made up
kookwords mean.  But I guess that "MRR nukes", whatever they are, must be
made in China since everything else is.

>>>>  It's safe enough to visit, but you are
>>>> not allowed to take any of the "trinitite" (radioactive glassy melted
>>>> sand) as a souvineer. So the World Trade Center site would measure as
>>>> radioactive even today, had there been nukes.  The fact that it isn't is
>>>> another part of your awesome Duck Test proof of no nukes.
>>
>>>You have already forgotten that the place where the big nukes were 
>>>detonated
>>>have been buried in concrete.
>>
>> Doesn't matter.  The whole site would still be radioactive.  It's not.

>You have already forgotten about MRR nukes and that America does not make 
>them so where are you getting your information from?

Nukes make things radioactive.  Period.  Fission produces fission products
which are as hot as hell at first.  Fusion irradiates everything with
neutrons which are really effective at killing people and they activate 
nearby matter making it really, really radioactive.

>>>  You have even seen a photo of that on that
>>>page that talks about an alleged ice age pothole that was not consistent
>>>with an ice age pothole but it was consistent with a hole from a nuke that
>>>was directed more at WTC2 then WTC4.
>>
>> Nope, a nuke would have left a crater hundreds of feet in diameter, not 40
>> feet. Just like you pointed out in your Duck Test!

>ROTFLMAO and that is more of your Flight 93 bullshit where none of the 
>photos taken in Pranksville, PA show anywhere near 93% of Flight 93 being 
>found.  <G>

But you can't deny that a real nuke would have left a crater hundreds or
even thousands of feet wide, not an itty bitty glacial pothole.

>>>And again, if there is a pre existing cavity there will not be any
>>>noticeable seismic signature
>>
>> Nope.  You're just making crap up again.  What do you think happens when
>> the blast wave hits the wall of the "pre existing cavity"?  It gets
>> transferred to the rock!

>But that isn't normal rock since it has already been compressed by a lot of 
>heat and pressure so what is going to move then?

What?  Are you now kookclaiming that there were two nuclear blasts, one
which made the "pre existing cavity" with its walls "compressed by a lot 
of heat and pressure" (and itself was magically not detected), then the
other nuke detonated inside it?  Your lunacy gets just crazier and 
crazier!


>  Don't forget that rock 
>next to a nuclear demoltion is called Trinitite and they found that at GZ 
>also.

Nope, trinitite specifically refers to what is found at the "Trinity"  
site, which has a different starting soil composition than Manhattan 
bedrock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite
And of course, you have no evidence any sort of molten/fused rock similar 
to trinitite was found at Ground Zero  (Hey! You can add that fact to your
"Duck Test" proof!)

>But you used the wrong test for MRR nukes and you keep thinking of American 
>made nukes and they don't make MRR nukes.  DUH

OK, so even without a kooktionary I have figured out that "MRR nukes" must
be made in China (since everything else is) and the M stands for "magic"
or "magical" since that's the only way they could be possible.  I did not
know the Chinese possessed magic, however.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270936

In article <bOOdnQqH15jTWd7LnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

> By considering the type of nukes used on 9/11 we now know why there was very 
> little radiation and no very obvious systemic signature.

That could have been an important clue.

> Because the sub-basement infrastructure blueprints have all been scrubbed, 
> we do not know the precise position of the wastewater main shafts, which is 
> where they placed the nukes. All we know (from Eric Darton's 1994 book on 

The towers were built in concrete basins to prevent flooding. Those basin 
largely survived while little above them did. In addition to the other magic, 
all the energy went from below the basins, through their midst, and only after 
reaching the tower heights had any effect.

> Another thing worth keeping in mind is that the nukes employed were of the 
> MRR (minimum residual radiation) type, colloquially known as "neutron 
> bombs". What this means that the fission primary is very small compared to 

As the name might suggest, they produce a lot of high energy neutrons. What 
happened to those neutrons?

> with the other 99% coming from the fusion secondary, which puts the "thermo" 
> into thermonuclear.

What puts the thermo into thermonuclear are the xrays from the fission. These 
heat the lithium hydride nuclei enough to overcome electrical repulsion so the 
nuclei can fuse, releasing more xrays and neutrons. Thermonuclear means "hot 
nuclei". Fission wants the nuclei to be as cold as possible so they remain 
compact enough to contain neutrons and sustain a fission reactions; once the 
fissile nuclei are heated enough by xrays they disperse and the chain reaction 
stops.

> Several observations are in place regardeing MRR designs. One is that most 
> of the energy will be thermal not mechanical/kinetic, so the pulverisation 

The energy is initially in xrays and neutrons. The xrays are absorbed by the 
immediately surrounding matter, which heats them to highly compressed plasma. 
Some of the plasma cools by re-emitting black body radiation, and the rest cools 
by rapid expansion creating very high pressure initially exceeding the speed of 
sound thus a shock wave. And underground explosion would absorb all radiation in 
the surrounding rock, with most of the energy reaching the surface as shock 
waves. The shock waves will do more damage to the nearest structures, the basin, 
and then less further away, with more damage to lower floors than the height 
were collapses began.

The neutrons also heat surrounding materials to plasma before being absorbed and 
creating isotopes, including many species of radioactive isotopes.

> happened mainly through heat not crushing. Generally speaking, you need at 
> least 20 psi overpressure to obliterate reinforced concrete structures, and 

Concrete structures like the basins.

> Another important observation is that, as the name suggests, the residual 
> footprint in terms of fission-product fallout will be very limited. So 

Fallout is created as neutrons are absorbed by nearby matter. Ground and water 
detonations create far more fallout than airburst. Underground nuclear tests 
produce fallout but it remains buried.

> first responders. Thyroid cancer on this scale can only have one cause: 
> iodine-131, a fission product with a half life of about eight days, and 
> which accumulates in the thyroid gland, irradiates it and causes cancer. So 

And which radiation meters picked it up? You do know that concrete is made of 
alkali metals that do nasty things, purely chemically, to living tissues?

> regulated by international treaties including in particular the NPT 
> (non-proliferation treaty), so we know the nukes employed on 9/11 came from 
> a clandestine arsenal. More specifically, they came from Israel, whose 

So it was the IJC?

-- 
Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#270970

je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> writes:

>In article <bOOdnQqH15jTWd7LnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>> Another thing worth keeping in mind is that the nukes employed were of the 
>> MRR (minimum residual radiation) type, colloquially known as "neutron 
>> bombs". What this means that the fission primary is very small compared to 

>As the name might suggest, they produce a lot of high energy neutrons. What 
>happened to those neutrons?

Why, do what neutron bombs do best! Kill people while leaving the 
infrastructure mostly undamaged!  That's why everyone in lower Manhattan
was killed on 9/11!!  Oh, wait....


Stoopid kooktard!  In his desperation to make nuclear explosives somehow
relevant to 9/11, Rocky gets things exactly back-assward.  He wants
something that vaporizes buildings but leaves nearby people such as
firefighters or the people in the North Tower stairwell unharmed. Instead
he comes up with neutron bombs which kill people but leaves infrastructure
undamaged!  The "selling point" for neutron bombs was to be able to kill
invading Soviet armies in Germany while not destroying the buildings etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271015

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 5:42:23 PM UTC-5, Rocky wrote:
> By considering the type of nukes used on 9/11 we now know why there was very 
> little radiation and no very obvious systemic signature.
>  http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
> 
>  =======================================
> 
> Because the sub-basement infrastructure blueprints have all been scrubbed, 
> we do not know the precise position of the wastewater main shafts, which is 
> where they placed the nukes. All we know (from Eric Darton's 1994 book on 
> the WTC, "Divided We Stand") is that those shafts did exist, one underneath 
> each tower. The best conjecture I can offer is that the shafts were 
> off-centre, thus introducing asymmetries. That would explain both the 
> "stairwell B miracle" and the footage here ? and also, incidentally, why the 
> top of the South Tower tilted like it did.
> 
> Another thing worth keeping in mind is that the nukes employed were of the 
> MRR (minimum residual radiation) type, colloquially known as "neutron 
> bombs". What this means that the fission primary is very small compared to 
> the total yield, and there is no tertiary (fissionable tamper) at all. It's 
> easy to show, as I have done elsewhere, that the total yield must have been 
> about one kiloton. The primary could be as small as 1% of the total yield, 
> with the other 99% coming from the fusion secondary, which puts the "thermo" 
> into thermonuclear.

Let me remind you that "neutron bombs" are designed with a LARGER amount of radiation than normal nuclear devices of the same tonnage. These bombs are meant to cause major casualties while causing minimum damage to buildings. The exact opposite of what happened on 9/11. I'm still waiting for you to show us ANOTHER "nuclear controlled demolition" so we can compare it to the collapse of the Towers and see if they are actually "indicative" of a "nuclear controlled demolition."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271026

Am 14.11.2015 04:12, schrieb edrhodes@hotmail.com:

>>
>> Another thing worth keeping in mind is that the nukes employed were of the
>> MRR (minimum residual radiation) type, colloquially known as "neutron
>> bombs". What this means that the fission primary is very small compared to
>> the total yield, and there is no tertiary (fissionable tamper) at all. It's
>> easy to show, as I have done elsewhere, that the total yield must have been
>> about one kiloton. The primary could be as small as 1% of the total yield,
>> with the other 99% coming from the fusion secondary, which puts the "thermo"
>> into thermonuclear.
>
> Let me remind you that "neutron bombs" are designed with a LARGER amount of radiation than normal nuclear devices of the same tonnage. These bombs are meant to cause major casualties while causing minimum damage to buildings. The exact opposite of what happened on 9/11. I'm still waiting for you to show us ANOTHER "nuclear controlled demolition" so we can compare it to the collapse of the Towers and see if they are actually "indicative" of a "nuclear controlled demolition."

Possibly there exist nuclear reactions, that we don't know about.

We know - with some degree of certainty - that US military usually hides 
something - well - 'interesting'.

Usually we we (common people) believe, what we are told. And the 
military (including the 'military industrial complex') likes to tell 
people, that babies come with the stork and presents are delivered by 
Santa Claus.

So: we (common mortals) cannot distinguish nuclear bombs from other 
devices, since we don't know, whether or not our knowledge about such 
bombs is actually true. And we cannot find out, since the only experts 
in such technologies are sworn in to secrecy.

But actually I don't believe the use of atomic bombs at all, since we 
see a pattern of destruction, that is more like the 'Philadelphia 
experiment'. And this was actually kind of 'time machine'.

So: where did the towers go???

Possibly they were 'teleported' to some other location in space and time.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271032

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 3:16:51 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 14.11.2015 04:12, schrieb edrhodes@hotmail.com:
> 
> >>
> >> Another thing worth keeping in mind is that the nukes employed were of the
> >> MRR (minimum residual radiation) type, colloquially known as "neutron
> >> bombs". What this means that the fission primary is very small compared to
> >> the total yield, and there is no tertiary (fissionable tamper) at all. It's
> >> easy to show, as I have done elsewhere, that the total yield must have been
> >> about one kiloton. The primary could be as small as 1% of the total yield,
> >> with the other 99% coming from the fusion secondary, which puts the "thermo"
> >> into thermonuclear.
> >
> > Let me remind you that "neutron bombs" are designed with a LARGER amount of radiation than normal nuclear devices of the same tonnage. These bombs are meant to cause major casualties while causing minimum damage to buildings. The exact opposite of what happened on 9/11. I'm still waiting for you to show us ANOTHER "nuclear controlled demolition" so we can compare it to the collapse of the Towers and see if they are actually "indicative" of a "nuclear controlled demolition."
> 
> Possibly there exist nuclear reactions, that we don't know about.

Well, if that were true, we couldn't claim the collapses were indicative of anything since we didn't have evidence of it before hand. Rocky says the collapses are indicative of nuclear controlled demolition which means there has to be OTHER demolitions of the same sort to compare the 9/11 collapses to.


> 
> We know - with some degree of certainty - that US military usually hides 
> something - well - 'interesting'.

Yes. But that, in and of itself, is not evidence of nuclear devices being used on 9/11. That's only evidence of people's paranoia.


> 
> Usually we we (common people) believe, what we are told. And the 
> military (including the 'military industrial complex') likes to tell 
> people, that babies come with the stork and presents are delivered by 
> Santa Claus.

Maybe, but you still have to present supportive evidence of your claims before you can have them accepted. Not just; "look at this picture. It's proof of nuclear devices going off!"



> So: we (common mortals) cannot distinguish nuclear bombs from other 
> devices, since we don't know, whether or not our knowledge about such 
> bombs is actually true. And we cannot find out, since the only experts 
> in such technologies are sworn in to secrecy.

Actually, there is enough public record of what nuclear devices can do and what they leave behind to give us something to distinguish.

 
> But actually I don't believe the use of atomic bombs at all, since we 
> see a pattern of destruction, that is more like the 'Philadelphia 
> experiment'. And this was actually kind of 'time machine'.
> 
> So: where did the towers go???

They broke apart and were scattered across the plaza.

> 
> Possibly they were 'teleported' to some other location in space and time.
> 
> TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271035

Am 15.11.2015 04:41, schrieb edrhodes@hotmail.com:
>> But actually I don't believe the use of atomic bombs at all, since we
>> >  see a pattern of destruction, that is more like the 'Philadelphia
>> >  experiment'. And this was actually kind of 'time machine'.
>> >
>> >  So: where did the towers go???
> They broke apart and were scattered across the plaza.
>

This is not true.

A building consists of about 10% of its volume from hard materials and 
90% air.

So a rough calculation would reveal, there was MUCH too little debris 
left behind.

One tower was 400m (roughly) high and had about 100 floors.

Ten percent makes a pile of ten floors or 40 m.

But found were less than the hight of the main lobby.

The main lobby is easy to identify by the characteristic form of the 
perimeter columns.

It had a hight of about four usual floors.

So: two thirds of the debris went missing.

If you don't regard this as suspicious, this would be something you 
should worry about.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271036

Am 15.11.2015 05:31, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 15.11.2015 04:41, schrieb edrhodes@hotmail.com:
>>> But actually I don't believe the use of atomic bombs at all, since we
>>> > see a pattern of destruction, that is more like the 'Philadelphia
>>> > experiment'. And this was actually kind of 'time machine'.
>>> >
>>> > So: where did the towers go???
>> They broke apart and were scattered across the plaza.
>>
>
> This is not true.
>
> A building consists of about 10% of its volume from hard materials and
> 90% air.
>
> So a rough calculation would reveal, there was MUCH too little debris
> left behind.
>
> One tower was 400m (roughly) high and had about 100 floors.
>
> Ten percent makes a pile of ten floors or 40 m.
>
> But found were less than the hight of the main lobby.
>
> The main lobby is easy to identify by the characteristic form of the
> perimeter columns.
>
> It had a hight of about four usual floors.


http://www.mcmahanphoto.com/fm0044--emergency-workers-and-the-sphere-ground-zero-911-photo-print.html

http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID37739/images/groundzero_weekafter_attack_post_AP.jpg

The perimeter columns of the main lobby are clearly visible in the 
background. The pile of debris is reaching roughly half of their hight.

But the expected hight of the pile was three times the hight of these 
columns.

Conclusion:   a great part of the material is missing.

This would require something different than just a drop from a certain 
hight, since in other circumstance steal has not vaporised after 
dropping from 400 m.


TH

>
> So: two thirds of the debris went missing.
>
> If you don't regard this as suspicious, this would be something you
> should worry about.
>
>
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#271086

"Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote in message 
news:daqh18FgfrdU1@mid.individual.net...
> Am 15.11.2015 05:31, schrieb Thomas Heger:
>> Am 15.11.2015 04:41, schrieb edrhodes@hotmail.com:
>>>> But actually I don't believe the use of atomic bombs at all, since we
>>>> > see a pattern of destruction, that is more like the 'Philadelphia
>>>> > experiment'. And this was actually kind of 'time machine'.
>>>> >
>>>> > So: where did the towers go???
>>> They broke apart and were scattered across the plaza.
>>>
>>
>> This is not true.
>>
>> A building consists of about 10% of its volume from hard materials and
>> 90% air.
>>
>> So a rough calculation would reveal, there was MUCH too little debris
>> left behind.
>>
>> One tower was 400m (roughly) high and had about 100 floors.
>>
>> Ten percent makes a pile of ten floors or 40 m.
>>
>> But found were less than the hight of the main lobby.
>>
>> The main lobby is easy to identify by the characteristic form of the
>> perimeter columns.
>>
>> It had a hight of about four usual floors.
>
>
> http://www.mcmahanphoto.com/fm0044--emergency-workers-and-the-sphere-ground-zero-911-photo-print.html
>
> http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID37739/images/groundzero_weekafter_attack_post_AP.jpg
>
> The perimeter columns of the main lobby are clearly visible in the 
> background. The pile of debris is reaching roughly half of their hight.
>
> But the expected hight of the pile was three times the hight of these 
> columns.
>
> Conclusion:   a great part of the material is missing.

Given that deep underground nukes damage what is above them more than to the 
sides I'd say the muder weapons were MRR nukes.  BTW dmaster has already 
proven that deep underground nukes don't make EMPs or flashes.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

> This would require something different than just a drop from a certain 
> hight, since in other circumstance steal has not vaporised after dropping 
> from 400 m.
>
>
> TH
>
>>
>> So: two thirds of the debris went missing.
>>
>> If you don't regard this as suspicious, this would be something you
>> should worry about.

What is even stranger still is the fact parts from WTC2 that survived fell 
on the far side of WTC3 meaning they ended up outside the vaporization range 
of the MRR nuke that vaporized the rest of WTC2.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.conspiracy

csiph-web