The 9/11 Operation: A Summary
The 9/11 operation consisted of at least the following:
Military exercises by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) with 22 imaginarily hijacked planes on 9/11/2001, before and simultaneously with the 'real' hijackings. Some of the defense interceptors flew to Alaska, as far as possible from the cities that were being attacked.
The 'hijackings' of four civil aircraft and the substitution of all of the planes that really were used on the real flights to remote-controlled ones. It is certain that an operation this complex and heavy in the preparations of the demolitions is not left to be handled by arabs with carpeting knives. Plissken-Valentine or Pearl are well-assumed estimations on how the aircraft operation was performed. Since the part of airplanes hijacked and flown into buildings was critical to the real aims of the operation there must have been a couple of reserve planes for the USAF Boeing 767's and the Global Hawk. Alternatively, the Boeing 757 shot down in Pennsylvania might have been a remote- controlled reserve plane like those.
The booking of seats on certain flights was artificially kept low; those coast-to-coast flights were booked by 20% instead of the usual 75% in order to minimize deaths, which could cause problems. If the flights were real, the passengers on them had to die (or at least disappear). Two of the flights were probably nothing but fictious, real only on radar screens, which minimized the amount of passengers to be murdered.
There was use of put options with airline stocks and with the re-assurance companies related (American Airlines, United Airlines, Allianz, Munchener Re, Schweizer Re, AXA…). Furthermore, the assurance values of the WTC were doubled in July 2001.
The camouflaging of six remote-controlled aircraft in order to make them look like Boeing 767's or 757's. The four planes probably were 2x USAF 767 tankers, a Global Hawk in Pentagon and a 'real' 757 in Pennsylvania.
False tracks leading to 'terrorists' using young moslem looking persons, who take aviation classes in Southern USA and party at night clubs, were created.
The demolition preparations of the wing of the Pentagon that was under reparation. This was supposed to collapse a horseshoe-shaped area of the building, which would seem to be caused by the crash of a Boeing 757 after the Global Hawk attack. This partly failed. There is photographic evidence of a small plane before the actual collapse of the wing of the Pentagon. The structures did not collapse until firefighters sprayed lots of water on the ceiling of the building.
The demolition preparations of the WTC towers and WTC 7 so that it was possible to make them collapse completely. Also the positioning of an electronic homing device in the towers and in Pentagon in order to ensure the accurate hits of the remote-controlled aircraft. Extra napalm for dramatizing the effects of hits of airliners. The WTC buildings could have been exploded down to earth in same way even completely without the airplanes.
Ordering, preparing and transportation of the charges for the demolition of the WTC. Solely for the steel pillars of the outer circle 40 x 240 charges were needed, let's say 10 000 cutting charges each weighing 50 lbs for each tower. For WTC 7 at least 4000 charges were needed. Also at least one small thermonuclear bomb for each of these three buildings.
The locating of critical targets for the conspiracy in the WTC towers. For example, there was a lot of evidence of world-wide economic crimes. The FBI was in WTC 1 in the floors from 22 to 24. (It has been said that one case was the case against Mobil Oil and James Giffen on illegal oil swaps between Iran and Kazakhstan and the evidence in the investigation of gold price fixing stemming from charges brought against Alan Greenspan, Morgan & Company, Goldman Sachs.) It is possible that some targets were attacked because of the unique opportunity exploitable where the human bodies and all evidence of the crimes automatically disappeared when a hydrogen bomb exploded. Explosions heard from the towers before the commencing of the 'collapse' may have been related to these attacks. There is a reason for the huge explosion in the customs building, as well.
THE DEMOLITION OPERATION OF THE WTC TOWERS
1) One needs to find out the right size and the dimensions of suitable cutting charges and then order 24 000 pieces. One must as well order fitting detonators (detonators were needed a lot more). Fitting detonators usually already exist in stores of military forces (or the CIA). Time of delivery is several months in any case. All detonators must be equipped with some kind of safety mechanism, which will be removed by a radio signal at the final moment.
2) After this, the cutting charges are installed in the selected rooms that are not in use. Some of these rooms may as well serve as temporary storages for charges needed elsewhere. After this the apartment is renovated and circulated to the clients in the WTC. One man continuously assembles maybe 5 cutting charges per hour. With 10 assemblers 350 charges are installed a day. As surplus transportations of supplies, renovators and guards. Maybe about 20 people more were needed (5 of them know what is going on, 15 do not). For the installation of the charges this operation takes at least four months with 30 men. Considering step 1), six months are probably needed. The amount of personnel could not have been increased, but probably decreased, if more time was available.
3) To some of the chosen apartments, no one had access. That is why on the weekend on 9/8/2001 and 9/9/2001 it is announced, that floors up from the 40th floor are being equipped with cables and no normal employee has access to the working area there. The installations of explosives are completed and at the same time at least in the charged areas listening devices are set to find out a possible premature discovery of the plan. If someone finds charges the guards are soon on the scene and will deal the situation in one way or another.
4) One completes the area of secret service in WTC 7 so that its demolition operation can be carried out. A military flight beacon is placed there (planes are homing to it from far away). Remote controls for air planes and radio transmitters to be capable of blowing up at least one third of the cutting charges are placed. At this location, the ability to eavesdrop any area of the WTC, for example by a laserbeam, aimed to a selected window, probably already existed.
5) A radio beacon helping the final approach is placed in targeted apartments in the WTC towers. Close to these, remote controlled napalm explosives are placed as well, in order to draw the interest from the planes to fires. The higher in the towers the planes are targeted, the less there will be deaths. (Real terrorists would do exactly the opposite.) Evacuation from lower floors should be possible through the staircases. The target is to create a new reason for odd wars and fascistic laws, not to kill as many Americans as possible. 'A new Pearl Harbor', meaning the death of about 3000 citizens is probably the desired loss of lives.
6) The attack plans are made so that they can be executed during the chaos, for example in the offices of the investigations of the economic crimes by the FBI. (The attackers had already their own men infiltrated in these facilities.) Also in WTC 6 (customs) either a small nuke or a very strong bomb is blown out (which one, depends on whether there was melted steel ponds in the cellar of WTC 6.) An explosion, of course, hides the loss of any supplies (A nuclear explosion covers up murders, as well.)
7) In the morning of 9/11 the operations are performed after a timetable in which seconds are important. From the command post facilities the actions in towers are monitored. To hide the true nature of the operation, there was probably an agent on call in both towers, who could silence the people finding out too much. (The agent probably did not know what was going to happen.)
It is not likely that all the people, who knew about the demolition charges in the WTC, or those who installed the remote controls of the aircraft or did some camouflage paintings for drones are still are alive and capable of telling about their acts, which changed the world.
8) The mini-nukes are transported to the cellar floors in elevators. After that the elevators are locked down, guarded and monitored - no service repairman will be allowed near these elevators. The thermonuclear device used in WTC 7 was different, its yield was set lower and it was directed in a way better suitable for that building.
9) The explosions have been timed so that 99.9% of people around will look at the top of towers, and perhaps two seconds later the small thermonuclear bomb is exploded in the cellar of the south tower, and again two seconds later another very powerful charge in the WTC 6 customs building while nobody is looking that way. There are also the continuous explosions of the thousands of cutting charges tearing the south tower down at the speed of gravity-driven free fall.
10) The demolition of either of the WTC towers took at least half a year to prepare, including installation of 10 000 cutting charges and the delivery of a thermonuclear device at the last moment. The demolition of those ultra strong steel pillars in the central core using cutting charges only is not possible without waking up unwanted attention. These charges must be in touch of the steel pillars, and there is not enough enclosed space in the central core to hide these biggest possible charges.
11) The demolition operation is finished by destroying WTC 7 using a nuke and completely destroying the op center with its equipment. Concrete evidence like the military flight beacon and the remote control devices for cutting charges and napalm as well as the recordings of eavesdropping devices regarding events within the towers vapourize and vanish without a trace.
SIDE MARKINGS
Most of the media is controlled by people related to the attack and tell misleading stories only, as if crushing of the airliners or a weak fire could have caused the 'collapse' of the towers. The true attackers are the ones with strong and vigorous broadcasting around their false version of the events which is very different to what really happened.
Until these days, no single newspaper, magazine nor a national tv channel in the western nations have taken a critical view on the so-called truth, according to which the planes and fires caused the WTC towers to collapse. The destruction of WTC 7, which has no explanation at all, is bypassed without any comments. A huge bomb, explosed in WTC 6 is also bypassed as a non-existing event.
Some things, like the sharply-drawn pictures of the closest seismographs may have been falsified. A Specialist in demolitions, V. Romero, may have been forced to change his original statement. The hoax is completed by Osama Bin Laden, who as a CIA agent 'confesses' to have ordered the airliner strikes. The Bin Laden hoax and the suicidal arabs construct a net of lies that catches the most of the mankind.
Laymen have no experience in observing differences in collapses, controlled demolitions and underground nuclear demolitions. Even the destruction of heavy steel constructions or a typical fire damage are far away from their field of experience. These towers were build to take the impacts of hitting Boeing 707's, comparable to Boeing 767's, taking into account the fires caused by the aviation fuel. And the buildings did survive well all that.
The knowledge of relevant advances regarding weapon technology is even rarer. Many of those who are up to date are bound by strict commitment of loyality – that is vigorously looked after. In some cases, they get executed (an 'accident' occurs).
The author of this text feels as his duty to spread mainly the advanced knowledge in explosives from a military point of view in public discussion as it is obvious that lacking this information the events observed around 9/11 cannot be explained.
-----------------------------
The Bombs in the WTC
Note: This drawing is schematic only. The actual towers were much taller and the observed arch of destruction of the energy-directed thermonuclear device was correspondingly more narrow.
The Ground Zero here is in the original sense of word, a nuclear blast site. The thermal energy may absorb heat at a rate of 10 E 23 ergs / cm2 sec and near the bomb all surfaces may heat to 4000 °C or 7200 °F igniting or vapourizing violently. Source: US Department of Defense & US Department of Energy, Glasstone – Dolan: 'The Effects of Nuclear Weapons' (1980).
-------------------------------------The thermonuclear bomb used was a 'pure' hydrogen bomb, so no uranium or plutonium at all. The basic nuclear reaction is Deuterium + Tritium > Alpha + n. The ignition of this is the fine part, either with a powerful beam array or antimatter (a very certain way to get the necessary effect of directed energy in order not to level the adjacent blocks of high-rise buildings, as well).
The Development of Bomb Technology Related to the 9/11 Operation
These outlines of developments in military bomb technology have been written to give the layman some idea, why bomb technology has developed into what it is.A hollow charge made possible a small charge to make a hole in armour plate was invented in Switzerland in 1937. A cutting charge, used in the WTC in tens of thousands of pieces, was an evolunary model of the principles of a hollow charge from 1950's.
A Claymore threw steel balls towards the enemy, but was otherwise harmless even from 5 meters distance, was developed in the USA approximately in 1960.
A flank mine is able to direct a narrow pressure wave through AFV flanks from a distance of 20 meters and was more developed in Finland around 1970. Due to efficiency causes, growing part of military explosives deploy improvements utilizing directed explosion energy.
By controlling several layers of the explosion fronts the size of a nuclear bomb has been minimized during the 1960's (fission – implosion). After that, the control of explosion force in nuclear explosions was developed. Too strong an explosion is sometimes unusable, for example when the enemy have broken too close to friendly cities.
While looking for a bomb with a small size and a strong effect, a pure hydrogen bomb was an obvious solution. When no atomic device is needed for igniting, the size of the hydrogen bomb gets even smaller and the yield (effect) can be set within a wide range, for example between from 1 to 100. This succeeded in the 1980's, as well as the neutron bomb, which kills only living things and leaves most material untouched.
The former Soviet Union is said to have had more than 500 command centers durable for a small nuke. That led into the developing of different types of bunker busters. A working solution is a nuclear missile that directs 96% of its yield into a thin, all penetrating heat+blast wave forward, tunneling hundreds of meters downwards into solid rock. This type of a hydrogen bomb was developed somewhere in the early 1990's. Nowadays, both the yield and the direction of the destructive force of a small tactical hydrogen bomb can be somewhat controlled. The amount of fusion-able materials control the yield (effect) and the shape of the charge as well as the initiation arrangements impress the direction of the explosion wave.
-----------------------------------------------
Observations Suggesting the Use of Small Hydrogen Bombs
1) The concrete pulverized into fine dust, 70…300 micron particles (just this could take more energy than the total gravitational energy available). See Gehue plates 6 and 72) Very energetic – hot – dust after the explosions. (Demolition charges would produce white clouds of dust, which would not move much, and a gravity-driven collapse would produce much less and more coarse dust.)
3) Brown shades of color seen in the air – these are produced by nuclear reactions of a thermonuclear device. The reactions use (gamma radiation caused by free neutrons, N2, O2, H2O > nitrid acid, NO2, NO3). These clouds soon get their usual white color after some minutes as the heat and fast movement of the clouds cease becoming ordinary clouds with some water.
Note: many of the pictures taken regarding the WTC Towers and the clouds seem to have been developed too blue, killing shades of brown. (This may have been an attempt to suppress the evidence.) Also there was supposed to be 200 000+ gallons of water on the roof of each tower – this water was spilled into stairwells etc, but was later all converted into water vapour reducing the brown color.
4) Superheated steel objects, disintegrating into steel vapour. Molten ponds of steel were found in the elevator shafts. There were lots of burned cars in the parking areas of the towers. The fire department did not announce until 12/19/2001 that the fires under the WTC rubble have been distinguished (more than 3 months after the incident). For more, see (Gehue plate 8)
The thermal survey of the WTC 9/16/2001 (NASA /US Geological Survey). Despite of fire department having cooled the rubble, aluminium would still be melting in some sites 5 days after the incident.
location F C name A 1341 727 WTC7 B 1034 557 WTC7 C 1161 627 WTC1 D 963 517 WTC1 E 819 437 WTC3 F 801 427 WTC2 G 1377 747 WTC2 H 1017 547 WTC4
5) Elevated values of tritium in this area, but not elsewhere in New York. The University of California found elevated values on 9/13/2001 and 9/21/2001 within bounds of the WTC. They found them harmless for health. In pure hydrogen bomb isotopes of hydrogen are fused (D + T > n + a + 17.6 MeV).
6) An EMP-type phenomenon blacked out cellular phones at the moment when the first (southern) tower started to 'fall down', at the exact moment when a small thermonuclear bomb was detonated. Even in electronic cameras and videos a strange afterglow was seen in the late phase of the 'collapse' of both of the towers. See Gehue plate 5
7) A wave of pressure
was witnessed in the root of the tower at the moment when
the so-called collapse was progressing just about two
hundred meters and nothing had fallen down to earth. The
blast wave turned over for example a photographer and a
fireman close to the entrance, who was taking photos of
the dust cloud. The burst of the dust cloud on the root
of the tower was photographed as well. In the image at
the left below is what probably was the explosion of WTC
6. The Customs building was deliberately exploded for
some reason - it was not damaged because of the falling
girders as they had not yet reached the roof of WTC 7
when the photo was taken. A couple of seconds later the
clouds of the explosion were already partly above the
roof of WTC 7, which was too energetical to be caused by
usual blasting agents. This suggests it was the second
hydrogen bomb in the WTC block. The first hydrogen bomb
is discharging upwards (pulverized concrete) exactly in
the picture, and the steel structures vaporized by the
bomb are already falling down 100 meters (approx. 328
ft.) farther down. The mass of cloud, caused by vaporized
steel, is seen in the center of the picture and even more
clearly in the picture at the right.
 |
 |
----------------------------------------------------8) In the cellar, out of all the 47 ultra strong steel pillars, the steel was melted completely at the length of more than 20 meters (approx. 65 ft). Even cars were melted and burned in the cellar. The pillars were far too thick for thermite, which some have suggested. An explosion of a thermonuclear bomb explains the phenomenon well.
9) Steel columns and pillars were ejected in the surroundings of the building. In the beginning of the so-called collapse, exists no such energy exists that could throw steel pillars outwards from 60 to 175 meters (approx. from 170 to 574 ft.) from trunk. Not even cutting charges can do that. Instead, the blast wave from a nuclear bomb is capable to do that.
View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed
The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's.
Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the durability of a steel trunk. With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). In the skyscrapers of the WTC the surroundings were not at all ideal as there were far too many steel columns and they led heat away from the burning area. WTC 1 burned for 102 minutes and WTC 2 for 56 minutes only. A fire burning much longer, from 10 to 20 hours, could slowly increase the burning temperature down to perhaps 1100 °C (approx. 2010 °F). Provided there is more substance to burn, such a fire will damage concrete and irons, but not severely heavy steel constructions.
In mid-February in Madrid, the Windsor Tower (see above) burned for over 20 hours, which led to a fire stronger and hotter than that in the WTC, but even the collapses of the Windsor Tower caused by the very strong and long-enduring fire were minimal and limited to the upper floors. If either of the WTC tower had started to collapse because of fires the collapse would have been limited to only a few of the floors and then stopped.
The impossibility of a gravitational collapse is closer seen in other documents. A collapse would produce large pieces, and does not explain reports of fine dust from concrete, huge amounts of dust and pieces of steel ejected outwards.
Destruction of the towers by explosions is clear according to the photographs and reports of the eye witnesses. In the picture below, a range of cutting charges have just exploded in the down left sector and a typical white cloud is formed outwards from the wall. Down right, explosions are seen as well. Even a flame is seen.
In video tapes taken of the so-called collapses of the WTC, more explosions of these cutting charges can be seen. The explosions advance quickly, with a gap of a couple of floors, cutting the strong steel pillars in the outer wall. The explosions are timed so that it appears that the tower collapses occur in the same timing as in a gravitational collapse. The explosions are not completely synchronized in timing, probably a few charges are triggered by radio, and other charges explode out of the impulses of one of these charges (infrared, pressure wave).
More challenging problems to the demolition men, however, were the central cores of the buildings and the 47 steel pillars more robust than the ones on the outer rounds. The pillars of the central cores were made of steel even 100 + 100 mm thick, thicker than the side armours of a battle tank. Cutting those, even with explosives, is extremely difficult. One would need to surround the whole pillars, every single pillar on every floor intended to get blasted, with powerful cutting charges. These charges would have needed to be placed in such a way that the users of the skyscrapers could not notice these preparations.
As seen in the following pictures, the cores of the towers were not distracted by thousands of powerful cutting charges but by a modern thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb. In the picture below, a hydrogen bomb explosion, the bomb having been placed in the cellar and directed to the core, has reached the roof of the tower and the upper parts of the outer walls. On its way up the waves of fire pressure partially penetrated about 100 floors of concrete and steel. Over ten million degrees of heat caused by a hydrogen bomb sublimised all water within the concrete in a moment. Water exploded extremely quickly into 1000-fold volume and totally pulverized the concrete. Even people and computers that were in the buildings disappeared turning into heat and light. That is why almost nothing of them was found in the ruins.
Burning radiation is absorbed in steel so quickly that steel heats up immediately over its melting point 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F) and above its boiling point around 3000 C (approx. 5430 °F). In the pictures down below, super hot groups of steel pillars and columns, torn from wall by pressure wave, are sublimized. They immediately turn into a vaporized form, binding heat as quickly as possible. Bursts upwards, even visible in the picture below, are not possible for a gravitational collapse or for cutting charges which are used horizontally.
Storax Sedan 104 Kt shallow underground
In the upper picture the explosion is in theory 100 times stronger than in the picture below, but in practice the difference is only four times due to the capability of direction of the small hydrogen bomb.
In the picture at the right, the brown shades caused by a hydrogen bomb are seen, while the top of the tower that is already collapsing is breaking down and the posture straightens up as the hydrogen bomb pulverized the core and it lost all its resistance. The piles point the blasts of the cutting charges. (Gehue plate 12)
 |
Steel pillars are turned into dust. Extremely hot, sublimating pieces are not created with many methods. |
For comparison, pictures of
subterranean nuclear explosions where the explosion is blasting
onto surface and into the air:
 |
|
Ess1.2 Kt
|
 |
 |
WTC 2
|
Banberry 10 Kt
underground
|
----------------------------------------------------Radioactivity in air creates shades of brown. (The subterranean nuke in the picture on the right is 10 times stronger than the small nuke on the left.) This is the reason why the FBI did not search the crime scene. Ground zeros of nuclear weapons are a health risk and belong to the FEMA.
HAS SOMETHING LIKE THIS EVER HAPPENED BEFORE?
Wars where the true attacker is not the
nation which looks like an attacker?
The exploitation of new technological innovations (like the thermonuclear
device here, 50 years more modern than those the layman is aware of)?
The answer is affirmative.
Related to these cases with American wars, some of the pre-WW2
unknown facts were, that both Japanese and German military encryptions
were broken. The Americans could read the Japanese navy transmissions,
and the British could break any German military transmissions where they
put their effort in any given day. The western allies knew, what was the next
bombing target, what squadrons were ordered to attack and what types
of bombs were being loaded. All this before the bombers had taken off.
To protect this encryption breakthrough a series of deceptions were used.
They claimed that some agents found this information, or that voice
direction finding had located those bombers (the radar was also secret).
Sometimes a reconnaissance plane was sent to locate something, like
a convoy, what already was known to be there.
This code breaking success was first revealed by Winterbotham 1974.
The Ultra secret, as it was called, was successfully and tightly held,
The exploitation of new technological innovations (like the thermonuclear
device here, 50 years more modern than those the layman is aware of)?
The answer is affirmative.
Related to these cases with American wars, some of the pre-WW2
unknown facts were, that both Japanese and German military encryptions
were broken. The Americans could read the Japanese navy transmissions,
and the British could break any German military transmissions where they
put their effort in any given day. The western allies knew, what was the next
bombing target, what squadrons were ordered to attack and what types
of bombs were being loaded. All this before the bombers had taken off.
To protect this encryption breakthrough a series of deceptions were used.
They claimed that some agents found this information, or that voice
direction finding had located those bombers (the radar was also secret).
Sometimes a reconnaissance plane was sent to locate something, like
a convoy, what already was known to be there.
This code breaking success was first revealed by Winterbotham 1974.
The Ultra secret, as it was called, was successfully and tightly held,
though some 50 000+ people knew parts
about it (the code breaking
crew was huge, but most were carefully
hand-picked, reliable upper
class women). Any book touching strategic warfare aspects in WW2
and published before 1974 contains mistakes, because the authors
didn't have an idea about the depth of allied code breaking success.
The American side has been still more veiled, because the question
hangs in the air: if they acted then like this, what are they doing now?
class women). Any book touching strategic warfare aspects in WW2
and published before 1974 contains mistakes, because the authors
didn't have an idea about the depth of allied code breaking success.
The American side has been still more veiled, because the question
hangs in the air: if they acted then like this, what are they doing now?
Has anything been changed? This is why
they have humiliated Pearl
Harbor commanders buried in disgrace, the Magic successes hinted
some 40 years past the event and continuing difficulties to explain
what the "Flying Tigers" were actually doing late 1940 and early 1941.
Volunteers helping a just cause are easy to understand, but there is
a more difficult question of how 3 squadrons of then-modern P-40Bs
Harbor commanders buried in disgrace, the Magic successes hinted
some 40 years past the event and continuing difficulties to explain
what the "Flying Tigers" were actually doing late 1940 and early 1941.
Volunteers helping a just cause are easy to understand, but there is
a more difficult question of how 3 squadrons of then-modern P-40Bs
happened to be available for these
volunteers.
Even the US-Spanish war needs to be veiled again. Some 25 years
after the US admiral Hyman Rickover published his findings about
the internal explosion of USS Maine, there is a computer simulation
claiming that it is within the limits of possible, that an outside mine
explosion could cause the damage found at the wreck of Maine.
This incident of course could have been settled 100 years ago,
but for some reason the reliable research has been waiting. I'm
not supporting simulations against admirals, but an interested
reader should make his own mind...
---------------------------------
to other persons for judgement. Perhaps someone comments, some day]
Even the US-Spanish war needs to be veiled again. Some 25 years
after the US admiral Hyman Rickover published his findings about
the internal explosion of USS Maine, there is a computer simulation
claiming that it is within the limits of possible, that an outside mine
explosion could cause the damage found at the wreck of Maine.
This incident of course could have been settled 100 years ago,
but for some reason the reliable research has been waiting. I'm
not supporting simulations against admirals, but an interested
reader should make his own mind...
---------------------------------
The following
is a reply from The Finnish Military Expert
to criticism made by Antti Partanen at
http://www.kolumbus.fi/totuus/doc/wtcatom.html
to criticism made by Antti Partanen at
http://www.kolumbus.fi/totuus/doc/wtcatom.html
WTC hydrogen
bomb theory refuted
All the commentary of the Finnish
military expert is here with yellow background. I have
marked bad mistakes, like swapping Hydrogen bombs with
Atomic bombs, red-on-gray.
The most disquieting thought to emerge
from 9/11 truthseeking is that the succession of events
that attained its highest point thus far on September 11
may yet lead to the use of an
atomic bomb. If Iran is to be attacked, low-yield
atomic weapons may be needed to accomplish the task. They
will not be used unless terrorists commit an atomic
explosion on Western soil.
Meanwhile, however, it it has been proposed that k+1
nuclear bombs were detonated on 9/11 in the World
Trade Center towers.
But this is not my theory and mentioning
it here only blurs the matters.
This claim is preposterous for at least
the following reasons:
1) Duration of explosion. At what
point in time would these bombs have been set off? After
all, each tower was destroyed remarkably evenly over a
time span of over 10 seconds. Did the bomb radiate its
destructive force all that time? Or were there ten bombs
per tower (and maybe a couple in Building
7, too)?
Set off seconds before the
"collapse" commenced (how surprising, first
comes the cause, then comes the effect). The bomb had
initial effects, main blast, and after effects all within
about 4 seconds. The heath dissipates with no
well-defined time frame (gradually).
2) Ability to direct the explosion.
Or could the force of the explosion perhaps have been
directed to focus to a distance of hundred of meters?
This has also been suggested, in this case there would be
only one bomb, in the basement.
Correct. One H-bomb, in focus to a
distance of several hundred meters upwards.
3) Radio activation. These atomic bombs didn't seem to create
much of a fallout...
Mini-hydrogen bombs. Any idea what is the
difference of tritium and plutonium?
They create radiation, but far less (1/100) than plutonium bombs. And of different type. The problem is, you cannot measure it without very expensive instruments. In the first minutes at ground zero, there are hundreds of different short-lived radioactive particles. Take a deep breath and you will propably die. Neutrons did their damage, but they are not showing any longer. Later on, alpha and tritium particles exist, but they are not easy to reveal. Again, some sniffing like the dogs did and many will get internal lung damage (not always fatal, but damage anyway). Water spraying is a good way to speed up the evaporation of these light, radioactive elements. And that's what they used. Elevated tritium values were found in three places at the WTC area. Five days later. Some unexpected Beta readings also have been measured. Guess why they are not telling, what was found earlier, say 9/13?
4) Electromagnetic pulse. The EMP would have been a lot stronger
than just having an unknown number of cell phones go
(temporarily?) dead - which in any case may have occurred
during the destruction of the North Tower. You know, the
tower on top of which there was a... telecomm mast.
False. Many types of devices went dead at
the moment the first tower "collapsed".
You cannot expect better info than what the German engineers already published. <http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate5.htm> Locating the mini-hydrogen bomb underground and directing it upwards both will reduce the EMP pulse effects outside the target building.
5) Seismic shock. Seismic data
directly contradicts claims of a massive explosion at the
start of the destruction sequence: the shockwaves rise in
amplitude and reach their maximum when the rubble hits
the ground.
A bomb described above (points 3 and 4)
does, in fact, not belong to the class "thought
experiment"
but rather to the class "theoretical device". Hydrogen bombs do, however, remain an extremely remote possibility.
Babbling. Pure mini-hydrogen bomb just
happens to fit best into the evidence. Whatever you call
it. Seismic shock was reduced, because the H-bomb was not
directly coupled with the bedrock. You
are free to accept the official explanations, but for me it was a sharp pulse (and the seismic timescale is propably falsified).
6) Availability. Where, exactly,
would these pure H-bombs have been acquired? How many
people would it introduce to the conspiracy? Is it
reasonable to think that beyond-cutting-edge technology
would be field tested for the first time in an operation
this important, especially when there are easier options?
They were cutting edge around 1990, not
2001. Surely they have been tested.
A friendly branch of the cabal has propably been allowed to steal some from US storages. This part of the conspiracy needs propably four people. The same cabal using these mininukes seems to have influence into what types of nuclear bombs are being monitored, and currently the emphasis is on atomic type devices. The UN near the WTC failed to register these explosions around their corner, and yet they are supposed to monitor the whole globe effectively. See discussion of modern H-bombs (directed, pure etc.) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0510/0510071.pdf
7) Need. If plastic explosives, thermite and maybe
thermobarics get the job done, why mess around with the
nuclear stuff? (Many do not even consider the claim that
potential energy alone could explain the observed
destruction to be surprising enough to protest it, so how
likely is it that there were devices of even greater
destructive power in the towers?)
A single non-radioactive
smaller-than-pineapple device reduces the need of
explosives by more than
a quarter (I'm talking thousands of charges being saved). It helps to solve the problem of very strong core columns near the bedrock and the need to use very heavy charges. It also creates a deep mystery –the crime scene is more difficult to analyse. From economic point of view the NYC would have spent soon 2 billion dollars to dismantle the WTC containing asbestos, and it would have caused some years of traffic jams. The new buildings would have cost some 10 billion dollars and again have caused more traffic problems. Controlled demolition well done and combined with an insurance fraud saved some 2+7 billion dollars and two years of traffic jams to the NYC. After 9/11 the insurance companies all raised the insurances of any high rise buildings and actually got more wealthy. The true losers are we the People.
8) Risk. If the bomb emitted any
radiation at all, it might have been detected. Unless the
conspirators succeeded in manning these security
positions as well, I suppose.
These bombs have so far never been analysed
correctly. Using them in the US was practically riskless
because the cabal controls the key institutions and is
able to cause what looks like "stand down order"
in the air defence, for an example. Or to cover up the shooting of the congressman Ryan and the mass murderof some 700 americans at Jonestown, Guayana (as declared by the local coroner Leslie Mootoo).
9) Other observations. An atomic bomb is not required to
explain the fact that pieces of the
towers were thrown into the walls of nearby buildings: Most of the pieces claimed to be heavy steel are in fact aluminium cladding, and during the destruction sequences tensions in the structures of the towers were surely high enough to propel a small number of wall elements all the way to eg. WFC3. I see nothing strange about the alleged brown hue of the dust clouds, and the "afterglow" that is occasionally mentioned (a flare effect?) can be seen only on one or two videos. Persistent heat in the rubble can be explained with the continuing chemical reaction of excess thermite.
To start with misleading elements here:
mini-hydrogen bombs, not atomic
bombs. The wall elements weight 22 tons each
and in upper parts of the towers they are 4 floors high.
They were bolted and welded into other exterior wall
elements and into the floors. Exactly such elements are
visible in the walls
of neighbouring buildings (like in the AMEX building 175 meters away). They were both ripped off and thrown upwards at almost the optimal 45 degree angle. The aluminium cladding needs not to be talked, those steel elements were clearly recognized. In controlled demolitions the elements are usually thrown away horizontally. In this case there was no good locations to place such charges (they usually need cutter charges to cut elements off and springer charges combined to throw them away). From these towers it was difficult to get the outer wall elements flying. If the springer charge is a powerful explosive –like C-4 the steel element will be smashed into fragments and it will not fly at all. Any need to throw these elements is missing, and while one could claim some just flew accidentally this is not explaining why those elements were thrown upwards into a long-flying trajectory.
So what really happened was not a
controlled demolition using military explosives only.
What was observed was some unavoidable side effects
of a thermonuclear detonation. The first outer
wall elements started to fly upwards, because the H-bomb was in the basement and it was directed upwards. The heath from this thermonuclear device also explains many other observations like:
The surface of the steel elements begun
to boil and evaporated as a gray vapor
There was record quantities of near-molecular metallic dust in the WTC area The people, the furniture and the computers in towers vapourized, disappearing Practically all the concrete in towers disintegrated into very fine dust There was pyroclastic flow observed in the rapidly expanding clouds at the WTC The explosion clouds expanded rapidly into 5-fold volume (in controlled demos they should only move off a few meters and then cool down, not moving any more) The steels were superhot a long time, because some of their interiors were heated up into something like 7000 degrees C. First such a steel evaporates, the outer- most layers vapourize and the rest cools off very little. Later the temperature goes belowe the boiling point around 3000 degrees C. Now the steel becomes white hot and starts melting, cooling off a little. Later the temperature goes belowe the melting point around 1550 degrees C and the steel cools off more, becoming yellow hot, red hot and so on in the process.
The spire behauviour –some coupled
core steel columns remained standing about
25 seconds, ablating, and after having vapourized enough the joints broke down and the steel columns disappeared quickly downwards, but the steel vapour remained in the air, slowly disappearing into wind. There was ponds of molten steel in the elevator shafts of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. They were difficult to cool down, because other steels above them first vapourized all the water being sprayed. So the hottest steels did not meet the water at all. There was paper trash on the streets, because some stacks of paper avoided the cone of destruction of the directed mini-thermonuclear bomb. So the blast wave bypassed some paper stacks and the following turbulence threw papers out of the windows. The paper is too soft a target for high energy neutrons, so the papers did not heath up and disintegrate like the heavier elements.
The basic thermite cannot explain the
heath for more than a few days. But there is
no point of using that, either. If attached to core columns, thermite charges will melt their binders much before they are able to melt those vertical columns. What was propably used was army-type demolition charges. They have thermite mixed with sulfur and nanoaluminium, possibly with other chemicals too. They build a very hot cutting spray which is capable of cutting through steel beams quickly, 10...100 times faster than the basic thermite (and this mix is often called thermate). And the basic thermite only melts, it has no cutting effect (so it would be better suited for horizontal beams). But both thermite and thermate will burn continuously, they already have all the oxygen they need. The reason those underground steels were hot for 100 days is in the massive heath load caused by the thermonuclear directed energy device, not some isolated packages of thermite or thermate.
Though it's not impossible than an atomic device was in each
tower, I consider this
to be the third most implausible theory of the relatively well-known ones: only bluescreens and holograms go beyond it. (If you don't know what 'bluescreens' and 'holograms' refer to, well, good.)
Obviously you are overestimating your
knowledge in many other areas of expertise
besides military explosives and nuclear explosives. I know better than start talking on 33 year old inventions I'm not an expert. But I can assure you don't know the state-of-the-art military technology in this field, either.
One more point against the claim of a
nuclear bomb needs to mentioned:
Truth strategy
Since the harm done by the "WTC
H-bomb" theory has, in contrast to the widespread
unfortunate
effects of many other bogus theories, been minimal up to now, it would be easy to just ignore it. It may not, however, remain that obscure for much longer: Rick Siegel, who in his sincere video 9/11 Eyewitness in passing mentioned that he thought a nuclear bomb had been set off at the WTC, has included the nuclear bomb theory in Eyewitness Hoboken, the next version of his video.
With this in mind, it may be necessary to
examine how the theory has been advanced:
1) An anonymous Finnish "military expert" proposes it. 2) Hannu Yli-Karjanmaa accepts the theory to be posted on the website he maintains, 11syyskuu.org. Mr. Yli-Karjanmaa is one of the leading 9/11 activists in Finland, and also a supporter of maintaining neutrality towards every theory, just in case there is some truth to them. 3) According to a message on a Finnish 9/11 email list (maintained by 11syyskuu.org), the anonymous original theorist agitates Mr. Siegel on the subject.
And so the extreme theory has gone from a
dubious source via a Big Tent advocate to,
possibly,
wide promotion. Surely, an unfortunate example of the ease at which bogus theories propagate.
I have recently
engaged in an email discussion on the issue with the
alleged expert, with Hannu
Yli-Karjanmaa acting as an intermediary:
Decide for yourself, but I think that the
"expert" displays an astoundingly poor command
of facts (conventional, nuclear and WTC-related), and was
unable to produce a coherent explanation
that would require an atomic device. For example, he claims that severing each core pillar would require C4 charges a foot thick and yet a hydrogen bomb alone would not be sufficient. If one H-bomb per tower was an elegant solution for the collapses that cleanly explained all the observed phenonema, one might be inclined to entertain it. But it is not.
This is misleading. I said the core is in the shape
of fairly long rectangle, and the stealth mini
H-bomb needs to be set so the total-destruction fireball remains within that core rectangle. Thus at the edge of the core area there will be columns too far to be destroyed with the mini H-bomb. This is why the hydrogen bomb needs to be augmented with cutter charges placed on the outermost pillars and the upper floors of the core.Not all, just the outermost ones. These columns also would be cut into suitable truckloads. The directed H-device and the cutting charges will quarantee there will be an abyss of at least 20 meters under the central core. The next cutting plane can be set 40 meters above the bedrock so the tower will still collapse belowe the groud level. The rest of the cutting charges will be set 20 meters above the previous cutting plane up to the 90th floor or so. The superthermate cutting charges will cut those core columns full or almost full cut, after which the mini H-device will shake the columns totally cut.
As the
abyss (20 meters) opens in the bottom of the central
core, above it there will be fairly heavy
part of the building drawing towards the center and downwards. There will be strong sprays of steel sparkles in the central core area, and lots of smoke, but no additional oxygen is needed and the smoke will not be visible before the wall of the core or the top of the tower will break. As a finishing touch the fire alarm system no doubt was set to malfunction at this time. The cutting charges within the core need to be triggered first, several minutes before the thermonuclear device in the elevator shaft at cellar area.
Of course,
the mini H-device is not mandatory. The Twin Towers can
be demolished using standard
military explosives. If the charges need to be set fairly quickly, some 6 500 charges would be needed for each tower. And if this could be prepared like a controlled demolition, taking its time (remember many floors were vacated, no tenants there -the towers already were old and less attractive). If some of the charges can be sunk within the steels, something in the order of 10 tons of explosives with plenty of time would suffice. But this is not the point. There is strong evidence, that the attackers actually used a mini H-device.
For the
first, there are hundreds of pictures and videos showing the
huge explosion like this one:
This Picture is for education and discussion Only. Not for commercial use. 
This is
an absolute certain explosion, not any type of collapse
or clean,
controlled demolition. And the device in use here is an upwards directed mini H-bomb. Even in this picture, there are 10+ superheated outer wall elements spitting a steel-vapour trail behind them. Additionally, plenty of pulverized concrete is visible! And it comes from the floor plates. In the outer walls of the building there was steels, glass and some heath insulation only.
It is not
possible to set conventional military explosives in a way
to achieve this
result shown in the picture. So much and so heavy stuff flying at once simply is not possible, if the building still was in office use as we know it was. This picture is stranger than you may believe. The diameter of the mushroom cloud above the building is in the order of 200 meters. At the edges of this mushroom cloud there are steels weighting tons and outer wall elements weighting 22 tons each. But also enormous amouths of pulverized concrete. And more of it climbing vertically upwards at the top of the tower.
Ejecting
those heavy steels, especially those 22-ton outer wall
steel elemenments
with onventional military explosives is very difficult because there are very little strong points behind the outer walls to place springer charges. No one will ever plan a controlled demolition, where 22-ton steel elements are thrown upwards in some 60-degree angle. If something needs to be moved to smoothen the explosive chain it will be moved horizontally. But there is no need for such ejecta, either.
It is
commonly believed you could simulate a thermonuclear
detonation (or actually
frame it) using huge stocks of conventional military explosives. In this case, where they actually detonated a 1-kiloton H-device, it should be possible to frame it setting a thousand tons of tnt within this tower. This means you order 60 truckloads of tnt (17 tons each) and a huge number of fuzes and explosive cord to wire them. But remember, we saw some single cutting charges firing 10 to 20 stores belowe the "collapse", but never more than one at a time. In my opininion, those detonations were skilfully timed to separate them both in time and in space. Lets see what happens, if we try to repeat what is shown in the picture using conventional explosives of various types only.
Suppose we
set 200 tons of tnt onto those two floors
exploding in the picture. Then
we set it all to be exploded within a few milliseconds. What would happen? The tower would explode, yes. Those smaller outer wall steels smashed (weighting a few tons) would fly away just like they do in yhe picture. But those 22-ton wall elements would not start to fly into a neat ballistic curve first going steep upwards and later downwards. And the thick steel vapour trail following each one would surely be missing. There would not be heavy clouds of concrete, there would be thinner dust only. The noise of the explosion would be much louder. Something like a fireball would form up there (and not be hidden in the basement out of sight what really happened). A flame would strike out next to every window not unlike a 2-deck frigate from 18th century firing a full broadside salvo.
The
mechanismus behind the picture above was quite different.
The fireball of the H-device
formed out of sight around 3rd cellar floor of the central core. The bomb was directed upwards so some 95% ot the energy went that way into the cone of destruction. Some additional holes were propably blown minutes before triggering the H-device in order to facilitate the explosion. Without it the H-bomb would hit with full force the roof of the elevator shaft (and the roof of the tower) but this is too narrow and not what was observed. A terribly strong, invisible blast of neutrons went up in the cone of destruction, converting steels superhot and exploding lesser objects instantenously. The concrete floors were penetrated easily and all the concrete exploded as any water within it vapourized into 1000-fold volume (and not 24-fold, as I said earlier 15 months ago).
Quickly
behind the neutron volley arrived the heath wave and the
blast wave caused
by the fireball effect. All material within the cone of destruction totally disintegrated (exect some of the heaviest steel beams and columns). Some materials outside the cone was also destroyed, because various objects within the cone caused reflections. The picture shows the situation some six seconds after the neutron volley and four+ seconds after the full pressure wave has hit the outer walls of the tower and broke through it.
You simply
cannot frame a thernonuclear explosion like this and
claim that perhaps it
was just a huge explosion using conventional explosives (like super-rdx and super- thermate in this case). The conventional explosives will produce very much mechanical energy (blast pressure wave), a little thermal effects and no radioactive radiation of residues.
I suppose
that part of the readers who already have some clue will
find out roughly
what took place. If you don't know the explosives can be directed, start reading about the hollow (shaped) charge. Then find out what a claymore mine is, and proceed to some advanced weapon which affects the target by exploding far away (in Finland we have what is called "light antitank flanking mine"; in the US there are cluster antitank bombs with the bomblets hovering and exploding above the tanks with approximately the same effects). If you don't know the same is possible with a pure hydrogen 4th generation nuclear bomb, please see the link (Gspooner) referred at the end of reason 6 ) in the beginning of this document. As I first published this theory the reference was not available -you know the real experts from their ability to estimate what will be coming next in their field of profession.
One more
step ahead. Why no one has told these things in
the magazines, newspapers,
in TV or in the radio? And could there be people so evil they kill thousends of their countrymen without heasitation? The media is very concentrated and our real rulers are a small group of ultra wealthy people controlling the media as well as the central banks. The situation was the same already at the end of 19th century, for more than one hundred years ago. And regarding the evil those religious people having faith will catch this one quicker. But the US had it's last true war 1812 (the second war against the British) and all the wars after that have been based on frameups, false-flag operations and other state terrorism (including the original Pearl Harbour, which was preceeded by eight insults against the Japan). In the real life the rulers of smaller countries are not madmen, and they do not challenge contemporary superpowers, or even states with an equal strength (what ever the media is saying).
So I hope I
have been able to clarify what problems are to be
expected when the current
favourite theory in the 9/11 truth movement (MIH with conventional explosives) is being compared with this mini H-device theory. There are more than 20 weird observations pointing to my theory. Please try to spread the word.
Thus we conclude the WTC hydrogen bomb,
the most significant 9/11 theory of Finnish
origin, to be hopefully dead. Curtain down.
Oh, you still hate to let the readers to
decide? In the civilized circles there is such a
principle,
that one's own judgements could be subjective, and not very neutral. This is why third persons are usually called up to estimate the evidence and to give an objective judgement. So I lay this case to rest and I'm sure some neutral people will comment on this some day.
I suggest the reader starts looking those
atomic bomb mistakes or misleads. This young man
tries to refute a specific theory regarding very modern mini-hydrogen devices, but most of the time what he mentions are atomic bombs.
An atomic bomb is built based on
very heavy elements, plutonium or uranium.
An atomic bomb also is very polluting, and it has a critical mass type explosion mechanism which does not allow very small bombs or also necessary directed energy effects. The energy distribution of an atomic bomb is also less suitable for the purposes used in the WTC. An atomic bomb emits 50% of it's energy in blast force, 35% in thermal radiation and the remaining 15% in various radioactive forms (initial radiation 5%, residual radiation 10%). The use of covert atomic bombs in the WTC towers is an utterly hopeless idea, which is why this evil young man misrepresents my theory so eagerly offering those A-bombs.
The hydrogen bomb is very
different. It uses the lightest of the elements, like
various
forms of hydrogen and lithium. It has very small minimum size, the cherry-size pellets are typical in fusion energy designs. It can be made into directed-energy device much like conventional military explosives. And the energy distribution is more useful, some 80% is in neutron and thermal radiation (and in this case, neutrons also use most of their energy in warming steels and other hard targets). Some 15% goes to blast effects and the remaining 5% into various radiations. In covert operations like the WTC the residual effects of the hydrogen bomb are neatly disappearing into the winds and this process can be speeded up with continuous spraying of water (which also is what happened). Some of the tritium binds with oxygen forming tritiated water (which is less harmful than the free tritium remains) and spraying will also get these lighter-than-air molecules moving, out into the skies.
What will be difficult to cover up are
random radioactive changes caused by the energetic
neutrons. This is why those steels were scuttled and exported from the country as quickly as possible. There will be some hot spots, and melting those steels and re-using them will not get the radioactivity to disappear. So such a contaminated steel cannot be used freely, for an example to build furniture, ships, cars or personal armour. Building bridges and oil tanks with it will be less a health problem. Note: most of the steel will not contaminate easily. The Fe56 atom absorbs a neutron and becomes a stable Fe57 atom. The Fe57 atom absorbs a neutron and it becomes a stable Fe58 atom. If the Fe58 atom once again absorbs a neutron, then there will be radioactive Fe59 isotope (Beta minus decay, Gamma radiation too). But there are small amouths of other elements like Chromium, Nickel and Vanadium present in the steels, too. Unusual concentrations of Fe57 and Fe58 could tell the recycled WTC steel has been close to the thermonuclear explosion. And these changes are permanent, this is proovable 100 years from now if necessary.
No one with any insight into various
nuclear weapons will blur these two, atomic bombs
and thermonuclear bombs. And all the observations I mentioned in 3, 4 and 9 need to be explained somehow. If this mini-hydrogen bomb is not a good explanation, feel free to offer something better instead. But before something in the lines "asthmathic person with a breaking oxygen bottle" are being invented to explain each item, I would like to point out, that if we are searching the truth there is a principle called Occam's razor. Some 20-plus odd observations can all be explained in elegant way with just a single mini-hydrogen device with a basement placement. In the end analysis the simplest explanation will prevail. |
My translation
of the H-bomb theorist's first message on 2006-05-19
(I had earlier
posted an initial version of my debunking of his theory)
_____________________________________________________________________________
HIS FIRST
MESSAGE
[>duration?]
1. The bomb was
detonated when the visible collapse started. Duration about
4 seconds. Altogether three bombs, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.
4 seconds. Altogether three bombs, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.
[>directionability?]
2. The bomb is
build so that it is directed. Let's assume fusionable material
cast in the shape of a staff. It is lit from one end with a hot ray pointing
towards the center of the staff. So in what direction does the fusion front
progress from the end of the staff? The real structure is more complicated,
though.
cast in the shape of a staff. It is lit from one end with a hot ray pointing
towards the center of the staff. So in what direction does the fusion front
progress from the end of the staff? The real structure is more complicated,
though.
In each
building only one hydrogen bomb in the middle in the basement, by
the
3rd basement in the shaft of a freight or express elevator.
3rd basement in the shaft of a freight or express elevator.
[>fallout?]
3. They tried
to explain [the fallout with tritium from emergency lighting].
Unfortunately all WTC emergency signs were based on the electroluminesence
phenomenon. Thus they contained no tritium at all. A pure H-bomb produces
one hundreth of the pollution of an atomic bomb of comparable size. And they
are really not detectable with a Geiger counter (alpha particles and tritium
particles). In addition they can mostly be washed away with the help of spraying
water. The particles in question are very light, a kind of hydrogen and helium.
When inhaled these particles are destructive.
Unfortunately all WTC emergency signs were based on the electroluminesence
phenomenon. Thus they contained no tritium at all. A pure H-bomb produces
one hundreth of the pollution of an atomic bomb of comparable size. And they
are really not detectable with a Geiger counter (alpha particles and tritium
particles). In addition they can mostly be washed away with the help of spraying
water. The particles in question are very light, a kind of hydrogen and helium.
When inhaled these particles are destructive.
[>EMP?]
4. Also the EMP
can be lessened by detonating the bomb underground. The
phenomenon
will not be admitted even in cases when there is no need to conceal a small nuclear
explosion. [Because those enterprises hit by the EMP are vulnerable]. See however http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate5.htm
will not be admitted even in cases when there is no need to conceal a small nuclear
explosion. [Because those enterprises hit by the EMP are vulnerable]. See however http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate5.htm
Thus we judge
the WTC H-bomb theory, the most significant 9/11 theory of
Finnish
origin, to be dead.
origin, to be dead.
You should not
become a judge in your own issue, you should try to defend your
position.
1. How do you
explain that 99% of the concrete was pulverized to hot particles
of
under [less than is English] 100 microns? Did "moslems of al Qaida" hate floors in
particular? Isn't it fairly laborious to shatter 110 floors of concrete plates – how
was done in your opinion? Even with explosives?
under [less than is English] 100 microns? Did "moslems of al Qaida" hate floors in
particular? Isn't it fairly laborious to shatter 110 floors of concrete plates – how
was done in your opinion? Even with explosives?
2. Why were
there pools of molten steel on the bottoms of the elevator
shafts?
3. Why did it
take the fire department 100 days to cool the glowing steel, even
though they sprayed water on top of them continuously, night and day? Is this
what happens in other "collapses" and "controlled demolitions"? Tell me an example?
though they sprayed water on top of them continuously, night and day? Is this
what happens in other "collapses" and "controlled demolitions"? Tell me an example?
4. Why were no
survivors found in the rubble? Are there never in collapses?
Why were no bodies found, either (even clear body parts), furniture or computer?
Tell me an example from somewhere else?
Why were no bodies found, either (even clear body parts), furniture or computer?
Tell me an example from somewhere else?
My first
response (translated) of 2006-05-19
_____________________________________________________________________________
Answers to the
anonymous developer of the nuclear bomb theory, who can be
assumed
to be some kind of a) military member ['soldier'] or b) expert or possibly
c) a military expert:
to be some kind of a) military member ['soldier'] or b) expert or possibly
c) a military expert:
1. So a four
second duration? From where to where? Did fusion occur all that
time?
2. So the bomb
could be directed so well that its destructive effect was focused
hundreds of meters away, and during four seconds its direction changed evenly? Or
did the bomb drop at the same speed as the towers regardless of reactive forces?
hundreds of meters away, and during four seconds its direction changed evenly? Or
did the bomb drop at the same speed as the towers regardless of reactive forces?
3.+4. I admit
that this scifi bomb would then probably also be capable of a
minor
fallout and EMP. (And presumably configuring Windows 2000 and filling tax returns,
as well.) Speaking of surprising elements, might the nuclear bomb also have
contained sulfur? Or was that, too, the consequence of a nuclear reaction?
fallout and EMP. (And presumably configuring Windows 2000 and filling tax returns,
as well.) Speaking of surprising elements, might the nuclear bomb also have
contained sulfur? Or was that, too, the consequence of a nuclear reaction?
Why on earth
did a nuclear bomb have to be wasted on WTC7 if C4 would get the
job
done?
done?
"You
should not become a judge in your own issue"
= don't
criticize my grand theory
"you
should try to defend your position"
My position is
this: WTC1 and 2 most likely were destroyed with a combination of
plastic explosives + thermite, the perpetrator was hardly al-Qaeda.
plastic explosives + thermite, the perpetrator was hardly al-Qaeda.
"How do
you explain that 99% of the concrete was pulverized to hot
particles of
under 100 microns?"
under 100 microns?"
Ooh, numeric
values. 99% probably isn't very far from the truth, but I can't
recall
ever seeing a basis from the presented values for the particle size of the dust.
What is the basis for the claim regarding the heat?
ever seeing a basis from the presented values for the particle size of the dust.
What is the basis for the claim regarding the heat?
The falling
mass of the buildings + probably explosives crushed the contents
of the
buildings.
buildings.
"pools of
molten steel"
How do you know
it was steel? There aren't many eyewitness statements of molten
metal, and some of them might have meant metal that was only red-hot.
metal, and some of them might have meant metal that was only red-hot.
"100 days
to cool the glowing steel"
So do you claim
that the heat of the steel members persisted for 100 days solely
because of the heat originally embedded into them by the nuclear bomb, without for
instance continuing chemical reactions caused by remaining thermite? Or had a
(non-radiating?) mini-Chernobyl formed in the basements?
because of the heat originally embedded into them by the nuclear bomb, without for
instance continuing chemical reactions caused by remaining thermite? Or had a
(non-radiating?) mini-Chernobyl formed in the basements?
[You are not
particulary amusing inventing a mini-Chernobyl. The H-bomb is
very
different to A-reactor, but how could you have known. Google words "Fission"
and "Fusion" or ask someone who has a little understanding of physics]
different to A-reactor, but how could you have known. Google words "Fission"
and "Fusion" or ask someone who has a little understanding of physics]
"no
survivors found"
Survivors were
not found because of the complete destruction of the buildings,
which in turn may be explained by the fact that explosives severed the supporting
structures.
which in turn may be explained by the fact that explosives severed the supporting
structures.
It is not
impossible that the perpetrators of the attacks might have gotten
their
hands on some brand new nuclear weapons and also decided to use them for some reason,
but it is so unlikely that presenting the theory as equal or even superior to other
destruction theories, with no warning of unconstrained speculation, is not wise
in any way.
hands on some brand new nuclear weapons and also decided to use them for some reason,
but it is so unlikely that presenting the theory as equal or even superior to other
destruction theories, with no warning of unconstrained speculation, is not wise
in any way.
_____________________________________________________________________________
[I added the
following in another message]
_____________________________________________________________________________
"alpha
particles and tritium particles [...] a kind of hydrogen and
helium."
Just say
bravely 'isotope'.
"When
inhaled these particles are destructive."
Well, so now we
get for even the health effects an extreme explanation that
simultaneously lets the health officials off the hook regarding the lack of
a warning about asbestos. Just great.
simultaneously lets the health officials off the hook regarding the lack of
a warning about asbestos. Just great.
----
My translation
of the H-bomb theorist's second message on 2006-05-23
_____________________________________________________________________________
HIS SECOND
MESSAGE
>Answers to
the anonymous developer of the nuclear bomb theory, who can
be
>assumed to be some kind of a) military member or b) expert or possibly
>c) a military expert:
>assumed to be some kind of a) military member or b) expert or possibly
>c) a military expert:
Destructive
work of this scale involves phenomena, that a typical civilian
does
not identify, and does not notice, even though they are all the time in the image
material for all to see. Because this attack has already been used as an excuse for
wars of conquest and the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, I see that it
is my duty to explain to people of different professions, and even to a large
section of professional soldiers, what really took place at the WTC.
not identify, and does not notice, even though they are all the time in the image
material for all to see. Because this attack has already been used as an excuse for
wars of conquest and the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, I see that it
is my duty to explain to people of different professions, and even to a large
section of professional soldiers, what really took place at the WTC.
>1. So a
four second duration? From where to where? Did fusion occur all
that time?
The fusion
reaction advances to the chosen direction (upwards) extremely
fast.
A great amount of neutron radiation goes upwards. A sufficient amount of X-ray and
neutron radiation goes also to all other directions. Neutrons heat the steel
members to their cores and much over the boiling point of steel. A fireball,
plasma, is formed around the bomb, when the surrounding air cannot move away to
the extent required by its heating. All materia left inside the fireball turns to
plasma or disintegrates. The fireball expands explosively, causing heat radiation
and a pressure wave. The pressure wave breaks structures and causes also a sharp
seismic spike.
A great amount of neutron radiation goes upwards. A sufficient amount of X-ray and
neutron radiation goes also to all other directions. Neutrons heat the steel
members to their cores and much over the boiling point of steel. A fireball,
plasma, is formed around the bomb, when the surrounding air cannot move away to
the extent required by its heating. All materia left inside the fireball turns to
plasma or disintegrates. The fireball expands explosively, causing heat radiation
and a pressure wave. The pressure wave breaks structures and causes also a sharp
seismic spike.
The heat
radiation heats all surface material beyond boiling point. The
surface of
the steel begins to boil and evaporates as a gray vapor. The steel has no time to
turn red-hot, the boiling captures heat and the steel ever deeper turns directly
from solid to vapor. When the strongest pressure wave meets the outer wall of the
tower somewhere around the 70th floor the pressure wave rips the wall elements off
in massive chains. In one picture fifteen 22-ton elements, that is 330 tons of
steel, is ripped off and outwards from the wall. A few of these 22-ton elements
are thrown distances of even 200 meters sinking into other buildings outside
the WTC-block (eg. the AMEX building at a height of about the 20th floor). The
aluminium cladding plays no role here, just aluminium wouldn't even be thrown that
far, and wouldn't penetrate a skyscraper's wall.
the steel begins to boil and evaporates as a gray vapor. The steel has no time to
turn red-hot, the boiling captures heat and the steel ever deeper turns directly
from solid to vapor. When the strongest pressure wave meets the outer wall of the
tower somewhere around the 70th floor the pressure wave rips the wall elements off
in massive chains. In one picture fifteen 22-ton elements, that is 330 tons of
steel, is ripped off and outwards from the wall. A few of these 22-ton elements
are thrown distances of even 200 meters sinking into other buildings outside
the WTC-block (eg. the AMEX building at a height of about the 20th floor). The
aluminium cladding plays no role here, just aluminium wouldn't even be thrown that
far, and wouldn't penetrate a skyscraper's wall.
The Compton
diffraction caused by free neutrons achieves its maximum volume,
and
after that electrical discharges that even out the imbalance are formed in the
air (emp). The explosion of the small hydrogen bomb is over after that. Inside
the building there is still an extremely hot dust cloud, attempting to go up, which
upon contact with a concrete sheet, or a human, explodes it to almost molecules
(liquids expand to thousand times volume, and not 24-times like I previously
put forward). Every molecular bond in the concrete loses its bound water and
is released explosively. Every cell in a human explodes losing its liquid contents.
after that electrical discharges that even out the imbalance are formed in the
air (emp). The explosion of the small hydrogen bomb is over after that. Inside
the building there is still an extremely hot dust cloud, attempting to go up, which
upon contact with a concrete sheet, or a human, explodes it to almost molecules
(liquids expand to thousand times volume, and not 24-times like I previously
put forward). Every molecular bond in the concrete loses its bound water and
is released explosively. Every cell in a human explodes losing its liquid contents.
>2. So the
bomb could be directed so well that its destructive effect was
focused
>hundreds of meters away, and during four seconds its direction changed evenly? Or
>did the bomb drop at the same speed as the towers regardless of reactive forces?
>hundreds of meters away, and during four seconds its direction changed evenly? Or
>did the bomb drop at the same speed as the towers regardless of reactive forces?
The bomb does
not move, and its focus does not change. It's fairly small in
size,
smaller than a pineapple. A Finnish light directed antitank mine is somewhat
similar in operation (but a million times weaker, and without atomic-level
effects). And the Finnish mine is larger than a pineapple. People, who can
describe it and its function, can probably be found near you.
smaller than a pineapple. A Finnish light directed antitank mine is somewhat
similar in operation (but a million times weaker, and without atomic-level
effects). And the Finnish mine is larger than a pineapple. People, who can
describe it and its function, can probably be found near you.
>3.+4. I
admit that this scifi bomb would then probably also be capable of
a minor
>fallout and EMP. (And presumably configuring Windows2000 and filling tax returns,
>as well.) Speaking of surprising elements, might the nuclear bomb also have
>contained sulfur? Or was that, too, the consequence of a nuclear reaction?
>fallout and EMP. (And presumably configuring Windows2000 and filling tax returns,
>as well.) Speaking of surprising elements, might the nuclear bomb also have
>contained sulfur? Or was that, too, the consequence of a nuclear reaction?
The neutron
radiation forms sulfuric acid in the air, which primarily causes
the
brown color of the air I mentioned. Because you probably mean the sulfur found in
the steel, this hydrogen bomb did not cause that. It has to do with demolition
charges used by the US military[/Army?], that can be called thermite-based. But
ordinary thermite would not contain sulfur.
brown color of the air I mentioned. Because you probably mean the sulfur found in
the steel, this hydrogen bomb did not cause that. It has to do with demolition
charges used by the US military[/Army?], that can be called thermite-based. But
ordinary thermite would not contain sulfur.
The miniature
hydrogen bomb was placed under the tower so that its effects that
could be detected outside would not ruin the whole operation. The fireball did
not directly touch the bedrock, which would have damaged even the neighbouring
blocks in the quake. Neutron radiation going to undesired directions to the sides
weakened underground, and did not reach the people on the streets with lethal
strength. What happened was, that is, also a controlled demolition of old
buildings, insurance fraud and framing to be the victim of an attack.
could be detected outside would not ruin the whole operation. The fireball did
not directly touch the bedrock, which would have damaged even the neighbouring
blocks in the quake. Neutron radiation going to undesired directions to the sides
weakened underground, and did not reach the people on the streets with lethal
strength. What happened was, that is, also a controlled demolition of old
buildings, insurance fraud and framing to be the victim of an attack.
>Why on
earth did a nuclear bomb have to be wasted on WTC7 if C4
>would get the job done?
>would get the job done?
So much C4
would be required, that its installation could not go undetected.
And during the destruction phase the rumbling would resemble the artillery
barrage of [a WW2 battle]. That is, the explosions would come in such a dense
manner, that single explosions could not be discerned. At the WTC there were
fairly many explosions, but according to the firemen it was possible to tell
them apart.
And during the destruction phase the rumbling would resemble the artillery
barrage of [a WW2 battle]. That is, the explosions would come in such a dense
manner, that single explosions could not be discerned. At the WTC there were
fairly many explosions, but according to the firemen it was possible to tell
them apart.
The WTC towers
had a 6-times carrying capacity compared to the mass of the
building, the steel members of the outer walls about 3x and the core columns
about 3x. A tower could not fall all the way to the ground, unless all pillars
are cut near the bedrock. If those pillars were cut eg. at half way, the tower
might collapse (with sufficient charges) up to that spot and then it would
certainly fall over. 200 meters worth of tower would remain standing, and
neighbouring buildings would probably be damaged.
building, the steel members of the outer walls about 3x and the core columns
about 3x. A tower could not fall all the way to the ground, unless all pillars
are cut near the bedrock. If those pillars were cut eg. at half way, the tower
might collapse (with sufficient charges) up to that spot and then it would
certainly fall over. 200 meters worth of tower would remain standing, and
neighbouring buildings would probably be damaged.
The steel
pillars of the core, 47 pieces, were sturdier than the turrets of
the tanks of the Second World War. What was needed therefore was 47 cuts like
this, and more cuts up the pillar maybe 10 meters apart. The implementation
would require tubes of C4 maybe 30cm in diameter, and couldn't be done with
thermite, the pieces thermite woudln't remain in place for long while burning.
the tanks of the Second World War. What was needed therefore was 47 cuts like
this, and more cuts up the pillar maybe 10 meters apart. The implementation
would require tubes of C4 maybe 30cm in diameter, and couldn't be done with
thermite, the pieces thermite woudln't remain in place for long while burning.
On the other
hand the core is in the shape of rectangle, even just a hydrogen
bomb
either doesn't vaporize all the pillars or it does that so visibly, that what
caused the destruction becomes clear (depending on the yield of the bomb).
either doesn't vaporize all the pillars or it does that so visibly, that what
caused the destruction becomes clear (depending on the yield of the bomb).
As a solution
to the problem the hydrogen bomb has been augmented with cutter
charges placed on the outermost pillars and the upper floors of the core. These are
based on thermite, that has been spiced up with sulfur, nanotech and a suitable
explosive. According to photos the cuts were made at an angle (so the part on top
really does slide off, and the pillar is cut - one could also weld with thermite).
charges placed on the outermost pillars and the upper floors of the core. These are
based on thermite, that has been spiced up with sulfur, nanotech and a suitable
explosive. According to photos the cuts were made at an angle (so the part on top
really does slide off, and the pillar is cut - one could also weld with thermite).
When ignited a
charge like this forms a strong jets that can cut even through
steel.
The cutter charges must be triggered much before the hydrogen bomb, so that all the
pillars of the core would get cut. When this is done, and the hydrogen bomb has
been detonated, the strongest pillars of the tower make sure that the "collapse"
progresses towards the center of the tower, into its own "footprint". The hydrogen
bomb shakes loose also those pillars cut by thermite, that it itself cannot reach
to vaporize.
The cutter charges must be triggered much before the hydrogen bomb, so that all the
pillars of the core would get cut. When this is done, and the hydrogen bomb has
been detonated, the strongest pillars of the tower make sure that the "collapse"
progresses towards the center of the tower, into its own "footprint". The hydrogen
bomb shakes loose also those pillars cut by thermite, that it itself cannot reach
to vaporize.
>>>Thus
we judge the WTC H-bomb theory, the most significant 9/11 theory
of Finnish
origin, to be dead.
origin, to be dead.
>>"You
should not become a judge in your own issue"
>= don't
criticize my grand theory
It would be
useful if all errors were found as quickly as possible from this
theory, that would seem to fit all the observations.
theory, that would seem to fit all the observations.
>Ooh,
numeric values. 99% probably isn't very far from the truth, but I
can't
>recall ever seeing a basis from the presented values for the particle size of
>the dust. What is the basis for the claim regarding the heat?
>recall ever seeing a basis from the presented values for the particle size of
>the dust. What is the basis for the claim regarding the heat?
When the WTC
towers (as well as WTC7) were destroyed a cloud was spred all
around
that rapidly grew into five times the volume, ie. a hot cloud. The cloud moving
near the ground was determined to also be pyroclastic, like a cloud caused by a
volcano - videos have been produced that compare them side by side.
that rapidly grew into five times the volume, ie. a hot cloud. The cloud moving
near the ground was determined to also be pyroclastic, like a cloud caused by a
volcano - videos have been produced that compare them side by side.
In the
demolitions[/explosions?] where I've been involved, as in
demolition videos
that can be watched on the Internet the explosion clouds are at most warm, and they
remain in place. The phenomenon seen at the WTC is not to be found at real
controlled demolitions (but this is hard to believe, if you've never been there,
yourself). In the movies explosions are more showy than in reality.
that can be watched on the Internet the explosion clouds are at most warm, and they
remain in place. The phenomenon seen at the WTC is not to be found at real
controlled demolitions (but this is hard to believe, if you've never been there,
yourself). In the movies explosions are more showy than in reality.
>The falling
mass of the buildings + probably explosives crushed the
>contents of the buildings.
>contents of the buildings.
Then thousands
of crushed bodies should have been found, as well as furniture
and
computers. But there were none, not even one. And if concrete plates are dropped
to asphalt from different heights (500m - 40m), do you think that they disintegrate
to molecular dust?
computers. But there were none, not even one. And if concrete plates are dropped
to asphalt from different heights (500m - 40m), do you think that they disintegrate
to molecular dust?
>>"pools
of molten steel"
>How do you
know it was steel? There aren't many eyewitness statements of
molten
>metal, and some of them might have meant metal that was only red-hot.
>metal, and some of them might have meant metal that was only red-hot.
Molten
aluminium for instance is silvery, it never turn red. I have seen
molten
steel at a steel factory on many occasions. It is so hot, that it's difficult to
make a mistake about it. Access near pools of steel was denied to the workers
who did the dismantling, they were deadly.
steel at a steel factory on many occasions. It is so hot, that it's difficult to
make a mistake about it. Access near pools of steel was denied to the workers
who did the dismantling, they were deadly.
>So do you
claim that the heat of the steel members persisted for 100 days
solely
>because of the heat originally embedded into them by the nuclear bomb, without for
>instance continuing chemical reactions caused by remaining thermite? Or had a
>(non-radiating?) mini-Chernobyl formed in the basements?
>because of the heat originally embedded into them by the nuclear bomb, without for
>instance continuing chemical reactions caused by remaining thermite? Or had a
>(non-radiating?) mini-Chernobyl formed in the basements?
Yes, and in
addition chambers were produced. Water jets turned to vapor long
before
they reached the hottest steel deep in the foundations of the towers. At first the
steel was only vaporized - this is what causes the highest metallic dust levels in
the USA of all time at the rubble - then steel was melted, and in the end they only
glowed hot there in the rubble. At the beginning there may have been steel at
7000 degrees [C], that cooled by vaporizing at their surface. Then when they don't
vaporize any more, the surface turns white, yellow, red, and so on. The steel
furthest away from the bomb (at the top) are of course much cooler.
they reached the hottest steel deep in the foundations of the towers. At first the
steel was only vaporized - this is what causes the highest metallic dust levels in
the USA of all time at the rubble - then steel was melted, and in the end they only
glowed hot there in the rubble. At the beginning there may have been steel at
7000 degrees [C], that cooled by vaporizing at their surface. Then when they don't
vaporize any more, the surface turns white, yellow, red, and so on. The steel
furthest away from the bomb (at the top) are of course much cooler.
>Survivors
were not found because of the complete destruction of the
buildings,
>which in turn may be explained by the fact that explosives severed the supporting
>structures.
>which in turn may be explained by the fact that explosives severed the supporting
>structures.
The pile caused
by the "collapse" was also fairly small; it should have
been on the
order of a third of the original height, but it was maybe 10%. I can't think of
another collapse were survivors could not be found.
order of a third of the original height, but it was maybe 10%. I can't think of
another collapse were survivors could not be found.
>Well, so
now we get for even the health effects an extreme explanation
that
>simultaneously lets the health officials off the hook regarding the lack of a
>warning about asbestos. Just great.
>simultaneously lets the health officials off the hook regarding the lack of a
>warning about asbestos. Just great.
To die of
asbestos is a long process, taking years. Five dogs that searched
in vain
for survivors expired in a few months. Some rescue workers also expired. One must
not inhale alpha particles. The cause of death is easily left undetermined (unless
precisely this sort of residue is looked for, they are not even detectable with a
Geiger counter). Asbestos is a good mask for reality.
for survivors expired in a few months. Some rescue workers also expired. One must
not inhale alpha particles. The cause of death is easily left undetermined (unless
precisely this sort of residue is looked for, they are not even detectable with a
Geiger counter). Asbestos is a good mask for reality.
You still have
not properly answered even one of my questions, so I won't post
new ones. But you should find a sufficient explanations for all, so that the
hydrogen bomb theory could be dropped. We are however along the same lines. Al
Qaida can not do this, and charges were used to destroy the towers.
new ones. But you should find a sufficient explanations for all, so that the
hydrogen bomb theory could be dropped. We are however along the same lines. Al
Qaida can not do this, and charges were used to destroy the towers.
-----------
My second
response (translated) of 2006-05-31
_____________________________________________________________________________
It has been
said that one should not shoot those on one's side. Very well.
But
how do I recognize who is "on my side"? From the fact that they claim to be
advancing the truth? I ask because it seems perfectly possible to me that the
area of expertise of this mysterious soldier is information warfare. Of course
it's much more likely that he is merely prone to fantasizing, and 9/11
truthseeking offered an opportunity to appear knowledgeable. He is however a kind
of a disinformation operative, though I don't know if he realizes it himself.
how do I recognize who is "on my side"? From the fact that they claim to be
advancing the truth? I ask because it seems perfectly possible to me that the
area of expertise of this mysterious soldier is information warfare. Of course
it's much more likely that he is merely prone to fantasizing, and 9/11
truthseeking offered an opportunity to appear knowledgeable. He is however a kind
of a disinformation operative, though I don't know if he realizes it himself.
The most
significant open question in any case is the harm caused by his
poisonous claim. So far the destructive effect of the hydrogen bomb claim, that
harms the credibility of the "bombs in the towers" group of theories, has been
very small. But the situation is changing: Rick Siegel, the maker of the video
9/11 Eyewitness, has announced that the second version of his video will
include the nuclear bomb theory, presumably much more prominently than the first
version. On this list it was already mentioned that our friend the Soldier has
agitated him on the subject.
poisonous claim. So far the destructive effect of the hydrogen bomb claim, that
harms the credibility of the "bombs in the towers" group of theories, has been
very small. But the situation is changing: Rick Siegel, the maker of the video
9/11 Eyewitness, has announced that the second version of his video will
include the nuclear bomb theory, presumably much more prominently than the first
version. On this list it was already mentioned that our friend the Soldier has
agitated him on the subject.
If extreme
theories did not have the tendency to spread, or more correctly
if they
were not consciously made to spread to actively, it would be easy to just let
the nuclear bomb theory be on one webpage, just on the off chance that it was
true after all, and just in case it would be useful to noiselessly keep it in
view. But this is not the case, so it must be resisted.
were not consciously made to spread to actively, it would be easy to just let
the nuclear bomb theory be on one webpage, just on the off chance that it was
true after all, and just in case it would be useful to noiselessly keep it in
view. But this is not the case, so it must be resisted.
So, onto the
matter at hand.
=======
"The
fusion reaction advances to the chosen direction (upwards)
extremely fast."
So where does
the four second duration come from?
"turns
directly from solid to vapor"
Just say
bravely sublimates.
"A few of
these 22-ton elements are thrown distances of even 200 meters
sinking
into other buildings outside the WTC-block (eg. the AMEX building at a height
of about the 20th floor)."
into other buildings outside the WTC-block (eg. the AMEX building at a height
of about the 20th floor)."
I mentioned
this already. No nuclear bomb.
http://911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html
(4th picture from the top, I don't necessarily agree with the whole page)
(4th picture from the top, I don't necessarily agree with the whole page)
"The
aluminium cladding plays no role here, just aluminium wouldn't
even be thrown
that far, and wouldn't penetrate a skyscraper's wall."
that far, and wouldn't penetrate a skyscraper's wall."
Pieces of the
cladding were eg. on the roofs of the Verizon and USPS buildings
next to 7, these are sometimes confused with steel elements. What do you mean
aluminium could not be thrown that far?
next to 7, these are sometimes confused with steel elements. What do you mean
aluminium could not be thrown that far?
"plasma"
Why did nothing
massive happen at the bottom floors of the buildings when the
nuclear bomb exploded? Was the plasma neatly contained on all sides inside
the buildings, only the destructive effect directed three hundred meters away did
something that was visible? How was it possible that people were rescued even
from the bottom floors of the building, weren't they vaporized by the plasma?
nuclear bomb exploded? Was the plasma neatly contained on all sides inside
the buildings, only the destructive effect directed three hundred meters away did
something that was visible? How was it possible that people were rescued even
from the bottom floors of the building, weren't they vaporized by the plasma?
"People,
who can describe [a directed mine], can probably be found near
you."
Oh I'm one of
those technical students who has completed his military service
and
who is interested in military technology who has no idea how shaped charges work.
who is interested in military technology who has no idea how shaped charges work.
"So much
C4 would be required [for WTC7], that its installation could not
go
undetected."
undetected."
A Federal
building (in practice). Tenants had no access to bottom floors.
In the
middle there was a secret command center.
middle there was a secret command center.
"A tower
could not fall all the way to the ground, unless all pillars
are cut near the bedrock."
are cut near the bedrock."
All the time
you are listing things that support controlled demolition but do
not require a nuclear bomb!
not require a nuclear bomb!
"The steel
pillars of the core, 47 pieces, were sturdier than the turrets of
the tanks of the Second World War."
the tanks of the Second World War."
What a relevant
and exact comparison.
"What was
needed therefore was 47 cuts like this"
You know of
course that the core columns were not solid objects but were
composed
of cross-supported parts, surely.
of cross-supported parts, surely.
"As a
solution to the problem the hydrogen bomb has been augmented with
cutter
charges placed on the outermost pillars and the upper floors of the core. These
are based on thermite, that has been spiced up with sulfur, nanotech and a
suitable explosive."
charges placed on the outermost pillars and the upper floors of the core. These
are based on thermite, that has been spiced up with sulfur, nanotech and a
suitable explosive."
So even a
nuclear bomb was not enough!! Those were some miraculous
buildings, as
they needed in order to be destroyed conventional explosives, two different
varieties of thermite and a nuclear bomb on top of it all! And not a single expert
on structural engineering has yet publicly stated that the official collapse theory
is after all not only highly unlikely, but totally absurd!
they needed in order to be destroyed conventional explosives, two different
varieties of thermite and a nuclear bomb on top of it all! And not a single expert
on structural engineering has yet publicly stated that the official collapse theory
is after all not only highly unlikely, but totally absurd!
"According
to photos the cuts were made at an angle"
(I hear there
is picture somewhere that shows a dismantling worker cutting the
pillars to that angle with a torch, so these images may not necessarily even
support thermite)
pillars to that angle with a torch, so these images may not necessarily even
support thermite)
"It would
be useful if all errors were found as quickly as possible from
this
theory, that would seem to fit all the observations."
theory, that would seem to fit all the observations."
I'm trying all
the time, but there are so many of them.
"When the
WTC towers (as well as wtc7) were destroyed a cloud was spred all
around
that rapidly grew to five times the volume, ie. a hot cloud."
that rapidly grew to five times the volume, ie. a hot cloud."
Expansion to a
multitude of volume does not require heat, a mechanical
explanation
might be enough. I cannot recall a single witness who described the hotness of the
cloud.
might be enough. I cannot recall a single witness who described the hotness of the
cloud.
"And if
concrete plates are dropped to asphalt from different heights
(500m - 40m),
do you think that they disintegrate to molecular dust?"
do you think that they disintegrate to molecular dust?"
100 microns
is molecular?? The concrete slabs were not dropped, they had
steel and
debris fall on them. How do you explain that even those concrete slabs that were
out of reach of your nuclear bomb were turned to dust?
debris fall on them. How do you explain that even those concrete slabs that were
out of reach of your nuclear bomb were turned to dust?
[I said less
than 100 microns, the mean size being propably less than
50 microns.
This size definition has been picked from a knowledgeable American discussion]
This size definition has been picked from a knowledgeable American discussion]
"I have
seen molten steel at a steel factory on many occasions."
Oh OK then.
Before this I must yield.
>>So do
you claim that [...] Or had a [...]
"Yes"
Cute answer. So
the persistent heat is explained by the initial heat OR by
a mini-Chernobyl?
a mini-Chernobyl?
"You still
have not properly answered even one of my questions"
Uhhh OK.
=======
The valued
expert would have an easy recourse for shoring up his
credibility:
telling his name. Because he apparently does not possess any classified information
about an existing device, de-anonymization could not have harmful effects to
national security. Otherwise I would naturally trust the assessment of his
knowledge and skills by the intermediary Hannu Yli-Karjanmaa, if it wasn't for
the fact that Mr. Yli-Karjanmaa has displayed that his judgement is clouded by
overeagerness to accept extreme theories.
telling his name. Because he apparently does not possess any classified information
about an existing device, de-anonymization could not have harmful effects to
national security. Otherwise I would naturally trust the assessment of his
knowledge and skills by the intermediary Hannu Yli-Karjanmaa, if it wasn't for
the fact that Mr. Yli-Karjanmaa has displayed that his judgement is clouded by
overeagerness to accept extreme theories.
-------------------
My translation
of the H-bomb theorist's third message on 2006-06-05
(I've smoothed
out some of his poor formatting)
_____________________________________________________________________________
HIS THIRD
MESSAGE
>The most
significant open question in any case is the harm caused by his
>poisonous claim. So far the destructive effect of the hydrogen bomb claim, that
>harms the credibility of the "bombs in the towers" group of theories, has been
>very small. But the situation is changing: Rick Siegel, the maker of the video
>9/11 Eyewitness, has announced that the second version of his video will
>include the nuclear bomb theory, presumably much more prominently than the first
>version. On this list it was already mentioned that our friend the Troop has
>agitated him on the subject.
>If extreme theories did not have the tendency to spread, or more correctly if they
>were not consciously made to spread to actively, it would be easy to just let
>the nuclear bomb theory be on one webpage, just on the off chance that it was
>true after all, and just in case it would be useful to noiselessly keep it in
>view. But this is not the case, so it must be resisted.
>poisonous claim. So far the destructive effect of the hydrogen bomb claim, that
>harms the credibility of the "bombs in the towers" group of theories, has been
>very small. But the situation is changing: Rick Siegel, the maker of the video
>9/11 Eyewitness, has announced that the second version of his video will
>include the nuclear bomb theory, presumably much more prominently than the first
>version. On this list it was already mentioned that our friend the Troop has
>agitated him on the subject.
>If extreme theories did not have the tendency to spread, or more correctly if they
>were not consciously made to spread to actively, it would be easy to just let
>the nuclear bomb theory be on one webpage, just on the off chance that it was
>true after all, and just in case it would be useful to noiselessly keep it in
>view. But this is not the case, so it must be resisted.
>So, onto
the matter at hand.
Only the truth
helps. The opposing conspiracy has many resources, and many
people
to run it. Their goal is to keep the discussion going almost for ever, always
corroding from some corner, so that a clear truth will never be found. On the other
hand the next strike by "al Qaida" may already stop these discussions when a greater
war starts, along with the silencing of opposition.
to run it. Their goal is to keep the discussion going almost for ever, always
corroding from some corner, so that a clear truth will never be found. On the other
hand the next strike by "al Qaida" may already stop these discussions when a greater
war starts, along with the silencing of opposition.
But these days
I'm already pretty skeptical regarding even the use of drone-767
planes, but explaining this reality to the public at large, which has for a hundred
times seen from their televisions a video forgery executed skillfully and in
real time, is not my mission. From real planes there should however be found parts,
correct size engines and landing gear as well as pieces of wing and tail. On the
other hand in a scenario according to my theory not many black boxes would probably
be found.
planes, but explaining this reality to the public at large, which has for a hundred
times seen from their televisions a video forgery executed skillfully and in
real time, is not my mission. From real planes there should however be found parts,
correct size engines and landing gear as well as pieces of wing and tail. On the
other hand in a scenario according to my theory not many black boxes would probably
be found.
>>"The
fusion reaction advances to the chosen direction (upwards)
extremely fast."
>So where
does the four second duration come from?
>[elements
ejected great distances]
The takers of
the picture had a decimal point error, they wanted to say 60 000
lbs
and therefore 22 tons. The object is easy to identify from the picture, it is a
fairly intact outer wall steel element. Thinking that this is aluminium indicates
that those claiming that are either completely unknowledgeable, or frauds. And
thinking, that aluminium shaped like that could be cast 175 meters and then sink
into a skyscraper shows a lack of sense of physics and aerodynamics. Smooth pieces
of aluminium in the shape of a kite less than one square meter in size might be
found on a roof.
and therefore 22 tons. The object is easy to identify from the picture, it is a
fairly intact outer wall steel element. Thinking that this is aluminium indicates
that those claiming that are either completely unknowledgeable, or frauds. And
thinking, that aluminium shaped like that could be cast 175 meters and then sink
into a skyscraper shows a lack of sense of physics and aerodynamics. Smooth pieces
of aluminium in the shape of a kite less than one square meter in size might be
found on a roof.
Would you now
explain based on any theory of your choosing, how steel is
catapulted
in that way for 175 meters? For instance that from the 80th floor in WTC2 is suitable
for a starting point (the 77th-80th floors, that is).[sic] It's difficult to get the
potential energy to throw sideways, isn't it?
in that way for 175 meters? For instance that from the 80th floor in WTC2 is suitable
for a starting point (the 77th-80th floors, that is).[sic] It's difficult to get the
potential energy to throw sideways, isn't it?
[bizarre,
unrelated pondering on "throw-charges" that I can't be
bothered to translate]
And if this ["throw-charges"] could be done, the cause to do so is completely missing?
[more irrelevant wankery]
And if this ["throw-charges"] could be done, the cause to do so is completely missing?
[more irrelevant wankery]
My explanation
[for upward trajectories] is that at that spot the focused
pressure
wave of the nuclear bomb struck the outer wall and formed momentarily a largish
overpressure inside the building at that spot. [blahblah]
wave of the nuclear bomb struck the outer wall and formed momentarily a largish
overpressure inside the building at that spot. [blahblah]
>Why did
nothing massive happen at the bottom floors of the buildings when
the
>nuclear bomb exploded? Was the plasma neatly contained on all sides inside
>the buildings, only the destructive effect directed three hundred meters away did
>something that was visible? How was it possible that people were rescued even
>from the bottom floors of the building, weren't they vaporized by the plasma?
>nuclear bomb exploded? Was the plasma neatly contained on all sides inside
>the buildings, only the destructive effect directed three hundred meters away did
>something that was visible? How was it possible that people were rescued even
>from the bottom floors of the building, weren't they vaporized by the plasma?
The steel beams
of the core each lost 20 meters from the bottom. The pressure
wave
struck downwards to the bedrock causing a 2.1 Richter quake. [pulverization ...
completely superheated steel ... 4000C surfaces ... end result resembles volcano
crater]
struck downwards to the bedrock causing a 2.1 Richter quake. [pulverization ...
completely superheated steel ... 4000C surfaces ... end result resembles volcano
crater]
>>"People,
who can describe [a directed mine], can probably be found near
you."
>Oh I'm one
of those technical students who has completed his military
service and
>who is interested in military technology who has no idea how shaped charges work.
>who is interested in military technology who has no idea how shaped charges work.
So you are
perhaps in the wrong kind of discussion. I really know this
stuff.
[...]
>[C4 IN
WTC7]
No it's about
WTC1 and WTC2. When an H-bomb is needed there, one more is not a
big
problem.
problem.
>>[47
column cuts in WTC1 and 2]
Would you now
explain in your own words the setting of the charges on floors
-7...+50 in the [core]? We'll assume you have as much C4 and superthermite as you
want. But there are well-scared employees in the tower who do not want to commit
suicide. Some of them jog up and down stairs as break exercise. People use the
elevators all the time.
-7...+50 in the [core]? We'll assume you have as much C4 and superthermite as you
want. But there are well-scared employees in the tower who do not want to commit
suicide. Some of them jog up and down stairs as break exercise. People use the
elevators all the time.
I have for
twenty years focused on a much easier problem: how can you
destroy enemy
tanks using suitable explosive charges? [no need to cut turrets ... cannons are
usually large enough to also fire hollow charge anti-tank shells] Compared to this
a cut is an incredibly difficult task.
So what charges, how many and at what intervals? Suddenly one bomb smaller than
a pineapple, that takes care of most of this, would feel handy after all?
tanks using suitable explosive charges? [no need to cut turrets ... cannons are
usually large enough to also fire hollow charge anti-tank shells] Compared to this
a cut is an incredibly difficult task.
So what charges, how many and at what intervals? Suddenly one bomb smaller than
a pineapple, that takes care of most of this, would feel handy after all?
>[need
plastic explosives AND two types of thermite AND an H-bomb]
No,
conventional explosives (fairly numerous, but small and
efficient), one kind of
thermite-based cutter charge (also small and efficient) and then a small nuclear bomb.
thermite-based cutter charge (also small and efficient) and then a small nuclear bomb.
[need all three
kinds of bombs]
If the outer
walls had been cut with thermate, very visible streams of
sparks
would be spraying out from the walls of WTC1 and WTC2. And against the much
stronger core columns, thermate is the better choise. And because the mini-H-bomb
will be used covertly, and since the fireball is not rectangular in form, some of
the outermost core columns need to be taken down with thermate. Just like the
evidence is showing (pictures from ground zero). Thermate is also needed in
upper parts of the core.
would be spraying out from the walls of WTC1 and WTC2. And against the much
stronger core columns, thermate is the better choise. And because the mini-H-bomb
will be used covertly, and since the fireball is not rectangular in form, some of
the outermost core columns need to be taken down with thermate. Just like the
evidence is showing (pictures from ground zero). Thermate is also needed in
upper parts of the core.
>>[dust
cloud]
>Expansion
to a multitude of volume does not require heat, a mechanical
explanation
>might be enough. I cannot recall a single witness who described the hotness of the
>cloud.
>might be enough. I cannot recall a single witness who described the hotness of the
>cloud.
The cloud isn't
that hot after it's expanded enough. [...]Either there was a lot
of
explosives or the explosives were very hot. The surfaces of cool air against the hot
explosion fumes were too thin so the clouds were able to advance much further.
explosives or the explosives were very hot. The surfaces of cool air against the hot
explosion fumes were too thin so the clouds were able to advance much further.
>100 microns
is molecular?? [I said less than 100 microns] The concrete
slabs
>were not dropped, they had steel and debris fall on them. How do you explain
>that even those concrete slabs that were out of reach of your nuclear bomb
>were turned to dust?
>were not dropped, they had steel and debris fall on them. How do you explain
>that even those concrete slabs that were out of reach of your nuclear bomb
>were turned to dust?
Heat radiation
emitted from the fireball diffracts easily in the smoke and dust
and
when hitting steel. Because the internal parts of the tower have already been heated
with neutron radiation among other things, this heat radiation doesn't cool fast. It
reaches at least everything inside the tower.
when hitting steel. Because the internal parts of the tower have already been heated
with neutron radiation among other things, this heat radiation doesn't cool fast. It
reaches at least everything inside the tower.
>>"I
have seen molten steel at a steel factory on many
occasions."
>Oh OK then.
Before this I must yield.
Good that at
least something was settled. 600 C and 1500 C will feel very
different
in the workplace.
in the workplace.
>[What
explains the persistent heat]
The initial
heat that is. I estimate some 4000 C still [absorbed] where the
blast
wave hits the outer wall steel elements, ripping them off. The steel vapor left
behind by the first steel elements of the walls being ripped off proves this.
wave hits the outer wall steel elements, ripping them off. The steel vapor left
behind by the first steel elements of the walls being ripped off proves this.
>The valued
expert would have an easy recourse for shoring up his
credibility:
>telling his name. Because he apparently does not possess any classified
>information about an existing device,
>telling his name. Because he apparently does not possess any classified
>information about an existing device,
There is also
confidential information. And even just understanding of the
subjects
in [sic] discussion requires a lot of dedication to the matter, and also other than
theoretical knowledge. Very many of my colleagues from around the world don't seem
to be joining this discussion. Even using a pseudonym, even to debunk my claims. In
the army we also follow a need to know principle. So let's just stick to the subject.
in [sic] discussion requires a lot of dedication to the matter, and also other than
theoretical knowledge. Very many of my colleagues from around the world don't seem
to be joining this discussion. Even using a pseudonym, even to debunk my claims. In
the army we also follow a need to know principle. So let's just stick to the subject.
>[my
debunking will soon be finished and ready for publication]
Your own theory
would have to somehow explain all the observations my theory
neatly
solves. There are more than 20 of them, but you still have no satisfactory explanation
for the first four I mentioned. I suppose it's not worth of effort to continue to shoot
a little bird with a shotgun.
solves. There are more than 20 of them, but you still have no satisfactory explanation
for the first four I mentioned. I suppose it's not worth of effort to continue to shoot
a little bird with a shotgun.
[...] the
"witness" in question doesn't even seem to recognize
that there are
problems with these points. [...]
problems with these points. [...]
>>[pulverization]
Isn't it difficult to pulverize all those concrete slabs (110+7
floors)
>>even with explosives. In your theory, how did they do this?
>>even with explosives. In your theory, how did they do this?
>>[pools
of molten steel at the bottom of the elevator shafts of WTC1,
WTC2 and WTC7?]
>>[100
days needed to cool off the steels?]
>>[no
survivors] Why there was no survivors in the ruins? Are survivors
never found
>>in collapses? Why there was no bodies, no recognizable parts of bodies, no furniture
>>and no computers either? Tell a comparable case from somewhere else?
>>in collapses? Why there was no bodies, no recognizable parts of bodies, no furniture
>>and no computers either? Tell a comparable case from somewhere else?
---------------------------------------
My third
response (translated) of 2006-06-07
_____________________________________________________________________________
>Only the
truth helps.
That is
precisely the reason why I oppose you and your poisonous theory.
>The
opposing conspiracy has many resources, and many people to run
it.
>Their goal is to keep the discussion going almost for ever, always
>corroding from some corner, so that a clear truth will never be found.
>Their goal is to keep the discussion going almost for ever, always
>corroding from some corner, so that a clear truth will never be found.
So be quiet! It
is you who wants to keep a pointless discussion going.
>But these
days I'm already pretty skeptical regarding even the use of
>drone-767 planes
>drone-767 planes
I guess I
shouldn't be surprised that a fantasist imagining nuclear bombs
also imagines bluescreens. Up to now only I have opposed Mr. Expert's claims.
Do they still have silent support? [Where did I mention bluescreens? Now
you of course know all the information warfare technologies possible here?]
also imagines bluescreens. Up to now only I have opposed Mr. Expert's claims.
Do they still have silent support? [Where did I mention bluescreens? Now
you of course know all the information warfare technologies possible here?]
>From real
planes there should however be found parts, correct size engines
>and landing gear as well as pieces of wing and tail.
>and landing gear as well as pieces of wing and tail.
Plane parts
were found, as you well know.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/index.html#gz
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/index.html#gz
>>So
where does the four second duration come from? [It still
is the
estimated duration of this small thermonuclear detonation. You needed
some timing, and you got it. Now correct me if you know better. I even
explained what phases this detonation includes, but perhaps it's better
for you to just keep asking what numbers mean, avoiding issues]
estimated duration of this small thermonuclear detonation. You needed
some timing, and you got it. Now correct me if you know better. I even
explained what phases this detonation includes, but perhaps it's better
for you to just keep asking what numbers mean, avoiding issues]
SO it's useless
to expect an answer for this. Gotcha.
>>>[elements
ejected great distances]
>The takers
of the picture had a decimal point error, they wanted to say
>60 000 lbs and therefore 22 tons.
>60 000 lbs and therefore 22 tons.
As is said on
the page I referred to. Why do you repeat it as though it was
new information?
new information?
>The object
is easy to identify from the picture, it is a fairly
>intact outer wall steel element.
>intact outer wall steel element.
Do you know
what difference there is between the wall of World Financial
Center 3 and the roofs on the buildings next to World Trade Center 7?
See the picture.
Center 3 and the roofs on the buildings next to World Trade Center 7?
See the picture.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7pile3.html
>Smooth
pieces of aluminium in the shape of a kite less than one square
>meter in size might be found on a roof.
>meter in size might be found on a roof.
A fairly good
description of the pieces found on the roofs ob the buildings
next to WTC7. And now if you could just comprehend what I tried to say: the
pieces that were on the rooftops are sometimes confused with heavy steel
members. Only a few steel elements were thrown far away.
next to WTC7. And now if you could just comprehend what I tried to say: the
pieces that were on the rooftops are sometimes confused with heavy steel
members. Only a few steel elements were thrown far away.
>Would you
now explain based on any theory of your choosing, how steel is
>catapulted in that way for 175 meters?
>catapulted in that way for 175 meters?
I already did.
If you can't find it in my previous message, I repeat:
During the destruction sequences of the towers there must have been tensions
that were capable of casting elements sideways.
During the destruction sequences of the towers there must have been tensions
that were capable of casting elements sideways.
>For
instance that from the 80th floor in WTC2 is suitable for a
starting
>point (the 77th-80th floors, that is).
>point (the 77th-80th floors, that is).
I wonder what
this means. [He does not know the positioning of outer wall
steel elements between several floors]
steel elements between several floors]
>["throw-charges"]
Irrelevant.
>My
explanation [for upward trajectories] is that at that spot the
focused
>pressure wave of the thermonuclear bomb struck the outer wall and formed
>momentarily a largish overpressure inside the building at that spot.
>pressure wave of the thermonuclear bomb struck the outer wall and formed
>momentarily a largish overpressure inside the building at that spot.
And the
"largish" overpressure threw steel 175 meters.
Rightright.
>>Why did
nothing massive happen at the bottom floors of the buildings when
the
>>nuclear bomb exploded? Was the plasma neatly contained on all sides inside
>>the buildings, only the destructive effect directed three hundred meters away did
>>something that was visible? How was it possible that people were rescued even
>>from the bottom floors of the building, weren't they vaporized by the plasma?
>>nuclear bomb exploded? Was the plasma neatly contained on all sides inside
>>the buildings, only the destructive effect directed three hundred meters away did
>>something that was visible? How was it possible that people were rescued even
>>from the bottom floors of the building, weren't they vaporized by the plasma?
[If you are
preparing a false flag operation and an insurance fraud with
mini-H-bombs, the whole point is that the truth will not become obvious.
The H-bombs are set with this in mind: suitable yield, size of the fireball
and arch of destruction. Those firemen rescued chose a good place or they
were very lucky].
mini-H-bombs, the whole point is that the truth will not become obvious.
The H-bombs are set with this in mind: suitable yield, size of the fireball
and arch of destruction. Those firemen rescued chose a good place or they
were very lucky].
You did not
answer a single one of these questions, each of which alone
destroys your theory.
destroys your theory.
>The steel
beams of the core each lost 20 meters from the bottom.
No use hoping
for a trustworthy source for this.
>The
pressure wave struck downwards to the bedrock causing a 2.1
Richter quake.
Ah, good that
you mentioned YET ANOTHER item that alone is enough to refute
your delusion. Seismic data indicates that no massive explosion took place at
the start of the destruction sequence.
your delusion. Seismic data indicates that no massive explosion took place at
the start of the destruction sequence.
[Or so the
official theory tells us. Other interpretations exist.]
>>Oh I'm
one of those technical students who has completed his military
service
>>and who is interested in military technology who has no idea how shaped
>>charges work..
>>and who is interested in military technology who has no idea how shaped
>>charges work..
>So you are
perhaps in the wrong kind of discussion.
You cannot even
grasp sarcasm. (Surprising of predictable?)
>I really
know this stuff.
Ahahhahahahahahahahaha
>No it's
about WTC1 and WTC2. When two H-bombs already are needed there,
>one more for WTC7 is not a big problem.
>one more for WTC7 is not a big problem.
Just go
shopping! [It is a little more complex, but feel free to think
so]
>Would you
now explain in your own words the setting of the charges on
floors
>-7...+50 in the [core]?
>-7...+50 in the [core]?
To the isolated
core via basement floors. Riding even on the roofs of
elevators destructive devices are attached to the core structures on a couple
of nights. During this (1) Pakistani subcontractors and/or (2) the bypassing
of electronic security afforded by the Securacom connection may have been
used.
elevators destructive devices are attached to the core structures on a couple
of nights. During this (1) Pakistani subcontractors and/or (2) the bypassing
of electronic security afforded by the Securacom connection may have been
used.
[The question
was: so what charges, how many and at what intervals? Without
thinking matters like these the alternate theory builder cannot understand
how impossible it is what he is suggesting. Yes that part is correct it is
best to use non-native subcontractors and people who cannot speak English]
thinking matters like these the alternate theory builder cannot understand
how impossible it is what he is suggesting. Yes that part is correct it is
best to use non-native subcontractors and people who cannot speak English]
>But there
are well-scared employees in the tower who do not want to commit
>suicide. [So they yell if they see any type of bombs]
>suicide. [So they yell if they see any type of bombs]
Mindless
sentence.
>Some of
them jog up and down stairs as break exercise.
Stairwells have
nothing to do with the rest of the core. [Core service access?]
>People use
the elevators all the time.
So the
elevators had in your opinion windows that show the inside of the
core.
[No, possible core service access?]
[No, possible core service access?]
>I have for
twenty years focused on a much easier problem: how can you
destroy
>enemy tanks using suitable explosive charges? [no need to slice the turret in
>half, just to penetrate it with a very small hole...]
>enemy tanks using suitable explosive charges? [no need to slice the turret in
>half, just to penetrate it with a very small hole...]
You may not
have noticed, but the WTC towers were stationary buildings that
did not shoot towards those attaching charges.
did not shoot towards those attaching charges.
>Compared to
this a full cut is an incredibly difficult task.
So you think
that all controlled demolitions of steel framed buildings are
done with nuclear explosives.
done with nuclear explosives.
You have
earlier claimed that in order to destroy the central pillars C4
plastic explosives of 30cm thickness would have been needed. The columns of
the core were hollow boxes constructed of structural steel (not comparable to
armored vehicles) of wall thickness between 5 inches ... 1/4 inches.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
We'll take as an example the widely used value of 4 inches: 10cm.
plastic explosives of 30cm thickness would have been needed. The columns of
the core were hollow boxes constructed of structural steel (not comparable to
armored vehicles) of wall thickness between 5 inches ... 1/4 inches.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
We'll take as an example the widely used value of 4 inches: 10cm.
[And you might
not know, that the steels of Twin Towers were harder than
the usual construction steels used in older high-rise buildings. They also
were some 10% more expensive. You can expect some 50 to 60 mm side armour
is common in older, mass-produced tanks. I think 105 mm of this steel is
comparable to that. See the book "Twin Towers", printed 1999].
the usual construction steels used in older high-rise buildings. They also
were some 10% more expensive. You can expect some 50 to 60 mm side armour
is common in older, mass-produced tanks. I think 105 mm of this steel is
comparable to that. See the book "Twin Towers", printed 1999].
In other words
you claim that THREE TIMES the thickness is needed of plastic
explosive to cut structural steel!
explosive to cut structural steel!
[I actually
expected you to define that. Just claim how much and in what
shape
you will use. I'm not the one who is cutting the central core columns with
C-4 only. YOU are that guy. YOU know better. You are somehow replacing my
theory ...with what? Kid babbling?]
you will use. I'm not the one who is cutting the central core columns with
C-4 only. YOU are that guy. YOU know better. You are somehow replacing my
theory ...with what? Kid babbling?]
There are only
three options.
1) You lie when
you claim that you are an expert of explosives and/or steel,
2) you are
utterly unknowledgeable of the construction of the WTC or
3) both of the
preceding options.
>So what
charges, how many and at what intervals?
A classic
disinformation tactic: demanding that the prevailing
explanation's
(gravitational collapse) criticism (controlled demoliton) must also offer a
complete explanation for everything.
(gravitational collapse) criticism (controlled demoliton) must also offer a
complete explanation for everything.
[A classic
disinformation tactic: trying to refute a theory, which fits
better into the observed facts than the prevailing explanation, but due
totally lacking the knowledge on the subject neither showing weak points
in the H-bomb theory nor offering any detailed alternate theory]
better into the observed facts than the prevailing explanation, but due
totally lacking the knowledge on the subject neither showing weak points
in the H-bomb theory nor offering any detailed alternate theory]
>Suddenly
one bomb smaller than a pineapple, that takes
>care of most of this, would feel handy after all?
>care of most of this, would feel handy after all?
A Klingon Bird
of Prey using a cloaking device that shoots the towers to
shit with disruptors would also have been might handy.
shit with disruptors would also have been might handy.
>No,
conventional explosives (fairly numerous, but small and
efficient)
Ah ha! Don't
you ask yourself "So what charges, how many and at what
intervals?"
intervals?"
>[need all
three kinds of bombs]
And how might
these YOUR explosives have been installed?
And how might these YOUR explosives have been capable of the "incredibly
difficult task"? Just say it your own words!
And how might these YOUR explosives have been capable of the "incredibly
difficult task"? Just say it your own words!
>[cloud]
there was a lot of explosives or they were very hot
I bet you think
thermite is of room temperature.
[Thermite is
not good in melting vertical columns. It surely will fall
off before any melting takes place]
off before any melting takes place]
>>100
microns is molecular??
A slight error
you did not admit to. Again. [The error is yours, I said
"less than" but I understand kids prefer whole numbers.]
"less than" but I understand kids prefer whole numbers.]
>Because the
internal parts of the tower have already been heated with
>neutron radiation among other things, this heat radiation doesn't cool
>fast. It reaches at least everything inside the tower.
>neutron radiation among other things, this heat radiation doesn't cool
>fast. It reaches at least everything inside the tower.
Do you know
what ad hoc argumentation means? [Do you know what
just basic argumentation means, to start with? You fail to show
your arguments with any details, just wasting bandwith]
just basic argumentation means, to start with? You fail to show
your arguments with any details, just wasting bandwith]
>>>"I
have seen molten steel at a steel factory on many
occasions."
>>Oh OK then. Before this I must yield.
>Good that at least something was settled.
>>Oh OK then. Before this I must yield.
>Good that at least something was settled.
The quality of
your mind is interesting indeed.
>[...] the
steel vapor trail left behind by the first steel elements of
>the walls being ripped off
>the walls being ripped off
It is without a
doubt totally pointless to ask you to tell what possesses you
to think that it was "steel vapor". [Yes, everybody with eyes and some basic
understanding can see this in hundreds of pictures. I'm no longer surprised
that you cannot.]
to think that it was "steel vapor". [Yes, everybody with eyes and some basic
understanding can see this in hundreds of pictures. I'm no longer surprised
that you cannot.]
>>The
valued expert would have an easy recourse for shoring up his
credibility:
>>telling his name. Because he apparently does not possess any classified
>>information about an existing device,...
>There is also confidential information.
>>telling his name. Because he apparently does not possess any classified
>>information about an existing device,...
>There is also confidential information.
What does that
have to do with your name? What confidential information would
come to light? I strongly suspect that that is only an excuse, although you
may of course just be delusional enough to really believe that.
come to light? I strongly suspect that that is only an excuse, although you
may of course just be delusional enough to really believe that.
[So this kid
thinks I should tell at this point some secret or at least
confidential information. Obviously I'm naughty because I'm not going to...
Those people knowing at least something on these subjects should get the
idea what I'm explaining about. This kid was said to study physics...]
confidential information. Obviously I'm naughty because I'm not going to...
Those people knowing at least something on these subjects should get the
idea what I'm explaining about. This kid was said to study physics...]
>And even
just understanding of the subjects in [sic] discussion requires a
>lot of dedication to the matter, and also other than theoretical knowledge.
>lot of dedication to the matter, and also other than theoretical knowledge.
And that is
what you lack. [And this judgement comes from your deep
knowledge of these subjects]
knowledge of these subjects]
>Very many
of my colleagues from around the world don't seem to
>be joining this discussion.
>be joining this discussion.
Perhaps they
can see no connection between destroying main battle tanks and
nuclear bombs in steel towers. Perhaps they think that your claims are
completely nutty. Perhaps they have not ended up on 11syyskuu.org.
nuclear bombs in steel towers. Perhaps they think that your claims are
completely nutty. Perhaps they have not ended up on 11syyskuu.org.
On the other
hand, very many of your colleagues, namely spreaders of extreme
theories, quite probably will soon take part in this "discussion". (I don't
really know if brutalizing as one-sided as this can be called a discussion --
you are not at all capable of defending your claim.)
theories, quite probably will soon take part in this "discussion". (I don't
really know if brutalizing as one-sided as this can be called a discussion --
you are not at all capable of defending your claim.)
[Of course.
Your deep knowledge allows this judgement. Without any arguments
of your own. You don't understand argumentation any better than the physics.
I leave this matter to other persons for judgement. Perhaps someone comments,
some day.]
of your own. You don't understand argumentation any better than the physics.
I leave this matter to other persons for judgement. Perhaps someone comments,
some day.]
You did not
imagine that this dicussion that has been kept on a single
mailing list of 38 members would be global somehow?
mailing list of 38 members would be global somehow?
>Your own
theory would have to somehow explain all the observations my
theory
> neatly solves. There are more than 20 of them, but you still have no
> satisfactory explanation for the first four I mentioned. I suppose it's not
> worth of effort to continue [...].
> neatly solves. There are more than 20 of them, but you still have no
> satisfactory explanation for the first four I mentioned. I suppose it's not
> worth of effort to continue [...].
False.
I only have to
show that the official theory cannot hold true.
[Sorry but as I
said you don't understand argumentation either. We both
know
the official theory is false. But I also did publish an alternate theory,
which fits into all the facts observed. Now if you try to refute my theory,
you should find weak points from my theory, or issue a superior theory, which
also fits into all known facts. Is this really so difficult to understand?]
the official theory is false. But I also did publish an alternate theory,
which fits into all the facts observed. Now if you try to refute my theory,
you should find weak points from my theory, or issue a superior theory, which
also fits into all known facts. Is this really so difficult to understand?]
In addition to
this I may offer a theory that explains the biggest
discrepancies, but this is not required. Any holes, such as the fact that
1000 of the deceased could not be identified and a very large portion of the
concrete was pulverized, will be explained after a real investigation
commences.
discrepancies, but this is not required. Any holes, such as the fact that
1000 of the deceased could not be identified and a very large portion of the
concrete was pulverized, will be explained after a real investigation
commences.
>the
"witness" in question
(I'm a
'witness'???)
>[You still
have problem with three of these points]
I have already
presented adequate answers to all of them. [And of course
you decide, what is adequate. None of your "explanations" will hold any
water, but they are too short to be commented. You could look how I did
explain the H-bomb detonation, but instead of explaining your competitive
theory you just keep basically asking me "tell more" and "more". You don't
understand the subject at hand enough to discuss on it.]
you decide, what is adequate. None of your "explanations" will hold any
water, but they are too short to be commented. You could look how I did
explain the H-bomb detonation, but instead of explaining your competitive
theory you just keep basically asking me "tell more" and "more". You don't
understand the subject at hand enough to discuss on it.]
>[pulverization]
Explosives and
building debris. [You don't get this right before you think
how to place the charges –even if you really hate the concrete. Falling
rubble will neither smash all the concrete nor pulverize it so totally]
how to place the charges –even if you really hate the concrete. Falling
rubble will neither smash all the concrete nor pulverize it so totally]
>[pools of
molten steel]
Molten IRON,
from the thermite. [This actually is possible]
>[100 days
to cool steel]
Ongoing
thermite reaction. [Thermite eats it's way downwards and burns
all the time. After perhaps a day the burning is finished and even the
last steels would start to cool down. You cannot get the massive heathing
required in this way.]
all the time. After perhaps a day the burning is finished and even the
last steels would start to cool down. You cannot get the massive heathing
required in this way.]
>[no
survivors]
Complete
devastation, because the structures were cut. [Sorry. There will
always be plenty of survivors. That's why they have rescue dogs ready in
all countries].
always be plenty of survivors. That's why they have rescue dogs ready in
all countries].
Dear
"expert". Your theory has been annihilated.
If truth,
justice and freedom interest you, you will not
in the future disseminate your discredited theory. Acknowledge.
["You
should not become a judge in your own issue". I leave this
matter in the future disseminate your discredited theory. Acknowledge.
to other persons for judgement. Perhaps someone comments, some day]
-------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment