Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: There is NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES being used on 9/11/2001 ....

  1. #1
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,048
    Thanks
    1,274
    Thanked 1,212 Times in 633 Posts

    There is NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES being used on 9/11/2001 ....

    ... that is Zionist propaganda designed for the purposes of building up controlled opposition with a plausible theory. And the purposes of controlled opposition is to discredit genuine opposition. Plausibility is all that the "nukes" theory offers, and it offers plausibility because the vast majority of citizens have no clue as to how nukes work. For those that do possess some basic idea about nuclear technology, and who are also genuine truthseekers, plausibility has no value. Possibility, probability, and impossibility ... are the only results that carry meaning for informed truthseekers.

    Without further ado, is a nuclear explanation for the collapse of the twin towers possible? Sure, anything is possible.

    Is a nuclear explanation probable? No. Not if there is evidence of stepwise floor-by-floor collapse of the towers; with sequential explosive squibs being observed in the immediate floors below the collapse wavefront; molten iron pouring down the sides; and iron spherules discovered everywhere in the dust. That points to an aluminothermic chemical reaction, not a nuclear one. Molten iron in the rubble for weeks afterwards, is indicative of an ongoing aluminothermic reaction, nuclear reactions are not ongoing (AFAIK). In addition, there are none of the other telltale signs of a nuclear reaction, such as a bright flash of light ... good folks, the twin towers were mostly a glass facade. If a nuclear event occurred within the structures, Manhattan would have been lit up for a half-second or so. None of that happened. As for the claims of strontium, thorium, barium, and other nuclear byproducts alleged to be found in the dust, that claim came after Steven Jones demonstrated his experimental findings of iron spherules in the dust. IOW, the system manufactured the radiation fallout byproducts story to discredit Steven Jones' research.

    Is a nuclear explanation impossible? That is a little harder to answer ... so we redirect it back to the probability question and can conclude that there is very low - almost negligible - probability of a nuclear reaction being involved; equally, a very high - almost certain - probability that an aluminothermic reaction (e.g. nanothermite) was the method of controlled demolition (with other military-grade explosives being used as well to pulverize the stone and bend the steel).

    I will followup shortly with more evidence debunking the groundless "Nukes did it!" claim.


    Pax
    Last edited by Zook_e_Pi; 06-04-2017 at 09:48 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Adam Bomm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    2,150
    Thanked 1,093 Times in 803 Posts

    Re: There is NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES being used on 9/11/2001 ....

    Whoever proposed nukes had to be kidding, unless they were talking 'packets'. Actually the definition of nuclear reaction is ongoing fission reaction. Thus the field of game theory applying the monte carlo analysis (i.e. chain reaction) but that occurs at the micro scale not macro. That would fall in the arena of secret military technology in that it would represent 'unknown' technology years ahead of the current accepted level of knowledge. Applying Occam's Razor it really doesn't make sense.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Adam Bomm For This Useful Post:

    Zook_e_Pi (06-05-2017)

  4. #3
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,048
    Thanks
    1,274
    Thanked 1,212 Times in 633 Posts

    Re: There is NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES being used on 9/11/2001 ....

    Here's David Long's eyewitness account of what happened on 9/11/2001 as he made his way to work at Merrill Lynch:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQbEuBgAKso

    Here's Christopher Bollyn identifying the culprits of 9/11/2001, and clearly pointing away from nukes as the method of demolition (from 14:00 minutes onwards):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_Ezjm7xDg

    And here is my own debunking of Khalezov's claims posted at United People:
    http://hm.dinofly.com/UP/forum/viewt...fa1b516#p17020

    To wit, the "9/11 Nukes" theory is a flautist score to charm the children of Hamelin and lead them away from reality. A designed popcorn trail to confuse the masses ... and pollute the establishing evidence of top-down controlled demolition using thermate/thermite cutting torches and nanothermite explosives.

    Bollyn explains simply and eloquently that the firemen, the first responders, and the other groundworkers at the site developed cancer(s) due to the inhalation of nanoparticles in the dust which can penetrate any and all types of existing protective mask technologies. This effectively ridicules the notion being advanced by the controlled opposition of deep state shills, namely, that toxic nuclear fission byproducts in the debris is responsible for the cancer(s).

    Bollyn's entire one-hour presentation is a masterpiece and contains much other information pointing to the culprits that designed and carried out 9/11/2001. Anyone and everyone who considers themself a truthseeker should watch it, IMO.


    Pax
    Last edited by Zook_e_Pi; 06-05-2017 at 07:49 AM.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Zook_e_Pi For This Useful Post:

    Adam Bomm (06-10-2017)

  6. #4
    Senior Member Adam Bomm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    2,150
    Thanked 1,093 Times in 803 Posts

    Re: There is NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES being used on 9/11/2001 ....

    One question:

    10 tons of thermite to melt the towers?

    Adamm

  7. #5
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,048
    Thanks
    1,274
    Thanked 1,212 Times in 633 Posts

    Re: There is NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES being used on 9/11/2001 ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Bomm View Post
    One question:

    10 tons of thermite to melt the towers?

    Adamm

    Thermite/thermate as cutting charges in an aluminothermic reaction that has molten iron as a byproduct.

    Nanothermite as a military-grade explosive to pulverize the concrete to fine dust. Bollyn shows a graph that compares the potency of nanothermite to other high-yield explosives. Nanothermite is much more potent.

    You obviously are a gatekeeper, Adam. For no serious person looking at the evidence I presented would make silly comments like "melt the towers", especially when there is a combination of steel and concrete involved.

    That's okay, you keep on with your transparent gatekeeping ... and I'll continue to give you no quarter. No skin off my nose if you want to play the jester in the Zionist king's court.


    Pax

  8. #6
    Senior Member Adam Bomm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    2,150
    Thanked 1,093 Times in 803 Posts

    Re: There is NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES being used on 9/11/2001 ....

    Quit being a mindless ass Zook, I just asked the question...there are many reasonable answers that you could propose, none of which I see in the above post.

    For whatever it's worth: the proportion of concrete to steel is significant, I can't remember which is which. One of the things I considered actually, is that the scientifically proposed poundage required to melt the steel girders is a bit of a fudge. Simply because the amount proposed suggests a 'static' level of pressure and heat, none of which existed under the conditions that took place in the towers. Much of the necessary heat was pre-existing due to impact pressure, jet fuel as an accelerant, other materials burning, all those might significantly lower the amount of thermite needed to achieve the end result.

    By the way, since I can't resist telling about my aha moments...here's my latest, a new word to add to the lexicon. Globophobia. YEAH!!

  9. #7
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,048
    Thanks
    1,274
    Thanked 1,212 Times in 633 Posts

    Re: There is NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES being used on 9/11/2001 ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Bomm View Post
    Quit being a mindless ass Zook, I just asked the question...there are many reasonable answers that you could propose, none of which I see in the above post.

    For whatever it's worth: the proportion of concrete to steel is significant, I can't remember which is which. One of the things I considered actually, is that the scientifically proposed poundage required to melt the steel girders is a bit of a fudge. Simply because the amount proposed suggests a 'static' level of pressure and heat, none of which existed under the conditions that took place in the towers. Much of the necessary heat was pre-existing due to impact pressure, jet fuel as an accelerant, other materials burning, all those might significantly lower the amount of thermite needed to achieve the end result.

    By the way, since I can't resist telling about my aha moments...here's my latest, a new word to add to the lexicon. Globophobia. YEAH!!

    You remarked "10 tons of thermite to melt the towers". i couldn't find reference to that number anywhere in Bollyn's video. Which then begs the question, why would anyone purportedly studying the evidence pull a number out of their ass (e.g. 10 tons)? Bollyn clearly, from the 12:00 minute to the 16:00 minute mark, explains the evidence for thermite cutting charges (commonly used in the standard controlled demolition industry) and nanothermite high explosives (largely restricted usage). There is no ambiguity in his explanation nor any mention of "10 tons of thermite".

    One of the observable features of truthseeking forums is the presence of disinformation agents, trolls, noisemakers, gatekeepers, etc. I suppose we should be grateful for your presence here, Adam ... for that only confirms that Universal Spectrum is, indeed, a truthseeking forum (e.g. as opposed to the tupperware clubs we see elsewhere, e.g ToTsbox, Avalon, etc.). Here I would be remiss if I didn't mention Chico's forum, United People, which is neither a tupperware club nor a truthseeking forum but a space created to attack the truths ... a truth-attacking forum, if you will.


    Pax

  10. #8
    Administrator Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    948
    Thanks
    929
    Thanked 1,166 Times in 667 Posts

    Re: There is NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES being used on 9/11/2001 ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Zook_e_Pi View Post
    10 tons of thermite to melt the towers
    Just a figure he pulled from the ether's I suspect...
    Ross
    ***Fred Coleman, Founding Partner, Beloved Friend***
    who passed away 11/10/2016
    Rest in Peace
    ***

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Ross For This Useful Post:

    Zook_e_Pi (06-11-2017)

  12. #9
    Administrator Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    948
    Thanks
    929
    Thanked 1,166 Times in 667 Posts

    Re: There is NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES being used on 9/11/2001 ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Bomm View Post
    Much of the necessary heat was pre-existing due to impact pressure, jet fuel as an accelerant, other materials burning, all those might significantly lower the amount of thermite needed to achieve the end result.
    If that was the case then they sure did some pretty accurate sums in calculating the amount of thermite needed...
    Ross
    ***Fred Coleman, Founding Partner, Beloved Friend***
    who passed away 11/10/2016
    Rest in Peace
    ***

  13. #10
    Senior Member Adam Bomm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    2,150
    Thanked 1,093 Times in 803 Posts

    Re: There is NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES being used on 9/11/2001 ....

    The story...

    D.P.Grimmer wonders if thermite could have been used to melt box columns in the WTC, and after some calculations tells us...

    ...such a melting of a section of all the inner core box pillars is possible, using relatively simple technology. Such compounds could have been applied to the interior or the exterior of even the largest of these columns in a surreptitious manner, to accomplish the task of melting and collapse. The amount necessary for complete melting of a segment of even the largest box column was calculated, and found possible. Of course complete melting was not necessary to cause total failure: a lesser amount of a thermite-like compound could have been used to raise the temperature of the steel to a point where the columns would fail before melting, although some melting must have occurred to account for the steel pools.
    http://www.physics911.ca/Grimmer:_Po...hermite_in_WTC

    Our take...

    Grimmer's article is commonly used to show that thermite could conceivably have been used to bring down the WTC. He comments on several reasons to suggest this hypothesis, including collapse time:

    The observed near free-fall times of the WTC towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition. (The articles at http://members.fortunecity.com/911 are a valuable resource for presenting and then challenging the "official" explanation for WTC collapses). Measured times are all around 10 seconds, which is close to calculated free-fall time, indicating the tower floors fell without much impediment.
    http://www.physics911.ca/Grimmer:_Po...hermite_in_WTC

    Grimmer calculates what the collapse time should be if we allowed for the energy that will be lost in the creation of the dust clouds:

    Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.
    http://www.physics911.ca/Grimmer:_Po...hermite_in_WTC

    Unfortunately for Grimmer's theory, "almost 12 seconds" is actually a short collapse time estimate, not a long one. There are seismic, video and audio clues that suggest the towers actually took something closer to 15 seconds to fall, perhaps even longer.

    This undermines the very basis of Grimmer's paper, however we should still consider it. This is the only serious attempt to estimate the amount of thermite that might be required to bring down the WTC, and that means it still has some value.

    And what is that amount? It varies depending on the column size, however we're told..

    Thus to melt a 12 ft high Fe column, we need

    for an "average" column, (3.03 x 10+6 kJ)/(3.974 x 10+3 kJ/kg) = 0.7625 x 10+3 kg = 762.5 kg of thermite...

    for a "largest" column, (6.06 x10+6 kJ)/(3.974 x 10+3 kJ/kg) = 1524.9 kg thermite.
    http://www.physics911.ca/Grimmer:_Po...hermite_in_WTC

    762.5 kg/ 1,681 pounds? And only for one of the lesser columns? And how many columns would we have to melt? Four largest, 6 average size columns, for instance, gives us almost 9,150 kg/ around 20,000 pounds of thermite.

    Still, Grimmer comes to the rescue by proposing how the thermite could have been placed. It might have been placed inside a box column, for instance. Getting it there may be problematic, so he also has another idea.

    if a coating slightly less than 2" thick of a thermite coating were applied to the outer surface of any box column, that is sufficient chemical compound to melt that column section. A protective, insulating and cosmetic/disguising layer (e.g. fiberglass/foam) 1" or less would also be helpful.
    http://www.physics911.ca/Grimmer:_Po...hermite_in_WTC

    Plausible? Maybe not, because there are some important issues that Grimmer fails to address. (If you're up to the physics then please, read http://www.physics911.ca/Grimmer:_Po...hermite_in_WTC in full before continuing).

    #1, Grimmer sets a single value for the specific heat (the amount of heat required to raise the temperature by one degree) of a box column. However...

    The values of C [specific heat] do depend on temperature with those of common metals such as aluminum and brass increasing a few percent as the temperature increases from 20C to 100C, for example, while that for iron or steel increases about 10% over the same range.
    http://www.physics.fsu.edu/users/ng/...alorimetry.pdf

    The specific heat increases with temperature, then. This means Grimmer requires more energy (and therefore more thermite) than he's suggesting.

    #2, Grimmer appears to assume that the energy released by the thermite reaction will be used to heat the column. However, this seems unlikely, especially if it's coated around the outside of these colums. Even if the thermite is in turn covered with an "insulating layer" that's going to absorb some of the heat, then probably be destroyed by it. After that, what's going to stop heat radiating out into the surroundings? No account of that in Grimmers calculation, though, so again more thermite is required.

    #3, there's no discussion here of what happens to the heat that does reach the steel column. Specifically, heat will be conducted away to other parts of the structure. Steel isn't a great conductor of heat, but this will happen to some degree, and as Grimmer doesn't account for it at all, then again it means more thermite must be added to the mix.

    #4, for thermite to be used as a coating on the columns (and to stay there when burning) requires that it be made "sticky", presumably. How will this happen? If some other substance is added to the mix, then it may reduce the efficiency of the thermite reaction, again meaning you'd need more. Also, of course, it would again increase the volume of material required.

    #5, there's no discussion of how long it will take for the thermite to burn, and whether that will be long enough to melt the steel.

    You can't necessarily address these issues in full by adding more thermite, either. Grimmer has this to say about the volume available for keeping thermite inside the largest sized box columns, for instance:

    This would occupy a volume of 1524.9 kg/(3.974 x 10+3 kg/m3) = 0.439 m3. Note that this volume of thermFite also is less than the earlier calculated Vint = 0.529 m3
    http://www.physics911.ca/Grimmer:_Po...hermite_in_WTC

    Here he's pointing out that his estimated volume required is already close to the maximum amount of internal space available to store it. If it would actually take 21% more thermite than Grimmer's estimate then it would no longer fit inside the largest box columns. (The average sized ones have much more leeway and can hold "2.76 times more than needed to do the job", however if we took out only those then presumably we'd need to melt more columns overall).

    The thermite coating idea doesn't necessarily save the day, either. You could add the same volume again, but as we've pointed out, that energy isn't all going to be directed into the column. The larger the coating of thermite, the bigger its surface area will be, and the more it will radiate heat away.

    These objections cannot disprove the idea that thermite was used to bring down the towers, and that’s not why we raise them. They do show that Grimmer’s calculations omit many important factors, though, as well as failing to show that the setup methods he proposes are possible at all. Further analysis is required before any real conclusions can be made.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Adam Bomm For This Useful Post:

    Ross (06-12-2017)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •