nuclear (fission type) explosions v. some kind of classified DEW technology - 9/11 Scholars Forum2024-03-28T23:17:34Zhttps://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/nuclear-fission-type?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A28074&feed=yes&xn_auth=noAnother possible reason for f…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-08-01:3488444:Comment:307892011-08-01T06:06:02.559ZDanny Whitehttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/DannyWhite
<p>Another possible reason for flooding the sub levels was to sever all communication between the wtc complex and the outside world ... by flooding a major telecommunications vault which was used for</p>
<p> securities trading and was one of the busiest telecomunications hubs in the world: .... …</p>
<p>Another possible reason for flooding the sub levels was to sever all communication between the wtc complex and the outside world ... by flooding a major telecommunications vault which was used for</p>
<p> securities trading and was one of the busiest telecomunications hubs in the world: .... <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/EngineeringfortheThreatofNaturalDisasters/CriticalInfrastructureInterdependenciesandResilience.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/EngineeringfortheThreatofNat...</a></p> In support of Dr Fetzer's wat…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-08-01:3488444:Comment:306822011-08-01T05:17:13.450ZDanny Whitehttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/DannyWhite
In support of Dr Fetzer's water sprinkler drainage idea: .... <a href="http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=167548" target="_blank">http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=167548</a>
In support of Dr Fetzer's water sprinkler drainage idea: .... <a href="http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=167548" target="_blank">http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=167548</a> Thanks for info. I think Dr.…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-30:3488444:Comment:282822011-06-30T22:46:07.876ZJeannon Kraljhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JeannonKralj
<p>Thanks for info. I think Dr. Hubert could help us in getting info about diseases first responsders are being treated for now. I know that radiation exposure can take 10 or 20 years to manifest but I have heard that it is not if you will get cancer from it. but only a matter of when you will get cancer from it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I just get so dismayed sometimes in looking in to 9-11 evidence because it seems to have been such a splendily universally covered up operation. As an example,…</p>
<p>Thanks for info. I think Dr. Hubert could help us in getting info about diseases first responsders are being treated for now. I know that radiation exposure can take 10 or 20 years to manifest but I have heard that it is not if you will get cancer from it. but only a matter of when you will get cancer from it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I just get so dismayed sometimes in looking in to 9-11 evidence because it seems to have been such a splendily universally covered up operation. As an example, recently I found about 5 different sources that gave their analysis of the dust from Ground Zero and each of them gave a different list of the "ingredients" in the dust and none of them mentioned any radioisotopes present and none of them mentioned the presence of "red / grey chips" and "iron spherules" that Dr. Jones mentions. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Where can we go to get solid objective information. I find it so amazing that "they" seemed to have so perfectly covered all the bases in covering up and preventing objective verified data.</p> Jeannon: In response to your…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-30:3488444:Comment:283762011-06-30T20:45:42.935ZDanny Whitehttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/DannyWhite
<p>Jeannon: In response to your questions about cancers due to asbestos and "other" toxic materials occurring in first responders</p>
<p>and cleanup workers : I'm no doctor, but I've studied a lot of Hematology over the years as kind of a hobby. While there were</p>
<p>many asbestosis and other lung diseases suffered by first responders and cleanup crews; the giveaway for radiation exposure is blood and bone diseases of all kinds. The very best book on Hematology is "BLOOD Textbook of…</p>
<p>Jeannon: In response to your questions about cancers due to asbestos and "other" toxic materials occurring in first responders</p>
<p>and cleanup workers : I'm no doctor, but I've studied a lot of Hematology over the years as kind of a hobby. While there were</p>
<p>many asbestosis and other lung diseases suffered by first responders and cleanup crews; the giveaway for radiation exposure is blood and bone diseases of all kinds. The very best book on Hematology is "BLOOD Textbook of Hematology" by James H.</p>
<p>Jandl. If you look in the index under radiation, you'll find all kinds of nastiness related to radiation exposure. Many of the blood</p>
<p>cancers and side effects of the radiation may not show up for years. I think the NYC Health Dept is keeping track of the many</p>
<p>cases of 9/11 related diseases. They should have the proof positive of radiation exposure.</p> "
1) How many tons of conven…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-27:3488444:Comment:279802011-06-27T23:05:52.970ZJeannon Kraljhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JeannonKralj
"<br />
<p>1) How many tons of conventional (HMX, RDX, PETN) explosives would be required to implode each Twin Tower?"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am not sure how this fits in to the subject of this thread, but I did find some interesting material here...</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://the911forum.freeforums.org/nanothermite-t175.html">http://the911forum.freeforums.org/nanothermite-t175.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here is a small excerrpt from that discussion...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"So how much explosive would be…</p>
"<br />
<p>1) How many tons of conventional (HMX, RDX, PETN) explosives would be required to implode each Twin Tower?"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am not sure how this fits in to the subject of this thread, but I did find some interesting material here...</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://the911forum.freeforums.org/nanothermite-t175.html">http://the911forum.freeforums.org/nanothermite-t175.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here is a small excerrpt from that discussion...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"So how much explosive would be needed <span class="posthilit">to</span> topple the Twin Towers? Well, it is significant that real-world controlled demolitions rarely use more than 400 kg of high <span class="posthilit">explosives</span> <span class="posthilit">to</span> bring down high-rise buildings up <span class="posthilit">to</span> 40 stories tall. For example, the 31-story Four Seasons Hotel in Mozambique was demolished by CDI in 2007 with only 250 kg of high <span class="posthilit">explosives</span>; similarly, the 21-story Sands Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, required 180 kg of <span class="posthilit">explosives</span> for its CD. <br/><br/>Now it is <span class="posthilit">to</span> be expected that the <span class="posthilit">amount</span> of explosive used <span class="posthilit">to</span> topple a high-rise building is not directly proportional <span class="posthilit">to</span> the height of the building. This is true due <span class="posthilit">to</span> factors such as widely different floor areas, and concrete/steel ratios, etc, in the buildings being demolished. However, it is also true that very tall buildings such as the Landmark <span class="posthilit">Tower</span> require less <span class="posthilit">explosives</span> than their height would suggest because explosive charges are usually placed on less than 10 floors of the building <span class="posthilit">to</span> be demolished, regardless of its height, and gravity and momentum buildup are utilized <span class="posthilit">to</span> complete the collapse of the remaining floors. On the other hand, very tall high-rise structures generally do require extra <span class="posthilit">explosives</span> because the columns <span class="posthilit">to</span> be cut are thicker and stronger than those used in the construction of low-rise buildings. Thus, overall, there is a very approximate trend in the <span class="posthilit">amount</span> of <span class="posthilit">explosives</span> used in CD’s of high-rise buildings vs. the building’s height showing that, if the total <span class="posthilit">amount</span> of explosive used in a particular CD was uniformly spread over every floor, 9 +/- 4 kg of high explosive per floor would be required <span class="posthilit">to</span> demolish the building. Thus, extrapolating <span class="posthilit">to</span> <span class="posthilit">WTC</span> 1 & 2, each of these buildings would require about 1 tonne (or 1 ton!) of explosive <span class="posthilit">to</span> bring about its total destruction. (Incidently, Jones himself has estimated that about 600 kg of explosive would suffice <span class="posthilit">to</span> demolish one <span class="posthilit">WTC</span> <span class="posthilit">Tower</span>.)<br/><br/>Unfortunately, this relatively small <span class="posthilit">amount</span> of explosive is not in line with Harrit/Jones’ proposal that <span class="posthilit">WTC</span> 1, 2 & 7 were razed <span class="posthilit">to</span> the ground by the detonation of multi-ton quantities of pre-planted nanothermite. I use the phrase “multi-ton-quantities” because of Harrit and Jones’ public statements with regard <span class="posthilit">to</span> the <span class="posthilit">amount</span> of nanothermite they allege was planted in buildings 1, 2 & 7 at the <span class="posthilit">WTC</span> Complex prior <span class="posthilit">to</span> 9/11. Thus Jones argued in his recent UC Davis presentation that there must have been about 9 tons of red/gray chips in the total mass of dispersed <span class="posthilit">WTC</span> dust. Harrit, on the other hand, goes even further by suggesting that because of the high concentration of red/gray chips in the <span class="posthilit">WTC</span> dust, there must have been an initial charge approaching 100 tons of nanothermite in the <span class="posthilit">WTC</span> complex prior <span class="posthilit">to</span> 9/11 – presumably because, upon detonation, 90 % was decomposed and 10 % remained un-reacted.<br/> "</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> 5) Is there any evidence tha…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-27:3488444:Comment:276052011-06-27T12:31:23.142ZJeannon Kraljhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JeannonKralj
<p>5) Is there any evidence that radioactive waste was disposed of outside of New York City? If so where is it? Can it be tested now?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The dust from the WTC was taken to someplace called Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island, named after the Fresh Kills estuary. Kind of ironic and disgusting that the remains of approximately 1,100 human beings were placed in a dump named Fresh Kills.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Keep in mind that the official story of 9-11 refers to "toxic debris", not…</p>
<p>5) Is there any evidence that radioactive waste was disposed of outside of New York City? If so where is it? Can it be tested now?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The dust from the WTC was taken to someplace called Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island, named after the Fresh Kills estuary. Kind of ironic and disgusting that the remains of approximately 1,100 human beings were placed in a dump named Fresh Kills.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Keep in mind that the official story of 9-11 refers to "toxic debris", not "radioactive waste." </p>
<p> </p>
<p>"The thousands of tons of toxic debris resulting from the collapse of the Twin Towers consisted of more than 2,500 contaminants,<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-anitagates_2-0"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks#cite_note-anitagates-2"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a></sup> more specifically: 50% non-fibrous material and construction debris; 40% glass and other fibers; 9.2% cellulose; and 0.8% of the extremely toxic carcinogen <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos" title="Asbestos">asbestos</a>, as well as detectable amounts of <sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-3"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks#cite_note-3"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a></sup> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_(element)" title="Lead (element)" class="mw">lead</a>, and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)" title="Mercury (element)">mercury</a>. "</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_Septem...</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>So, you see another disinformation mainstream ifnormation site, Wikipedia, constructs this whole write-up to conform to the official story. There is no mention of radioactivity at all and the word "collapse" appears 17 times.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So it will be extremely difficult to find professional sources that give information about "radioactive" waste. That would be telling the truth and that would be strongly suppressed in any professional literature.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>6) Is there any evidence that WTC clean-up workers were dressed appropriately to be dealing with radiation contamination?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Dr. Judy Wood has on her website, and possibly in her book, clean-up personnel walking around in the "fuming" debris or dust with rubber boots on and not a full "haz mat " suit. She used those photos to support her position that the "fuming" was not hot, but was cool or ambient temerature.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The governor of New Jersey, I think Christy Todd Whitman at the time, put out a statement that the air was safe to breathe and no special equipment was needed for workers or citizens.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I gave estimates of "thermite" needed in a previous post in this thread, that Dr. Fetzer deduced from Dr. Jones' statements The Twilight Pines link I gave may no longer be working but the transcript (which I did_ is posted on 911Sholars at</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://twilightpines.com/images/themanipulationofthe911community.pdf">http://twilightpines.com/images/themanipulationofthe911community.pdf</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>There may be some estimates at the WillyLoman Wordpress site since there is where conventional controlled demolition is strongly hypothesized. Controlled Demolition Inc. is supposedly the company that did the demolition of the WTC buildings.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>All information about radiation is going to probably be limited to Dr. Ward and a very few other people. The cancers that people contracted were said to be from asbestos and highly toxic debris.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> on 5 and 6 I'd say that most…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-27:3488444:Comment:280742011-06-27T11:15:43.311ZThoth IIhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/ThothII
on 5 and 6 I'd say that most of fallout was in the WTC complex and the dirt was used to absorb the gamma radiation coming out of the fallout. Now they've poured concrete to absorb it permanently.
on 5 and 6 I'd say that most of fallout was in the WTC complex and the dirt was used to absorb the gamma radiation coming out of the fallout. Now they've poured concrete to absorb it permanently. As we discuss this issue furt…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-26:3488444:Comment:276022011-06-26T13:55:45.041ZDr. J. P. Huberthttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/DrJPHubert
<p><b>As we discuss this issue further, here is food for thought.</b></p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p><b><u>Some Questions of Fact Still in Need of Clarification:</u></b></p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p>1) How many tons of conventional (HMX, RDX, PETN) explosives would be required to implode each Twin Tower?</p>
<p>2) Do pure fission nuclear bombs ever produce Tritium even in low concentrations?</p>
<p>3) What percentage of each Twin Tower fell into its respective footprint?</p>
<p>4) What percentage of each…</p>
<p><b>As we discuss this issue further, here is food for thought.</b></p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p><b><u>Some Questions of Fact Still in Need of Clarification:</u></b></p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p>1) How many tons of conventional (HMX, RDX, PETN) explosives would be required to implode each Twin Tower?</p>
<p>2) Do pure fission nuclear bombs ever produce Tritium even in low concentrations?</p>
<p>3) What percentage of each Twin Tower fell into its respective footprint?</p>
<p>4) What percentage of each Twin Tower fell outside its respective footprint into the WTC grounds?</p>
<p>5) Is there any evidence that radioactive waste was disposed of outside of New York City? If so where is it? Can it be tested now?</p>
<p>6) Is there any evidence that WTC clean-up workers were dressed appropriately to be dealing with radiation contamination?</p>
<p>7) Has thermite/nanothermite ever been used to implode a “high rise” building??</p>
<p>8) Has the controlled demolition of a high rise building ever produced copious quantities of nano-sized dust?</p> Jeannon,
very excellent poi…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-25:3488444:Comment:278902011-06-25T18:05:08.182ZThoth IIhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/ThothII
<p>Jeannon,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>very excellent points and you understand the scientific method well. Although Chuck cannot yet conclusively prove that thermite was used to cut the core columns, he has suggested specific reaction substances to look for in support of his hypothesis. He has given the details maybe he will again. This is how science is, it is driven by an interaction between the evidence and hypotheses and back and forth, but science is an ongoing process where this is occuring all…</p>
<p>Jeannon,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>very excellent points and you understand the scientific method well. Although Chuck cannot yet conclusively prove that thermite was used to cut the core columns, he has suggested specific reaction substances to look for in support of his hypothesis. He has given the details maybe he will again. This is how science is, it is driven by an interaction between the evidence and hypotheses and back and forth, but science is an ongoing process where this is occuring all the time. At some point, a hypothesis becomes a tentative acceptable theory, but even then research goes on. I myself am very confident that although it will take time, more data will be added and it will add more links to the chain that Chuck has started. Research will also go on to separate the fake and real data. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>What is really important is that people understand this process. In my opinion, almost noone in the 911 truth or JFK research communities understand this process. Some just get boring ego wedded to their hypothesis, examples in my view are Josiah Thompson, Bob Groden, and Judy Wood. Some are outright disinfo specialists like Gary Mack. Some are just common mundane "gatekeepers" that I see in my work plus at something as small as a homeowners meeting where certain assertive types of people take everyone else by the collar and make people intimidated to contradict them. For example, there is so much of this going on with the gatekeepers of maintaining the standard line about planes and thermate.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Because people are either not smart enough or too lazy to study the stuff Prof. Fetzer taught for 30 years, the end result is that the truth on most everything in this society is getting lost. And the oligargarchs are sitting back and enjoying the ride. Even when all hell breaks loose, guess where everyone is going to end up: the rest of us in their concentration camps and the oligargarchy under the Denver airport in the very best emergency bunkers. </p> Agree that Chuck offers expla…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-06-25:3488444:Comment:277922011-06-25T15:50:37.444ZJeannon Kraljhttps://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JeannonKralj
<p>Agree that Chuck offers explanations that are already well established in science. I do wish Chuck's explanations did not rely so much on "thermite" as we have shown that that is difficult to establish as definitely playing a substantive role in the demolition, even if it could be proved that thermite was definitely present in the dust.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As for nukes, we seem to know much more about them but still it is a very big mystery area. We may only have information about some older…</p>
<p>Agree that Chuck offers explanations that are already well established in science. I do wish Chuck's explanations did not rely so much on "thermite" as we have shown that that is difficult to establish as definitely playing a substantive role in the demolition, even if it could be proved that thermite was definitely present in the dust.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As for nukes, we seem to know much more about them but still it is a very big mystery area. We may only have information about some older nukes and how they "behave" and what residues they would leave, and not have information about the very latest nuke and mini-nuke technologies. So a great deal of knowledge about mini-nukes may be unknown, just as almost nothing is known for sure about how DEWs "act." </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The idea that the 47 main core columns were first cut, by thermite or whatever, is looking less and less plausible to me. I do not believe that during that 50 minutes between the alleged plane crash and the disintegration/destruction of the South Tower was a time when on the inside of the building the cutting was taking place. I believe that there were some small scattered superficial fires that were started at the time of the alleged plane crash and those small fires were allowed to "cook" for about 50 minutes to make people thing that those fires were actually busy melting the steel beams.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>While Dr. Fetzer a very long time ago suggested that maybe the reason for the pre-explosions were to loosen the core beams, Dr. Fetzer has now come to believe that the pupose of the pre-explosions, which though measurable and measured by Columbia U., was to drain the sprinkler systems of all their water, as the basement filling with water after the pre-explosions was noted by people present there. That way, the fires, which maybe started from the "fire balls" that we saw right after the alleged plane crash, could continue burning and perhaps spread about the building. The idea was to have those scattered small superficial fires play a very large role in the official story. The alleged plane crashes were supposed to happen at the exact same time as the pre-explosions in the sub-basements so that the pre-explosions would not be taken account of and noticed and would be thought just to be a result of the plane crash. But they miscalulated that Columbia Univ. as well as FAA and radar data would prove that the pre-explosions actually happened several seconds BEFORE the alleged plane crashes and fireballs.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So the big boom explosions that destroyed the towers really was not a procedure that required preliminary, absolutely crucial, steps. The building were blown to kinddom come in one fell swoop. Any "pre" things we observed were for the purpose of supporting the official story and making it seem more believable.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We do not have to prove what actually happened. We just have to rule out things that are suggested that seem highly implausible and we need to say why. What chuck does is present KNOWN substances and their actions that could provide just as strong an explanation of the data, or the "evidence" as does the DEW hypothesis. For that reason, his information is extremely valuable, but again we know nothing about DEWs except that they act in mysterious ways, and we have no proof that "thermite or nano-thermite" was present or if present played any substantive role other than perhaps being inserted "red herring" data to keep us off investigation more true ideas. Remember, the JFK assassination, according to Dr. Fetzer, was heavily salted with fake evidence to make investigation almost an impossible task. But even though we cannot prove what did happen, we can do a whole lot through open discussion by making strong arguments for what most probably did not happen. IT is just a process of ruling out things.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>