FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Mini-Nukes were definitely maybe used on the WTCs
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
utopiated
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:10 pm    Post subject: Mini-Nukes were definitely maybe used on the WTCs Reply with quote

This is an Ed Ward interview - very recent. Has some good evidence in for use of coke can sized nukes.

Little known fact that these things were patented for DEMOLITION work in the 60s.

Thread is here with link to stream or DL:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=66786#66786

..thought it need re-issuing as that thread is only frequented by B.E.A.M.ers.

_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
--
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Sabrewolf
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:03 pm    Post subject: Pictures prove mini nukes caused 9/11 devastation Reply with quote

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_170.h tm
_________________
The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two.

QUESTION EVERYTHING
SEEK THE TRUTH
RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1473

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:32 am    Post subject: Re: Pictures prove mini nukes caused 9/11 devastation Reply with quote

Sabrewolf wrote:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_170.h tm


This is absurd Evil or Very Mad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sabrewolf
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Pictures prove mini nukes caused 9/11 devastation Reply with quote

scienceplease 2 wrote:
Sabrewolf wrote:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_170.h tm


This is absurd Evil or Very Mad


Believe what you want, but the facts & evidence speaks for itself in saying that mini-nuclear devices was used to bring down the WTC Towers. Twisted Evil

_________________
The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two.

QUESTION EVERYTHING
SEEK THE TRUTH
RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sabrewolf
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Concrete evidence shows US government nuked New York City on 9/11

http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=68#comment-559

_________________
The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two.

QUESTION EVERYTHING
SEEK THE TRUTH
RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1473

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sabrewolf wrote:
Concrete evidence shows US government nuked New York City on 9/11

http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=68#comment-559


That article does not provide any "concrete evidence". Explain it to me!

It only mentions WTC1 and 2 - not WTC7 - so how does that work? Three nukes?

The smallest known atomic weapon would devastate lower Manhattan - not just bring down 2 towers - 5kilotons is probably the smallest nuke you can get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke
- Radioactivity would be detected for thousands of years - nuclear means radioactivity - you can increase the amount of radioactivity with a neutron bomb but you can decrease it.
- The paper trail associate with nuclear weapons means that unless you have one Cameron's missing nukes you'd be able to trace it - all nukes are tagged and traced and requires hundreds of signatories to any from point A to point B. This is why we know the Minot Airbase Nuclear Incident had to be "planned from the top" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_nuclear_weap ons_incident
- Nuclear weapons have never been used for demolition - it would unlikely to be agreed by risk-adverse planners of the PysOp
- It doesn't explain the weakening phase of the towers
- Since you'd need two (three?) underground nuclear weapons to bring down 1, 2 and 7 - it would be impossible to mask the devastation of the first blast interfering with the 2nd (and 3rd) underground bombs.
- Each blast would generate an EMP that would wipe out nearby computer systems, communication systems and triggering devices
- This "theory" seems to be promoted by disinfo experts
- thermite-powered thermobaric weapons would address all the known materials found in the dust and capable of blowing up the towers - no nukes required.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sabrewolf
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scienceplease 2 wrote:
Sabrewolf wrote:
Concrete evidence shows US government nuked New York City on 9/11

http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=68#comment-559


That article does not provide any "concrete evidence". Explain it to me!

It only mentions WTC1 and 2 - not WTC7 - so how does that work? Three nukes?

The smallest known atomic weapon would devastate lower Manhattan - not just bring down 2 towers - 5kilotons is probably the smallest nuke you can get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke
- Radioactivity would be detected for thousands of years - nuclear means radioactivity - you can increase the amount of radioactivity with a neutron bomb but you can decrease it.
- The paper trail associate with nuclear weapons means that unless you have one Cameron's missing nukes you'd be able to trace it - all nukes are tagged and traced and requires hundreds of signatories to any from point A to point B. This is why we know the Minot Airbase Nuclear Incident had to be "planned from the top" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_nuclear_weap ons_incident
- Nuclear weapons have never been used for demolition - it would unlikely to be agreed by risk-adverse planners of the PysOp
- It doesn't explain the weakening phase of the towers
- Since you'd need two (three?) underground nuclear weapons to bring down 1, 2 and 7 - it would be impossible to mask the devastation of the first blast interfering with the 2nd (and 3rd) underground bombs.
- Each blast would generate an EMP that would wipe out nearby computer systems, communication systems and triggering devices
- This "theory" seems to be promoted by disinfo experts
- thermite-powered thermobaric weapons would address all the known materials found in the dust and capable of blowing up the towers - no nukes required.


You're just repeating yourself from the other thread. Rolling Eyes
Do you really believe that a thermobaric weapon of some sort caused the actual destruction of the WTC Towers?

Let’s say you wanted to have the rapid, mostly symmetric, virtual free-fall (some say faster than free fall, as this is not in a vacuum), 10-12 second complete destruction of the towers, would you:
(A) Employ an explosive that might possibly, barely vaporize some steel structure like a thermobaric weapon; or
(B) Would you need and use something that instantly, overwhelmingly vaporized it— via multi-million degree temperature, and neutron bombardment?

Thermobaric explosives may well have been used for the “plane hit" explosions, and possibly also in a subsidiary capacity BEFORE the final destruction-- to allow for the use of the mini-nukes.

Thermobarics cannot account for the actual WTC destruction and aftermath. What we witnessed on 9/11/01 at the WTC was the dreaded nuking of an American city by its most horrific enemy— its own federal government.

_________________
The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two.

QUESTION EVERYTHING
SEEK THE TRUTH
RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1473

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sabrewolf wrote:

You're just repeating yourself from the other thread. Rolling Eyes
Do you really believe that a thermobaric weapon of some sort caused the actual destruction of the WTC Towers?


Not quite a repeat - I added extra detail. And you didn't answer any of the points there anyway! Smile

Yes, I believe a modern nano-material based weapon destroyed the towers. These are in production. There's tons of research about energetic nano-material on the web. Probably a lot more hidden away.

Quote:
Let’s say you wanted to have the rapid, mostly symmetric, virtual free-fall (some say faster than free fall, as this is not in a vacuum), 10-12 second complete destruction of the towers, would you:
(A) Employ an explosive that might possibly, barely vaporize some steel structure like a thermobaric weapon; or
(B) Would you need and use something that instantly, overwhelmingly vaporized it— via multi-million degree temperature, and neutron bombardment?


A - you want to bring down the building in stages preferably to make it "look natural" - hence the pre-weakening of the structure - however even with all the planning - it still looks like the towers was blown up. Demolition experts try to use the minimum force necessary to bring down a building - cheaper and reduces collateral damage.

Why would you even want B!? Neutron weapons leave radiation. Million Degree temperatures? Who wants that!? All they wanted was to bring the towers down. The EMP from the bomb would wipe out the electronics of the two (three?) other devices just a few hundred feet away even with the best faraday cage in the world since the shockwaves would likely destroy it physically. Why risk such a dangerous device? The whole business sector was expected to continue running - the businesses were pre-warned to get their "disaster recovery" strategies sorted out before 9/11. Why warn them if they were never expected to work in Manhattan again?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sabrewolf
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

scienceplease 2 wrote:
Sabrewolf wrote:

You're just repeating yourself from the other thread. Rolling Eyes
Do you really believe that a thermobaric weapon of some sort caused the actual destruction of the WTC Towers?


Not quite a repeat - I added extra detail. And you didn't answer any of the points there anyway! Smile

Yes, I believe a modern nano-material based weapon destroyed the towers. These are in production. There's tons of research about energetic nano-material on the web. Probably a lot more hidden away.

Quote:
Let’s say you wanted to have the rapid, mostly symmetric, virtual free-fall (some say faster than free fall, as this is not in a vacuum), 10-12 second complete destruction of the towers, would you:
(A) Employ an explosive that might possibly, barely vaporize some steel structure like a thermobaric weapon; or
(B) Would you need and use something that instantly, overwhelmingly vaporized it— via multi-million degree temperature, and neutron bombardment?


A - you want to bring down the building in stages preferably to make it "look natural" - hence the pre-weakening of the structure - however even with all the planning - it still looks like the towers was blown up. Demolition experts try to use the minimum force necessary to bring down a building - cheaper and reduces collateral damage.

Why would you even want B!? Neutron weapons leave radiation. Million Degree temperatures? Who wants that!? All they wanted was to bring the towers down. The EMP from the bomb would wipe out the electronics of the two (three?) other devices just a few hundred feet away even with the best faraday cage in the world since the shockwaves would likely destroy it physically. Why risk such a dangerous device? The whole business sector was expected to continue running - the businesses were pre-warned to get their "disaster recovery" strategies sorted out before 9/11. Why warn them if they were never expected to work in Manhattan again?


I don't think anyone would want A or B but the facts and evidence remains that it was B.

Thermobarics reach temperatures of about 2500 to 3000 degrees Celsius. Steel begins to boil at 3000 degrees.

Much of the steel structure, as well as people and other building contents inside the towers were vaporized instananeously. A thermobaric weapon would not vaporize steel instantaneosly like a "mini-nuke" would in the 10 seconds it took the WTC Towers to collapse. That is why I asked you the A, B sceanarios.

You are very right, neutron weapons do in fact leave radiation. So if you believe that there was NO EVIDENCE OF RADIATION, at GZ, then explain why several WTC survivors had what can be described as "melted" or "hanging" skin -- a phenomenom experienced by survivors of the Hiroshima blast?

Explain why there has been a high rate of cancer in "GZ" first-responders -- A sign of radiation exposure and another indicator of a nuclear blast.

Why risk such a dangerous device? Because I believe that the "elites", the "ruling class", the Illuminati does not give a damn as long as it furthers their quest for global domination -- a NEW WORLD ORDER.

_________________
The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two.

QUESTION EVERYTHING
SEEK THE TRUTH
RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1473

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sabrewolf wrote:

I don't think anyone would want A or B but the facts and evidence remains that it was B.


What facts?

Quote:
Thermobarics reach temperatures of about 2500 to 3000 degrees Celsius. Steel begins to boil at 3000 degrees.


You don't need them to boil

Quote:
Much of the steel structure, as well as people and other building contents inside the towers were vaporized instananeously. A thermobaric weapon would not vaporize steel instantaneosly like a "mini-nuke" would in the 10 seconds it took the WTC Towers to collapse. That is why I asked you the A, B sceanarios.


You didn't ask that question in your A and B scenario.

Quote:
You are very right, neutron weapons do in fact leave radiation. So if you believe that there was NO EVIDENCE OF RADIATION, at GZ, then explain why several WTC survivors had what can be described as "melted" or "hanging" skin -- a phenomenom experienced by survivors of the Hiroshima blast?


You can get hanging skin from a motor cycle accident. It is caused by explosive/high friction event.

Quote:
Explain why there has been a high rate of cancer in "GZ" first-responders -- A sign of radiation exposure and another indicator of a nuclear blast.


Absolutely and in in the first responders lungs is evidence of nanomaterials: carbon nanotubes - used to bind the nanomaterials.

Quote:
Why risk such a dangerous device? Because I believe that the "elites", the "ruling class", the Illuminati does not give a damn as long as it furthers their quest for global domination -- a NEW WORLD ORDER.


They did give a damm about Wall Street continuing to operate after 9/11 - they wanted the banks to continue working - so that they could continue their corporate scams. They couldn't have done so if they blew up the whole of NY with (one, two or three?) nuke explosions - destroying all electronics with the EMP and left radioactive debris with half-lifes measures in tens of thousands of years!

The nuke and DEW arguments are "patsy" arguments to be used as a distraction by the DHS PysOps Organisation: "Put it Up - just to slap it down" - because it is sooo crazy - ha-ha - look at those silly troofers! etc Rolling Eyes

You can either fall for their PysOp or you're actually part of it.

- There are no mini-nukes (last time I looked you needed a minimum size for the explosive chain reaction - otherwise the Nazis would have built them before the Allies) Plus they leave (easily detected - impossible to remove) radiation!
- There is no DEW (that works reliably - lasers are useless, X-rays don't focus, plasma rays are sci-fi)
- We might as well just say it was UFOs and aliens - see how far that gets you!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sabrewolf
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scienceplease 2 wrote:
Sabrewolf wrote:

I don't think anyone would want A or B but the facts and evidence remains that it was B.


What facts?

Quote:
Thermobarics reach temperatures of about 2500 to 3000 degrees Celsius. Steel begins to boil at 3000 degrees.


You don't need them to boil

Quote:
Much of the steel structure, as well as people and other building contents inside the towers were vaporized instananeously. A thermobaric weapon would not vaporize steel instantaneosly like a "mini-nuke" would in the 10 seconds it took the WTC Towers to collapse. That is why I asked you the A, B sceanarios.


You didn't ask that question in your A and B scenario.

Quote:
You are very right, neutron weapons do in fact leave radiation. So if you believe that there was NO EVIDENCE OF RADIATION, at GZ, then explain why several WTC survivors had what can be described as "melted" or "hanging" skin -- a phenomenom experienced by survivors of the Hiroshima blast?


You can get hanging skin from a motor cycle accident. It is caused by explosive/high friction event.

Quote:
Explain why there has been a high rate of cancer in "GZ" first-responders -- A sign of radiation exposure and another indicator of a nuclear blast.


Absolutely and in in the first responders lungs is evidence of nanomaterials: carbon nanotubes - used to bind the nanomaterials.

Quote:
Why risk such a dangerous device? Because I believe that the "elites", the "ruling class", the Illuminati does not give a damn as long as it furthers their quest for global domination -- a NEW WORLD ORDER.


They did give a damm about Wall Street continuing to operate after 9/11 - they wanted the banks to continue working - so that they could continue their corporate scams. They couldn't have done so if they blew up the whole of NY with (one, two or three?) nuke explosions - destroying all electronics with the EMP and left radioactive debris with half-lifes measures in tens of thousands of years!

The nuke and DEW arguments are "patsy" arguments to be used as a distraction by the DHS PysOps Organisation: "Put it Up - just to slap it down" - because it is sooo crazy - ha-ha - look at those silly troofers! etc Rolling Eyes

You can either fall for their PysOp or you're actually part of it.

- There are no mini-nukes (last time I looked you needed a minimum size for the explosive chain reaction - otherwise the Nazis would have built them before the Allies) Plus they leave (easily detected - impossible to remove) radiation!
- There is no DEW (that works reliably - lasers are useless, X-rays don't focus, plasma rays are sci-fi)
- We might as well just say it was UFOs and aliens - see how far that gets you!


Really? What facts? Oh you mean the facts that you continually ignore, refuse to acknowledge, dismiss, disregard, and try to disprove. Confused

You don't need them to boil But they sure the hell were vaporized instantly from those mini-nukes.

You didn't ask that question in your A and B scenario. Yes I did. I mentioned both weapons in my question and the time duration of 10-12 seconds.

Thermobaric weapon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blast from a US Navy fuel air explosive used against a decommissioned ship, 1972. A thermobaric weapon, which includes the type known as a "fuel-air bomb", is an explosive weapon that produces a blast wave of a significantly longer duration than those produced by condensed explosives. This is useful in military applications where its longer duration increases the numbers of casualties and causes more damage to structures.

The key words here are "significantly longer duration". How is it possible for 2 massive 110 story steel and concrete skyscrapers to completely collapse in just 10 seconds? A mini-nuke planted underground. Because a thermobaric weapon WILL NOT DO THE JOB IN 10 SECONDS.

What happened at WTC on 9/11 has nothing to do with Wall Street. The Rothchilds are not going to allow their money flow to be disrupted.

_________________
The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two.

QUESTION EVERYTHING
SEEK THE TRUTH
RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER


Last edited by Sabrewolf on Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sabrewolf
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why was it called Ground Zero?

Here are the reasons:

1. Heat generation at ground zero for six months (china syndrome)

2. Inability to quench ground zero heat with water

3. Red hot/molten steel at ground zero

4. Missing core columns from ground zero (vaporized during destruction)

5. Spreading of sand at ground zero consistent with attempts to limit radiation

6. Washing of steel recovered from pile consistent with radiation decontamination

7. Extreme security for ground zero steel shipments consistent with limiting access to radioactive steel

8. Extreme security at ground zero, limiting exposure, view of devastation

9. Extreme pulverization of WTC concrete into very fine particles

10. Disappearance of over one thousand human bodies from WTC debris

11. Disappearance of furniture, phones, filing cabinets and computers from WTC debris

12. Disappearance of elevator doors, office doors, office cubicle walls, toilets and sinks from WTC debris

13. Several floor fragments fused together in “meteorite” object

14. Bone fragments sprayed into Bankers Trust upper floor during destruction

15. Multiple blast waves during destruction of tower

16. Large fireballs during initiation of WTC1 destruction

17. Small backpack-sized fission nukes exist

18. Fission-nuke technology well-established

19. Low efficiency of fission nukes ensures leftover radioactive fragments and China syndrome

20. EMP formation during tower destruction (exploding cars, partial burning)

21. Description of heat in WTC blast cloud

22. Extensive cover-up of ground zero air by EPA

23. High rate of cancers, including thyroid cancer typically associated with radiation exposure, in ground zero responders

24. Melted, hanging skin in WTC survivor Felipe David in absence of fire

25. Vaporized press and crumpled steel door in WTC basement reported by Pecoraro

26. Steel beam bent in U, without cracking, evidence of extreme high temps

27. Steel beam bent in U has layer of molten metal on surface

28. Extreme overall devastation of two massive towers and blasted out Ground Zero aftermath

29. Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical DEW theory by likely govt agents– uses evidence of nukes (EMP, extreme pulverization of tower into dust) but denies nukes at all costs

30. Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical thermite (super nano-thermite) theory by likely govt agents– uses evidence of nukes (molten steel, china syndrome) but denies nukes at all costs

31. Small iron microspheres found by Jones et al in WTC dust— evidence of steel vaporization by high temps of nukes

32. Pyroclastic debris cloud during WTC destruction

33. Upwards jutting debris trails reminiscent of debris trails formed during underground nuke test

34. Small bright flashes during destruction of both towers.

35. Extremely compacted ground zero debris

The official 9/11 story is a lie. The 9/11 plane hijackings and crashes were clever hoaxes.

The WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 towers were brought down by demolition, and there is evidence for the use of small nuclear bombs in the demolition of WTC1 and 2.

All in all, 9/11 was a massive and cruel hoax foisted upon the world, done in order to spark the obscene “war on terror”, to cover up financial fraud and to further the ends of the global elite. 9/11 was only the most egregious of several other recent false-flag terror operations.

_________________
The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two.

QUESTION EVERYTHING
SEEK THE TRUTH
RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
item8
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Posts: 886

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This "theory" seems to be promoted by disinfo experts


Getaway!!! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1473

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

item8 wrote:
Quote:
This "theory" seems to be promoted by disinfo experts


Getaway!!! Very Happy


Yep. Hard to believe, isn't it? Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1473

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sabrewolf wrote:
Why was it called Ground Zero?

Here are the reasons:

....


Thanks for finally getting to the point. I can work with this!

1. Heat generation at ground zero for six months (china syndrome) china syndrome is when a core melts through the earth's mantle. It didn't happen at GZ or even close to it... Details of the tower construction show that it's basement was already very deep. Thermite would also generate residual heat. No nukes required.

2. Inability to quench ground zero heat with water. Thermite would also be unquechable. No nukes required.

3. Red hot/molten steel at ground zero. Thermite demonstrated to produce molten steel. No nukes required.

4. Missing core columns from ground zero (vaporized during destruction). Yes central columns were destroyed. No nukes required.

5. Spreading of sand at ground zero consistent with attempts to limit radiation. Spreading of sand to provide platform for rescue vehicles - no nukes required. You haven't proven radiation yet!

6. Washing of steel recovered from pile consistent with radiation decontamination. Radiation would embed into the steel - you have to prove the radiation.

7. Extreme security for ground zero steel shipments consistent with limiting access to radioactive steel. You have to prove the radioactivity. They limited access to the site to conceal the crime scene. No nukes required.


8. Extreme security at ground zero, limiting exposure, view of devastation. They limited access to the site to conceal the crime scene. No nukes required.

9. Extreme pulverization of WTC concrete into very fine particles. Explosive event did this, I agree - but plenty of other explosives could do this. No nukes required.

10. Disappearance of over one thousand human bodies from WTC debris. Yes, agee, an explosive event required. No nukes required. Can we even be sure of who was actually inside?!

11. Disappearance of furniture, phones, filing cabinets and computers from WTC debris. Destroyed by explosives. No nukes required.

12. Disappearance of elevator doors, office doors, office cubicle walls, toilets and sinks from WTC debris. This is the same as last point. No nukes required.

13. Several floor fragments fused together in “meteorite” object. Agree that explosive event and molten steel combined to form meteorite. No nukes required. It would be radioactive if from a nuke.

14. Bone fragments sprayed into Bankers Trust upper floor during destruction. Agree that explosive event sprayed bodies onto nearby buildings. No nukes required.

15. Multiple blast waves during destruction of tower. So how does that stack up as being nuclear. One nuclear event would fry nearby electronics!

16. Large fireballs during initiation of WTC1 destruction. I agree about the explosive event. No nukes required.

17. Small backpack-sized fission nukes exist. 5 Kilotons!!! Would wipe out lower Manhatten and destroy the other two or three nuclear devices! This is speculation not a fact about 9/11.

18. Fission-nuke technology well-established. Not for demolition! Again, This is speculation not a fact about 9/11.

19. Low efficiency of fission nukes ensures leftover radioactive fragments and China syndrome. But you haven't proved either!

20. EMP formation during tower destruction (exploding cars, partial burning). EMP wipes out electronics generally. Where's the evidence for EMP exploding cars?

21. Description of heat in WTC blast cloud.
Sure. Do not prove nukes. Describe the closest that a human has ever been to a nuke and survived!?

22. Extensive cover-up of ground zero air by EPA. Sure. Does not prove nukes.

23. High rate of cancers, including thyroid cancer typically associated with radiation exposure, in ground zero responders. Where's the evidence this was from radioactivity. Meanwhile link to nanomaterials here: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info  :doi/10.1289/ehp.0901159

24. Melted, hanging skin in WTC survivor Felipe David in absence of fire. Does not prove nukes.

25. Vaporized press and crumpled steel door in WTC basement reported by Pecoraro. Could you provide evidence, please?

26. Steel beam bent in U, without cracking, evidence of extreme high temps. Does not prove nukes. Where's the radiation?

27. Steel beam bent in U has layer of molten metal on surface. Same point. Does not prove nukes.

28. Extreme overall devastation of two massive towers and blasted out Ground Zero aftermath. I agree explosive event. Where is the evidence it was nukes? Where's the radiation studies?

29. Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical DEW theory by likely govt agents– uses evidence of nukes (EMP, extreme pulverization of tower into dust) but denies nukes at all costs. Well, of course, "They" - whoever they are - are clear in sowing dissent and make us spin in circles. In any case Judy Woods DID advocate nukes at one stage. I've seen her talk about it.

30. Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical thermite (super nano-thermite) theory by likely govt agents– uses evidence of nukes (molten steel, china syndrome) but denies nukes at all costs.
But there's no evidence for nukes. It's the same as DEW. There is a huge industry associated with energetic nanomaterials. Documented on the other thread. Including explosion in French nanomaterial factory a few days after 9/11. Now how suspicious is that!? Nukes have never been used for demolition in built up area. What sort of strategy is that? Where is all the science associated with mini-nukes compared to tons of science, papers, organisations and institutions about energetic nanomaterials?!

31. Small iron microspheres found by Jones et al in WTC dust— evidence of steel vaporization by high temps of nukes. Agree about the dust spheres and molten steel and explosive event - doesn't mean it is nukes. Quite the reverse? Where is the radiation!? The iron spheres was note by an official report by RJ Lee company.

32. Pyroclastic debris cloud during WTC destruction. Doesn't prove nukes: an effect of large explosions and volcanoes...

33. Upwards jutting debris trails reminiscent of debris trails formed during underground nuke test. And reminiscent of ANY high explosive event! Doesn't prove nukes.

34. Small bright flashes during destruction of both towers. Doesn't prove nukes - actually quite the reverse!!!

35. Extremely compacted ground zero debris. Sure, but doesn't prove nukes.

So you have nothing to conclusively prove nukes. No radiation = no nukes. And easily disproved. Why advocate such a left of field theory?

Quote:
The WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 towers were brought down by demolition, and there is evidence for the use of small nuclear bombs in the demolition of WTC1 and 2.

All in all, 9/11 was a massive and cruel hoax foisted upon the world, done in order to spark the obscene “war on terror”, to cover up financial fraud and to further the ends of the global elite. 9/11 was only the most egregious of several other recent false-flag terror operations.


So you are saying just two nukes? Yet hot spots were found under WTC 1, 2 and 7? How was the WTC7 hotspot generated? First nuke would also destroy surrounding electronics including the 2nd device. This theory just doesn't make sense.

I agree with your conclusion that 9/11 was a hoax.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1473

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scienceplease 2 wrote:
Sabrewolf wrote:
Why was it called Ground Zero?

Here are the reasons:

....


Thanks for finally getting to the point. I can work with this!

1. Heat generation at ground zero for six months (china syndrome) china syndrome is when a core melts through the earth's mantle. It didn't happen at GZ or even close to it... Details of the tower construction show that it's basement was already very deep. Thermite would also generate residual heat. No nukes required.

2. Inability to quench ground zero heat with water. Thermite would also be unquechable. No nukes required.

3. Red hot/molten steel at ground zero. Thermite demonstrated to produce molten steel. No nukes required.

4. Missing core columns from ground zero (vaporized during destruction). Yes central columns were destroyed. No nukes required.

5. Spreading of sand at ground zero consistent with attempts to limit radiation. Spreading of sand to provide platform for rescue vehicles - no nukes required. You haven't proven radiation yet!

6. Washing of steel recovered from pile consistent with radiation decontamination. Radiation would embed into the steel due to the nuclear blast - you can't just wash it away - and you have to prove the radiation.

7. Extreme security for ground zero steel shipments consistent with limiting access to radioactive steel. You have to prove the radioactivity. They limited access to the site to conceal the crime scene. No nukes required.


8. Extreme security at ground zero, limiting exposure, view of devastation. They limited access to the site to conceal the crime scene. No nukes required.

9. Extreme pulverization of WTC concrete into very fine particles. Explosive event did this, I agree - but plenty of other explosives could do this. No nukes required.

10. Disappearance of over one thousand human bodies from WTC debris. Yes, agee, an explosive event required. No nukes required. Can we even be sure of who was actually inside?!

11. Disappearance of furniture, phones, filing cabinets and computers from WTC debris. Destroyed by explosives. No nukes required.

12. Disappearance of elevator doors, office doors, office cubicle walls, toilets and sinks from WTC debris. This is the same as last point. No nukes required.

13. Several floor fragments fused together in “meteorite” object. Agree that explosive event and molten steel combined to form meteorite. No nukes required. It would be radioactive if from a nuke.

14. Bone fragments sprayed into Bankers Trust upper floor during destruction. Agree that explosive event sprayed bodies onto nearby buildings. No nukes required.

15. Multiple blast waves during destruction of tower. So how does that stack up as being nuclear? One nuclear event would fry nearby electronics!

16. Large fireballs during initiation of WTC1 destruction. I agree about the explosive event. No nukes required.

17. Small backpack-sized fission nukes exist. 5 Kilotons!!! Would wipe out lower Manhatten and destroy the other two or three nuclear devices! This is speculation not a fact about 9/11.

18. Fission-nuke technology well-established. Not for demolition! Again, This is speculation not a fact about 9/11.

19. Low efficiency of fission nukes ensures leftover radioactive fragments and China syndrome. But you haven't proved either!

20. EMP formation during tower destruction (exploding cars, partial burning). EMP wipes out electronics generally. Where's the evidence for EMP exploding cars?

21. Description of heat in WTC blast cloud.
Sure. Does not prove nukes. Describe the closest that a human has ever been to a nuke and survived!?

22. Extensive cover-up of ground zero air by EPA. Sure. Does not prove nukes.

23. High rate of cancers, including thyroid cancer typically associated with radiation exposure, in ground zero responders. Where's the evidence this was from radioactivity. Meanwhile link to nanomaterials here: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info  :doi/10.1289/ehp.0901159

24. Melted, hanging skin in WTC survivor Felipe David in absence of fire. Does not prove nukes.

25. Vaporized press and crumpled steel door in WTC basement reported by Pecoraro. Could you provide evidence, please?

26. Steel beam bent in U, without cracking, evidence of extreme high temps. Does not prove nukes. Where's the radiation?

27. Steel beam bent in U has layer of molten metal on surface. Same point. Does not prove nukes.

28. Extreme overall devastation of two massive towers and blasted out Ground Zero aftermath. I agree explosive event. Where is the evidence it was nukes? Where's the radiation studies?

29. Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical DEW theory by likely govt agents– uses evidence of nukes (EMP, extreme pulverization of tower into dust) but denies nukes at all costs. Well, of course, "They" - whoever they are - are clear in sowing dissent and make us spin in circles. In any case Judy Woods DID advocate nukes at one stage. I've seen her talk about it.

30. Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical thermite (super nano-thermite) theory by likely govt agents– uses evidence of nukes (molten steel, china syndrome) but denies nukes at all costs.
But there's no evidence for nukes. It's the same as DEW. There is a huge industry associated with energetic nanomaterials. Documented on the other thread. Including explosion in French nanomaterial factory a few days after 9/11. Now how suspicious is that!? Nukes have never been used for demolition in built up area. What sort of strategy is that? Where is all the science associated with mini-nukes compared to tons of science, papers, organisations and institutions about energetic nanomaterials?!

31. Small iron microspheres found by Jones et al in WTC dust— evidence of steel vaporization by high temps of nukes. Agree about the dust spheres and molten steel and explosive event - doesn't mean it is nukes. Quite the reverse? Where is the radiation!? The iron spheres was note by an official report by RJ Lee company.

32. Pyroclastic debris cloud during WTC destruction. Doesn't prove nukes: an effect of large explosions and volcanoes...

33. Upwards jutting debris trails reminiscent of debris trails formed during underground nuke test. And reminiscent of ANY high explosive event! Doesn't prove nukes.

34. Small bright flashes during destruction of both towers. Doesn't prove nukes - actually quite the reverse!!!

35. Extremely compacted ground zero debris. Sure, but doesn't prove nukes.

So you have nothing to conclusively prove nukes. No radiation = no nukes. And easily disproved. Why advocate such a left of field theory?

Quote:
The WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 towers were brought down by demolition, and there is evidence for the use of small nuclear bombs in the demolition of WTC1 and 2.

All in all, 9/11 was a massive and cruel hoax foisted upon the world, done in order to spark the obscene “war on terror”, to cover up financial fraud and to further the ends of the global elite. 9/11 was only the most egregious of several other recent false-flag terror operations.


So you are saying just two nukes? Yet hot spots were found under WTC 1, 2 and 7? How was the WTC7 hotspot generated? First nuke would also destroy surrounding electronics including the 2nd device. This theory just doesn't make sense.

I agree with your conclusion that 9/11 was a hoax.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sabrewolf
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

scienceplease 2 wrote:
scienceplease 2 wrote:
Sabrewolf wrote:
Why was it called Ground Zero?

Here are the reasons:

....


Thanks for finally getting to the point. I can work with this!

1. Heat generation at ground zero for six months (china syndrome) china syndrome is when a core melts through the earth's mantle. It didn't happen at GZ or even close to it... Details of the tower construction show that it's basement was already very deep. Thermite would also generate residual heat. No nukes required.

2. Inability to quench ground zero heat with water. Thermite would also be unquechable. No nukes required.

3. Red hot/molten steel at ground zero. Thermite demonstrated to produce molten steel. No nukes required.

4. Missing core columns from ground zero (vaporized during destruction). Yes central columns were destroyed. No nukes required.

5. Spreading of sand at ground zero consistent with attempts to limit radiation. Spreading of sand to provide platform for rescue vehicles - no nukes required. You haven't proven radiation yet!

6. Washing of steel recovered from pile consistent with radiation decontamination. Radiation would embed into the steel due to the nuclear blast - you can't just wash it away - and you have to prove the radiation.

7. Extreme security for ground zero steel shipments consistent with limiting access to radioactive steel. You have to prove the radioactivity. They limited access to the site to conceal the crime scene. No nukes required.


8. Extreme security at ground zero, limiting exposure, view of devastation. They limited access to the site to conceal the crime scene. No nukes required.

9. Extreme pulverization of WTC concrete into very fine particles. Explosive event did this, I agree - but plenty of other explosives could do this. No nukes required.

10. Disappearance of over one thousand human bodies from WTC debris. Yes, agee, an explosive event required. No nukes required. Can we even be sure of who was actually inside?!

11. Disappearance of furniture, phones, filing cabinets and computers from WTC debris. Destroyed by explosives. No nukes required.

12. Disappearance of elevator doors, office doors, office cubicle walls, toilets and sinks from WTC debris. This is the same as last point. No nukes required.

13. Several floor fragments fused together in “meteorite” object. Agree that explosive event and molten steel combined to form meteorite. No nukes required. It would be radioactive if from a nuke.

14. Bone fragments sprayed into Bankers Trust upper floor during destruction. Agree that explosive event sprayed bodies onto nearby buildings. No nukes required.

15. Multiple blast waves during destruction of tower. So how does that stack up as being nuclear? One nuclear event would fry nearby electronics!

16. Large fireballs during initiation of WTC1 destruction. I agree about the explosive event. No nukes required.

17. Small backpack-sized fission nukes exist. 5 Kilotons!!! Would wipe out lower Manhatten and destroy the other two or three nuclear devices! This is speculation not a fact about 9/11.

18. Fission-nuke technology well-established. Not for demolition! Again, This is speculation not a fact about 9/11.

19. Low efficiency of fission nukes ensures leftover radioactive fragments and China syndrome. But you haven't proved either!

20. EMP formation during tower destruction (exploding cars, partial burning). EMP wipes out electronics generally. Where's the evidence for EMP exploding cars?

21. Description of heat in WTC blast cloud.
Sure. Does not prove nukes. Describe the closest that a human has ever been to a nuke and survived!?

22. Extensive cover-up of ground zero air by EPA. Sure. Does not prove nukes.

23. High rate of cancers, including thyroid cancer typically associated with radiation exposure, in ground zero responders. Where's the evidence this was from radioactivity. Meanwhile link to nanomaterials here: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info  :doi/10.1289/ehp.0901159

24. Melted, hanging skin in WTC survivor Felipe David in absence of fire. Does not prove nukes.

25. Vaporized press and crumpled steel door in WTC basement reported by Pecoraro. Could you provide evidence, please?

26. Steel beam bent in U, without cracking, evidence of extreme high temps. Does not prove nukes. Where's the radiation?

27. Steel beam bent in U has layer of molten metal on surface. Same point. Does not prove nukes.

28. Extreme overall devastation of two massive towers and blasted out Ground Zero aftermath. I agree explosive event. Where is the evidence it was nukes? Where's the radiation studies?

29. Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical DEW theory by likely govt agents– uses evidence of nukes (EMP, extreme pulverization of tower into dust) but denies nukes at all costs. Well, of course, "They" - whoever they are - are clear in sowing dissent and make us spin in circles. In any case Judy Woods DID advocate nukes at one stage. I've seen her talk about it.

30. Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical thermite (super nano-thermite) theory by likely govt agents– uses evidence of nukes (molten steel, china syndrome) but denies nukes at all costs.
But there's no evidence for nukes. It's the same as DEW. There is a huge industry associated with energetic nanomaterials. Documented on the other thread. Including explosion in French nanomaterial factory a few days after 9/11. Now how suspicious is that!? Nukes have never been used for demolition in built up area. What sort of strategy is that? Where is all the science associated with mini-nukes compared to tons of science, papers, organisations and institutions about energetic nanomaterials?!

31. Small iron microspheres found by Jones et al in WTC dust— evidence of steel vaporization by high temps of nukes. Agree about the dust spheres and molten steel and explosive event - doesn't mean it is nukes. Quite the reverse? Where is the radiation!? The iron spheres was note by an official report by RJ Lee company.

32. Pyroclastic debris cloud during WTC destruction. Doesn't prove nukes: an effect of large explosions and volcanoes...

33. Upwards jutting debris trails reminiscent of debris trails formed during underground nuke test. And reminiscent of ANY high explosive event! Doesn't prove nukes.

34. Small bright flashes during destruction of both towers. Doesn't prove nukes - actually quite the reverse!!!

35. Extremely compacted ground zero debris. Sure, but doesn't prove nukes.

So you have nothing to conclusively prove nukes. No radiation = no nukes. And easily disproved. Why advocate such a left of field theory?

Quote:
The WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 towers were brought down by demolition, and there is evidence for the use of small nuclear bombs in the demolition of WTC1 and 2.

All in all, 9/11 was a massive and cruel hoax foisted upon the world, done in order to spark the obscene “war on terror”, to cover up financial fraud and to further the ends of the global elite. 9/11 was only the most egregious of several other recent false-flag terror operations.


So you are saying just two nukes? Yet hot spots were found under WTC 1, 2 and 7? How was the WTC7 hotspot generated? First nuke would also destroy surrounding electronics including the 2nd device. This theory just doesn't make sense.

I agree with your conclusion that 9/11 was a hoax.


On the whole "No Nukes Required" thing, I'd agreed with you but then we'd both be wrong.


Link



Link

_________________
The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two.

QUESTION EVERYTHING
SEEK THE TRUTH
RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1473

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sabrewolf wrote:


On the whole "No Nukes Required" thing, I'd agreed with you but then we'd both be wrong.


Well sure we could be wrong... but I'm pretty certain that nukes = radiation and I've looked at radiation maps of NY - nothing particularly strange - hot spots around hospitals - probably from some of the equipment used there.

There was some B-I-G explosions at the Farnborough Air Show last weekend - all part of the show - I'm pretty sure that... no nukes were required! Wink

Sorry I haven't time to watch the videos - what was the message from them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1473

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, I've looked over the videos now; most of it rehashes of other documentary evidence for explosives; Very little proof of nukes; Scott Ritter claims there are micronukes (from the info found in wikipedia, I submit that he is not a reliable source); There's an unidentified radio discussion; A lot of really annoying music; a claim of "elevated tritium levels" in New York... However this is unlikely to be from any nuclear device since tritium can be found in emergency lighting elements! Other supposedly nuclear-related trace materials such as boron are found in computer equipment.

Description of "elevated Tritium" found in waste landfills...

Quote:
It has become increasingly clear in the last few years that the vast majority of municipal solid waste landfills produce leachate that contains elevated levels of tritium. The authors recently conducted a study of landfills in New York and New Jersey and found that the mean concentration of tritium in the leachate from ten municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills was 33,800 pCi/L with a peak value of 192,000 pCi/L. A 2003 study in California reported a mean tritium concentration of 99,000 pCi/L with a peak value of 304,000 pCi/L. Studies in Pennsylvania and the UK produced similar results. The USEPA MCL for tritium is 20,000 pCi/L. Tritium is also manifesting itself as landfill gas and landfill gas condensate. Landfill gas condensate samples from landfills in the UK and California were found to have tritium concentrations as high as 54,400 and 513,000 pCi/L, respectively. The tritium found in MSW leachate is believed to derive principally from gaseous tritium lighting devices used in some emergency exit signs, compasses, watches, and even novelty items, such as "glow stick" key chains.


http://www.new.ans.org/pubs/journals/fst/a_1819

QED: Micronukes are a patsy argument that compliments DEW in Disinfo-ville.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sabrewolf
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:55 am    Post subject: INWO Card Game -- Terrorist Nuke Card Reply with quote

Have you ever heard of or are familiar with the INWO card game?

In 1990, role-playing inventor, Steve Jackson, was planning his newest game, which he would ultimately call the "Illuminati -- New World Order" Game, or "INWO" for short. Jackson was creating a game that would hit very, very close to home, very close to the actual plan of the Illuminati to propel the world into the New World Order. Jackson issued playing cards, three of which foretold the events of 9/11, three of which correctly predict future events just ahead of us, and two that correctly foretell the last two events that the Bible foretells.

How did Steve Jackson know the Illuminati Plan so precisely? In fact, he knew the Plan so exactly he got a surprise visit from the Secret Service, who tried their best to shut him down and prevent him from publishing his game. As you will see from viewing excerpts of Jackson's account of the raid, they were very interested in his files entitled, "Illuminist BBS". Let us listen to Jackson's account of the raid [ http://www.sjgames.com/SS/ ]

"On the morning of March 1, [1990] without warning, a force of armed Secret Service agents - accompanied by Austin police and at least one civilian 'expert' from the phone company - occupied the offices of Steve Jackson Games and began to search for computer equipment. The home ... the writer of GURPS Cyberpunk, was also raided. A large amount of equipment was seized, including four computers, two laser printers, some loose hard disks and a great deal of assorted hardware. One of the computers was the one running the Illuminati BBS."

The company, "S.J. Games" fought back in court and finally won, but nearly went under financially. The investigation zeroed in on "fraud" supposedly committed by the company regarding the hacker activity and the fact that the company promoted the hacker's newsletter, "Phrack". However, this is so flimsy that it makes no common sense; in fact, the affidavit made so little sense that a Judge threw the case out, awarding S.J. Games $50,000 plus $250,000 attorney's fees. That is a lot of taxpayer's money to pay for a stupid, nonsensical case!

But, it does highlight the fact that our Illuminist government, the Secret Service then run by President George Bush (Sr.) was worried about something that S.J. Games was up to, and cooked up a reason to invade their offices and confiscate their materials. The real reason the Secret Service invaded S.J. Games was to shut them down so they could not produce the game "Illuminati -- New World Order (INWO), for it revealed too much of the plan that was still 11 years in the future.





"Terrorist Nuke" -- This card is one of the most shocking of all, especially in light of the fact that this game first hit the specialty stores in 1995! How in the world did Steve Jackson know that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were going to be attacked? In fact, this card accurately depicted the World Trade Center attack in great detail. This card accurately depicts several facts of 9/11 -- on cards created all the way back in 1995! The picture accurately depicts:

* That one tower was going to be struck first; this picture accurately depicts the moments between the first tower strike and the second.

* The card accurately depicts that the place of impact is some distance from the top of the twin towers. The plane hit in this approximate area of the first tower. How in the world could Steve Jackson know this fact?

* The card accurately depicts the Illuminati leadership by showing on the building to the extreme left of the card the Illuminist pyramid with an all-seeing eye in the middle.

* The caption at the top properly identifies the perpetrators of the attack as "terrorists"

However, what does the caption to this card mean? It says, "Terrorist Nuke". Now, what could this possibly mean? The Twin Towers were not destroyed by a terrorist nuclear device, or were they?

One can only ask: was a micro-nuclear device used at the base of the Twin Towers as well? That kind of small, but nuclear, explosion would account for the sudden manner the reinforced concrete and steel shell simply crumbled into dust as it fell. That kind of nuclear explosion would also explain the tremendous heat that stayed at "Ground Zero" for several months after 9/11. As we head into the planned "terrorist attacks" and attendant panics, we have to remain cognizant that a micro-nuke device might be the real culprit in some of these attacks.

There is even a card of the Pentagon attack as well. Two cards literally depict both of the strikes of 9/11: against the Twin Towers first and then against the Pentagon.

This kind of accuracy 6 years before the attacks is possible only if one knows the Illuminati Plan very thoroughly.

_________________
The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two.

QUESTION EVERYTHING
SEEK THE TRUTH
RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1473

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's an interesting article, Sabrewolf. But still doesn't come close to proving nukes (where's the radiation!?). The card didn't exactly show planes crashing into the towers....

Also if you were going to take the viewpoint of a terrorist for book, or film or board game, you would have targeted the WTC and the Pentagon (certainly within the top 5 targets in the USA) and saying "nuke" is easier than describing an "energetic-nanomaterial-enabled" bomb.

Shoestring's latest post is more compelling in terms of pre-knowledge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sabrewolf
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

scienceplease 2 wrote:
That's an interesting article, Sabrewolf. But still doesn't come close to proving nukes (where's the radiation!?). The card didn't exactly show planes crashing into the towers....

Also if you were going to take the viewpoint of a terrorist for book, or film or board game, you would have targeted the WTC and the Pentagon (certainly within the top 5 targets in the USA) and saying "nuke" is easier than describing an "energetic-nanomaterial-enabled" bomb.

Shoestring's latest post is more compelling in terms of pre-knowledge.



Here's another interesting article that addresses the "radiation" that was evident at GZ.

Sources close to FEMA in New York confirmed to WMR (Wayne Madsen Report) that the lymphoma cases are believed to be the result of a release of extremely high levels of radiation from a series of nuclear events on the morning of 911.

Sept. 12, 2006 -- According to sources who worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) at Ground Zero on and after 911, residents of southern Manhattan and rescue and clean-up workers involved in the recovery operations at the site of the former World Trade Center are experiencing an unusually high rate of non-Hodgkin lymphoma -- a cancer that is common among individuals who have been exposed to extremely high levels of ionizing radiation, such as that from nuclear blasts and major nuclear reactor leaks. In addition to the respiratory problems among rescue workers at Ground Zero who breathed toxic "pulverized" concrete and other debris into their lungs, the radiation cancer is of extreme interest to researchers who suspect that the World Trade Center towers and Building 7 were brought down with the help of high energy releases. WMR spoke to a number of individuals who were at Ground Zero on 911 who are now experiencing symptoms resulting from severe damage to their immune systems -- a condition that is common among those exposed to high levels of radiation.

Sources close to FEMA in New York confirmed to WMR that the lymphoma cases are believed to be the result of a release of extremely high levels of radiation from a series of nuclear events on the morning of 911. They believe that explains the reason for the "pulverization" of concrete, molten metals, pyroclastic surges and fallout, and other anomalies resulting from the catastrophe. It was also pointed out that some vehicles parked on the west side of the World Trade Center were "fused" on the sides facing the towers -- the doors being melted into the body frames. Other cars parked nearby were not similarly affected. There is also evidence of explosions and fires on top of the Woolworth Building, three blocks away from the World Trade Center, during the attack on the towers.

FEMA officials from Washington, DC were quick to ban any unofficial photography in southern Manhattan in the weeks following 911. Any photographers who had not received prior permission from FEMA to be in southern Manhattan found their photographic and filming equipment confiscated by the government.

_________________
The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two.

QUESTION EVERYTHING
SEEK THE TRUTH
RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1473

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sabrewolf wrote:


Here's another interesting article that addresses the "radiation" that was evident at GZ.

Sources close to FEMA in New York confirmed to WMR (Wayne Madsen Report) that the lymphoma cases are believed to be the result of a release of extremely high levels of radiation from a series of nuclear events on the morning of 911.



This is great, Sabrewolf. I can work with this!

In 911Blogger there is this mention of it:

http://www.911blogger.com/news/2006-09-19/wayne-madsen-reports-unusual ly-high-rate-non-hodgkin-lymphoma-911-ground-zero-workers

But with no link to the Wayne Madison article and also has this additional caveat: "I've not seen this story elsewhere, and I'm not sure about how reliable the source usually is (Wayne Madsen Report) -- but the content is worth to be researched more and possibly verified (or not)."

The Wayne Madison report is only available to paid subscribers http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20070424_88

Searching for "radiation" on the same site shows there is no follow-up to that article.

Looking up Lymphomia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lymphoma shows that it is highly associated with AIDS/HIV - no mention of radiation although I agree that it would be associated with radiation.

As I mentioned the radiation maps of NY (sorry I can't find them on internet) mentions small hotspots around hospitals (due to the equipment used there) - a nuclear blast would leave much larger traces for millennia afterwards - it can't be cleared up without it being spotted since 2001. About the only good thing you can say about nuclear radiation is that it is easy to spot and track because of the consistent decay rates of alpha, beta and gamma emissions and exotic chemicals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sabrewolf
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

scienceplease 2 wrote:
Sabrewolf wrote:


Here's another interesting article that addresses the "radiation" that was evident at GZ.

Sources close to FEMA in New York confirmed to WMR (Wayne Madsen Report) that the lymphoma cases are believed to be the result of a release of extremely high levels of radiation from a series of nuclear events on the morning of 911.



This is great, Sabrewolf. I can work with this!

In 911Blogger there is this mention of it:

http://www.911blogger.com/news/2006-09-19/wayne-madsen-reports-unusual ly-high-rate-non-hodgkin-lymphoma-911-ground-zero-workers

But with no link to the Wayne Madison article and also has this additional caveat: "I've not seen this story elsewhere, and I'm not sure about how reliable the source usually is (Wayne Madsen Report) -- but the content is worth to be researched more and possibly verified (or not)."

The Wayne Madison report is only available to paid subscribers http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20070424_88

Searching for "radiation" on the same site shows there is no follow-up to that article.

Looking up Lymphomia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lymphoma shows that it is highly associated with AIDS/HIV - no mention of radiation although I agree that it would be associated with radiation.

As I mentioned the radiation maps of NY (sorry I can't find them on internet) mentions small hotspots around hospitals (due to the equipment used there) - a nuclear blast would leave much larger traces for millennia afterwards - it can't be cleared up without it being spotted since 2001. About the only good thing you can say about nuclear radiation is that it is easy to spot and track because of the consistent decay rates of alpha, beta and gamma emissions and exotic chemicals.


You might find this article interesting as well. FYI: If you want the full scoop you have to be a paid member as it indicates in the link provided.

Investigation of radiation-caused cancer among Ground Zero workers
Radiation had contaminated the World Trade Center Towers - 9/11 Sicknesses consistent with environmental radiation contamination


The Canadian National Newspaper Expolitics Headlines by David Jones 7 Jan 2010

A group of 9/11 responders has contracted blood cancers at an unusually young age, and top doctors suspect the disease was triggered by an unprecedented “synergistic mix” of toxins at the World Trade Center site. These growth of these cancers among Ground Zero workers, and others, are consistent with exposure to environmental radiation contamination associated with the destruction of the “9/11 targets”.

The WTC Medical Monitoring Program is now studying a group of Ground Zero workers, including cops, construction workers and volunteers, suffering from cancers such as leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

“The kind of thing that worries us is that we have a handful of cases of multiple myeloma in very young individuals… a condition that almost always presents late in life,” said Dr. Robin Herbert, co-director of the program at Mount Sinai Hospital.

“That’s the kind of odd, unusual and troubling finding…

http://exopoliticsnews.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/radiation-had-contamin ated-the-world-trade-center-towers/

_________________
The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two.

QUESTION EVERYTHING
SEEK THE TRUTH
RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1473

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Sabrewolf,

I have found some information that supports your theory... namely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

which has a kiloton yield below 5Kilotons...

Quote:
In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States developed several different types of lightweight nuclear devices. The main one was the W54, a cylinder 40 by 60 cm (about 16 by 24 inches) that weighed 68 kg (150 lbs). It was fired by a mechanical timer and had a variable yield equivalent to between 10 tons and 1 kiloton of TNT. The W54 nuclear device was used in the Davy Crockett Weapon System.


The minimum is set to a minimum of 5Kilotons according to another wikipedia entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke However the former article does show that less than 5 kilotons is technically possible and such a device could have been procured from the Russians - though would you trust it!!!?

The blast effects are described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions#Summary_of_ the_effects

However the radiation effects would be long lasting and considerable and much more than the effects we've seen on the first responders (which is bad enough!) but the likes of Bush and Guillani would not have visited GZ if they considered there was a serious radiation risk.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sabrewolf
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scienceplease 2 wrote:
Hi Sabrewolf,

I have found some information that supports your theory... namely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

which has a kiloton yield below 5Kilotons...

Quote:
In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States developed several different types of lightweight nuclear devices. The main one was the W54, a cylinder 40 by 60 cm (about 16 by 24 inches) that weighed 68 kg (150 lbs). It was fired by a mechanical timer and had a variable yield equivalent to between 10 tons and 1 kiloton of TNT. The W54 nuclear device was used in the Davy Crockett Weapon System.


The minimum is set to a minimum of 5Kilotons according to another wikipedia entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke However the former article does show that less than 5 kilotons is technically possible and such a device could have been procured from the Russians - though would you trust it!!!?

The blast effects are described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions#Summary_of_ the_effects

However the radiation effects would be long lasting and considerable and much more than the effects we've seen on the first responders (which is bad enough!) but the likes of Bush and Guillani would not have visited GZ if they considered there was a serious radiation risk.


This is becoming a good debate.

There was no need to procure any such device, namely (a suitcase nuke) from the Russians before 9/11 because there was 84+ suitcase nukes missing since the 1990's and the majority is still missing.

Could a couple of those missing suitcase nukes have been used on the WTC Towers. I think it is very possible and very plausible.


Link


I also think Bush and Guillani would visit GZ regardless if there was radiation or not. If they did not visit in a timely manner, then people would probaly start to suspect something, perhaps even say Bush and Guillani doesn't care. Bush & Guillani needed that time to try and shine.

When Bush and Guillani visted GZ they both would not have stayed very long as compared to the first responders who were exposed for a longer period of time.

_________________
The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two.

QUESTION EVERYTHING
SEEK THE TRUTH
RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1473

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sabrewolf wrote:


This is becoming a good debate.

There was no need to procure any such device, namely (a suitcase nuke) from the Russians before 9/11 because there was 84+ suitcase nukes missing since the 1990's and the majority is still missing.

Could a couple of those missing suitcase nukes have been used on the WTC Towers. I think it is very possible and very plausible.


Link


I also think Bush and Guillani would visit GZ regardless if there was radiation or not. If they did not visit in a timely manner, then people would probaly start to suspect something, perhaps even say Bush and Guillani doesn't care. Bush & Guillani needed that time to try and shine.

When Bush and Guillani visted GZ they both would not have stayed very long as compared to the first responders who were exposed for a longer period of time.


This line of reasoning is still highly speculative... I'm not quite as against this theory as I was at the beginning of the discussion but I don't think there is enough evidence to be dogmatic about it.

I have the same arguments with truthers about what blew up the Pentagon: plane, skywarrior, drone, missile or (my favorite) explosives within the building. We can't say what happened. We just know the story doesn't stack up. Without further primary research then all this discussion is just speculation.


Last edited by scienceplease 2 on Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:49 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sabrewolf
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Scienceplease 2,

Even in the case of the missing suitcase bombs, there is no evidence that they were actually stolen or otherwise illegally distributed. It could be that they were destroyed, recycled, or wound up in some other Russian armory, who knows.

On the one hand, there are people who say that the case of the missing Russian suitcase nukes is nothing more than a conspiracy theory rooted in the simmering fears left behind from the Cold War. On the other hand, we have a new breed of conspiracy-theorists suggesting that miniature nukes were what brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11.

Was it those missing Russian suitcase nukes which brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11? There is that possibility, it can't be entirely ruled out. Was Russia behind the attack, or perhaps some remnant faction of the old KGB? Were they bent on revenge, having lost the Cold War? Had such a faction perhaps infiltrated our government, the CIA, the White House? Or is this evidence, perhaps, that Israel was secretly behind the 9/11 attacks as other conspiracy-theorists have argued? Was 9/11 a Mossad operation using rogue Russian nukes?

The potential number of rogue Russian nukes is intimidating. The possibility that such nukes may have been used to attack the United States is infuriating to say the absolute least. But the United States is not without it's own tarnished record on nuclear security.

I've also argued with others on different sites as well about what exactly hit the Pentagon. I've also already started a thread on this site about that too.

_________________
The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two.

QUESTION EVERYTHING
SEEK THE TRUTH
RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1473

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sabrewolf wrote:

I've also argued with others on different sites as well about what exactly hit the Pentagon. I've also already started a thread on this site about that too.


There's no proof of nukes unless you can point to the radiation (plus all the other problems I've pointed out previously)...

There is no proof of anything(!) with regards to the Pentagon since there is just not evidence for any theory - official or alternative - with the official theory the most unrealistic of the lot!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sabrewolf
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scienceplease 2 wrote:
Sabrewolf wrote:

I've also argued with others on different sites as well about what exactly hit the Pentagon. I've also already started a thread on this site about that too.


There's no proof of nukes unless you can point to the radiation (plus all the other problems I've pointed out previously)...

There is no proof of anything(!) with regards to the Pentagon since there is just not evidence for any theory - official or alternative - with the official theory the most unrealistic of the lot!


"NO PROOF OF NUKES" unless I can point out to the "RADIATION"? Really? Dude are you serious or did you forget? If you are referring to the WTC Towers then I had already proved by posting 2 articles that did address the "radiation" that was evident at GZ, and here's yet another article which bring the total to 3 times that I have proven that there WAS RADIATION AT GZ. As I've said before, mini-nukes brought down the WTC Towers. Deal with it.

9/11 NUKE DEMOLITION PROOF: Firefighters Radiation Cancers “Off the Scale”

RADIATION CANCERS KILL 345 SO FAR
9/11 FIREFIGHTERS ARE GETTING CANCER AT A FASTER RATE THAN OTHERS, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER REVEALS
By Daily Mail Reporter

Firefighters who recovered bodies at Ground Zero are developing cancer at a faster rate than those who worked before the atrocity, medical officials have revealed.

A seven-year study by the New York Fire Department has claimed that there are ‘unusual rises’ in the number of cancer cases among firefighters who worked in the aftermath of 9/11.

Some types of cancer among 9/11 firefighters are even ‘bizarrely off the charts’, according to sources who have seen the as-yet-undisclosed federal-funded study.

Dr. David Prezant, the Fire Department’s chief medical officer, has reportedly said that cancer cases across ‘all ranks’ of the FDNY who worked at Ground Zero are ‘up significantly’.

It is thought that the report – due to be officially disclosed in time for the 10th anniversary of the terror attacks in September – cites unusual rises in leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

The report also states increases in esophageal, prostate and thyroid cancers.

Although officials have yet to confirm the increase, sources who attended a recent steering-committee meeting said Dr. Prezant’s report will document the cancer increase.

One source told the New York Post: ‘The only conclusion that could have been reached was that there was an increase in the cancer rate for firefighters after 9/11.’

Minutes of the meeting quote Prezant as saying that ‘we have completed our seven-year cancer study’ and that he planned to present it to the fire unions.

A doctor from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is said to have asked Dr. Prezant: ‘In the past, you mentioned about the rates before being somewhat similar — what led to the change that you noted the increase?’

Prezant said researchers have compiled medical records for three years and had access to state cancer registries, though New York’s is three years behind.

Dr. Prezant reportedly told the group: ‘Those things keep adding cases

The report would be the first to document a cancer-rate increase among rescue and recovery workers.

The city recently settled lawsuits by 10,000 WTC workers, more than 600 of whom have developed cancer.

But officials have so far insisted there is no scientific proof that Ground Zero smoke and dust caused cancer.

An FDNY spokesman gave a statement for Dr. Prezant, saying: ‘The study is ongoing, and no conclusions have been reached on whether cancer rates have increased for firefighters.’

But fire union bosses in New York have expressed their concern about the findings.

Al Hagan, head of the fire-officers union, told the New York Post: ‘I’m led to believe that the numbers for those cancers across all ranks in the Fire Department of people who worked at Ground Zero is up significantly, and we’re all very concerned about it, as are our families.’

Steve Cassidy, president of the firefighters union, said Ground Zero’s ‘toxic stew’ has proven lethal.

He said: ‘It’s a fact that New York City firefighters are dying of cancer in record numbers.

‘We have buried 10 firefighters in just the last 15 weeks, seven with cancer. On Sept. 10, 2001, they were young, healthy firefighters.’

In 2007, doctors at Mt. Sinai Medical Center, which monitors World Trade Center rescue workers, noted blood cancers like multiple myeloma, which normally strikes in the 60s or 70s, were being found in relatively young officers.

The New York state Health Department has confirmed that 345 Ground Zero workers have died of various cancers as of June 2010.



With regards to the Pentagon, I will agree with you in saying that the official theory is the most unrealistic. However, when you say that there is no proof of anything, I say you're wrong.

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=21265

_________________
The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two.

QUESTION EVERYTHING
SEEK THE TRUTH
RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group