See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers
Source:
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebud
URL Source: http://journalof911studies.com/lett ... wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf
Published: Mar 8, 2011
Author: Dr. Steven E. Jones
Post Date: 2011-03-08 14:09:35 by RickyJ
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 4336
Comments: 79
Poster comment: Read the PDF link for better formatting and charts. Chose to believe what you want to believe but this paper presents facts rather than the space beams of Fetzer. Nuclear bombs are not needed to take down a building. They could have easily taken down all of Manhattan with one mini-nuke, but then everyone would know they did it. I really even shouldn't waste my time on this, but I get tired of the trolls pushing the absurd. 2 We do not need to endlessly discuss hypotheses that have been ruled out by empirical data. We will apply the modern scientific process in studying the hypothesis that mini-nuclear bombs were used to bring down the Towers. The WTC Mini-Nuke Hypothesis An hypothesis has been suggested that a small nuclear bomb was placed in each Tower and used to demolish the buildings on 9/11/2001. [Ref. 1 below.] We collect and analyze empirical evidence to find out whether or not the hypothesis is valid. Tritiated water tests: “Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained (0.164±0.074) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure…” http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf Tritium from a thermonuclear (fusion) bomb would be way above these trace levels of a few NANOcuries per liter. (A nanocurie = nCi, 1 billionth of a curie. That is a very tiny amount of radioactivity.) A major fusion reaction in hydrogen bombs is deuterium + tritium Helium + neutron. Many millions of curies of tritium are present in even a small thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb. (Note that tritium can be generated during the blast from the reaction of neutrons on lithium deuteride.) Yet the observed tritium levels at GZ were in the billionth of a curie range. Note 3 that “atomic” or fission bombs are based on the fissioning of heavy elements such as uranium and plutonium, rather than the fusing together of light hydrogen isotopes (such as deuterium and tritium) in the hydrogen or fusion bomb. But to date, all known hydrogen bomb-explosions have been started (“ignited”) by fission bombs. Our technology is not yet sufficient to have a “pure” fusion device of any significant size – we struggle to ignite small d-t pellets in a laser-bombardment environment. Indeed, this problem of igniting the fusion reaction explains why we do not yet have hydrogenfusion reactors producing power. Furthermore, the fission-fusion bomb is designed to release enormous amounts of energy by combining effects from fission and fusion -- see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bomb . Note: controlled, even room-temperature “pure” fusion is possible using elementary particles known as muons, in muon-catalyzed fusion. See paper by the author in Nature 321: 127-133 (invited paper), also Rafelski and Jones in Scientific American, July 1987. The energy yields are not enough by muoncatalyzed fusion for commercial power generation (unfortunately) – nor for a nuclear bomb (fortunately). The graphs below show that hydrogen-bomb testing boosted tritium levels in rain by several orders of magnitude. (Ref.: http://www.science.uottawa.ca/~eih/ch7/7tritium.htm ) 4 The data clearly demonstrate the large amount of tritium released due to hydrogen bombs, the first of which was tested in 1951. Thus, tritium is a tracer for hydrogen bombs, the “smoking gun.” Can proponents of the WTC-mini-nuke hypothesis explain how large releases of tritium did NOT happen on 9/11/2001? Mere trace amounts of Iodine-131 (produced in fission reactions) found in Hudson River sediments “Sediment cores pulled from the Hudson River near the World Trade Center site just a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks contain a thin layer of metal-rich ash and pulverized debris. The top 3 cm of silt contained layers with unnaturally high concentrations of copper, strontium, and zinc from the towers, says Sarah D. Oktay, a geochemist… “Oktay and her colleagues also found that the sediments contain small but measurable quantities of iodine-131, a human-made radioactive isotope with a half-life of about 8 days. Total iodine concentrations were actually lower in the [WTC] debris-filled layers, which means the source of the element probably isn't related to the attacks. Also, the iodine probably didn't leak from nuclear power plants upstream because other telltale radioactive isotopes didn't turn up. Instead, says Oktay, the iodine—which is used in various medical treatments and sometimes carried home internally by patients—probably entered the river through local sewage systems. The researchers report their findings in the Jan. 21 Eos.” 5 So, Iodine concentrations were LESS in the upper debris layers associated with the WTC dust! And Iodine-131 (produced in fission reactions) was only found in very low-level trace amounts anyway. These data provide strong evidence against “mini-nuke-caused-WTC-destruction” hypothesis involving fission reactions, including a “small” fission bomb to set-off a fusion bomb. References: Science News, Volume 163, No. 7, February 15, 2003, p. 109. Oktay, S.D., et al. 2003. WTC geochemical fingerprint recorded in New York harbor sediments. Eos 84(Jan. 21):21–28. Sept. 2006: Radioactive “hot spots” in NY City – but is it the kind and amount evidencing “mini-nukes”? We need to be cautious – just because there is a small amount of radioactivity found – that does not mean that nuclear bombs were used to bring down the World Trade Center. As careful researchers, we check the AMOUNT and the RADIOACTIVE SPECIES involved. From a news article: “Radioactive 'hot spots' threat to city”, BY JAMES GORDON MEEK, DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU • “WASHINGTON - A helicopter survey revealed 80 radioactive "hot spots" in New York City, including a Staten Island park with dangerously high levels of radium, a congressional report disclosed yesterday…The GAO did not identify the park, but Brian Feeney of the National Park Service said a 1-acre section of Great Kills Park on Staten Island, part of Gateway National Recreation Area, had been shut down in August 2005 after federal officials discovered old industrial equipment contaminated with radiation.” RADIUM is NOT used in nuclear weapons (e.g., “mininukes”), although it can be one of many products of fission. It is not fissile (like plutonium and uranium). But it is used in some industrial equipment. It should have been disposed of properly, 6 yes, but this radioactive radium is NOT indicative of a nuclear bomb. Radioactive isotopes A published study by Paul Lioy et al. presents data regarding radioactive isotopes (radionuclides), such as would be produced in abundance if atomic bombs were in fact deployed. [http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioyfull. html] Radionuclides. We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance (counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides. Liquid scintillation analyses were conducted for emissions on the total dust and smoke samples using a Packard Tri-Carb Model 2770 TR/SL (Packard Instrument, Meriden, CT). The MDA for alpha radioactivity was 0.30 DPM (0.14 pCi) based on a NIST-traceable 226Ra standard (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD). Results. We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40. These very low levels of radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC dust are by themselves sufficient to rule out the use of atomic bombs (even as triggers) at the WTC, which could be construed as an absurd notion as it confronts the empirical facts. But we carry on with still more data. Neutron activation not observed. All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials, as the neutrons penetrate building materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided. Much of the 7 induced radioactivity remains for decades. Moreover, the fall-out from even small nuclear weapons is highly radioactive. So we measure the level of radioactivity as proof (or disproof) of the use of nuclear bombs. Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples (from an apartment at 113 Liberty Street, NYC [1]) and a solidified metal sample (from the Clarkson University WTC monument [1]) for radioactivity using a Geiger counter. (Daedalon Corp., model EN-15.) I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY (meaning nothing above background). This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since measured radioactivity was simply at background levels. I used the same counter to measure the radioactivity of sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison – and the Geiger counter showed (2.94 +- 0.15) counts/sec. (The fused-sand was in fact from a New Mexico test site where an atomic bomb was detonated in 1945.) This demonstrates unequivocally the presence and long life of radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs, and the ability of the sensitive Geiger counter to measure that radioactivity. The sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast, yet the WTC dust and slag and steel yield nothing. In addition, a steel member from the WTC (again from the Clarkson University WTC monument [1]) was recently tested for neutron activation by the author. The WTC steel showed 100 counts in 4m 26s, or (0.38 +- 0.04) counts/second. The background counting rate showed 100 counts in 4m 18s, or (0.39+- 0.04) counts/second. These data overlap within the statistical error, meaning that zero counts over background were seen from the WTC steel. A note on pulverization. Along with others, I examined the sample obtained by Janette MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South Tower. The windows of her apartment were blown in during the collapse of this tower on 9/11/2001, and her apartment was filled 8 with dust and debris. She collected a sample of this material in her own apartment in a plastic bag – which is good procedure – and the chain of custody went directly from her to me. (In the presence of other researchers, I collected more samples from her large plastic bag, while visiting in her home.) As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form. A previously published study of the WTC dust noted: “The environmental science community has been slow to understand that the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-¼mdiam) particles, not the fine (<2.5-¼m-diam) or coarse (2.5–10-¼mdiam) particles that are typically measured.” http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag/40/i22/html/111506feat ure_lioy.html ] Their supportive data are shown in the table below: It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble. 9 Mini-nukes are not needed for the observed concrete pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers. Chemical explosives such as RDX, HMX can cause controlled demolition along with concrete pulverization; most of us have observed such demolitions using chemical explosives and the large dust clouds produced. (In addition, cutter-charges such as super-thermites and thermate-class reactions could have been used on 9/11/2001, along with conventional explosives. See http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedD idtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf .) Just because most demolitions proceed with explosions at the bottom first (e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkiwNxfB4GM&mode=relate d&search= ), this does not mean that destruction cannot be started near the top (as was the case with the Towers). Indeed, the demolition of the Seattle Kingdome proceeded from near the top for much of the building; see http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Seattle+Kingdom e+demolition&search=Search). Cutter-charges can obviously be exploded starting near the top. (For the case of the WTC Towers, see further explanation in Jones, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidt heWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf). Thus, a mini-nuke is certainly not necessary to explain this “top-down” destruction. Indeed, it is difficult to see how a mini-nuke in each Tower (especially if located in the basements) could generate the observed “top-down” destruction of each WTC Tower – and without totally destroying the “bath-tubs” under each of the Towers. People and glass as detectors for nuclear-bomb radiation Finally, people themselves become “detectors” for the radiations associated with nuclear bombs. Glass also is known to melt in the intense heat of a nuclear bomb blast. All nuclear bombs produce copious x-rays, gamma-rays and fast neutrons, which are fatal at close range with a distinctive ‘burning’ of the victims. This applies to fusion as well as fission bombs. 10 NO such immediate fatalities due to radiation “burning” were reported. Note that while power-outages can be generated by electromagnetic pulses associated with nuclear bombs, most power outages in history (and there are many instances) are due to other causes. The windows of the Towers were observed to break but not melt during the collapses. William Rodriguez, after rescuing many people in the Towers, survived the collapse of the North Tower, adjacent to the building during its collapse. He did not show effects of a nuclear blast. The WTC dust contained asbestos and other carcinogens. Thus, the increased incidence of cancers near ground zero can be accounted for without resorting to radioactive agents from a mininuke. In a similar vein, the molten metal observed beneath both Towers and WTC 7 is consistent with a eutectic mixture of sulfur and iron (and other materials) which stays molten well below the melting point of iron (1538 C, 2800 F). The use of aluminothermics such as thermate (involving chemical rather than nuclear reactions) may account for the molten metal as explained in an earlier paper in this field of study [S. E. Jones in www.journalof911studies.com]. Thus, it is not necessary to invoke a mini-nuclear weapon to account for the molten metal observed. Indeed, the molten metal seen flowing out of the South Tower can be accounted for by the thermite reaction which produces molten iron, but could not be ascribed to a mini-nuclear explosion since this flow began several minutes before the destruction of the Tower. Conclusion and a challenge The hard physical evidence presented is strongly against the hypothesis that mini-nukes destroyed the WTC Towers: 1. Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis. 11 2. The fact that radioactive iodine concentrations were actually lower in the upper/WTC debris-filled layers. 3. Radioactive hot-spots in NYC were found to be due to radium, which is traceable to industrial uses (not bombs). This in itself does not rule out mini-nukes, but these data certainly do not support the mini-nuke hypothesis. 4. Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium, actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background level for WTC dust. 5. Nuclear activation or residual “fall-out” radioactivity (above background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131 measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis. 6. No fatalities due to radiation “burning” were reported near ground zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse. 7. No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers. 8. One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.) While many pieces of evidence may support a hypothesis it logically takes only one soundly established contradictory piece of evidence to require the abandonment of a hypothesis. In the list above, we have not one but several pieces of evidence which contradict the mini-nukes-at-WTC-Towers hypothesis. Proponents of the “mini-nuke” theory are invited to organize their data and write up a serious evidence-oriented paper, to submit to the Journal of 9/11 Studies as a reply to this Letter. That reply will be published. A thorough response should address all of the points above. The Journal editors (corresponding to known practice in the scientific community) state that they will allow such responses to be published without peerreview constraints, the main requirements for publication being relevance, civility in the presentation, avoiding straw-man arguments, 12 raising specific points and questions, and naming of the author(s) so that they may be contacted for further discussion. The author has invites proponents of the “mini-nuke theory” [Ref. 1 below] to write a reply (or replies) to this Letter. I invite replies in the spirit of collegiality and rigorous scientific investigation, with the understanding that we are able to test and actually eliminate some hypotheses –a necessary “weeding out” process in science. Endless discussions are not fruitful, whereas measurements and experiments often are. Furthermore, when 911 researchers go before the media or investigative bodies, we had better have the besttested facts and theories available and everything else in categories such as “highly speculative” or better, “dismissed by the data.” Reference 1: Some presentations on mini-nuke theory, from 911Scholars.org (as of January 4, 2007) US Government's Usage of Atomic Bombs — Domestic — WTC 25 September 2006, Ed Ward, MD Finnish Miliary Expert: Why the WTC Collapsed Cancer, Radiation from 911? 13 September 2006, Virgilius Haufniensis Interview with Dr. William (Bill) Richard Deagle 16 November 2004, The Alex Jones Show, Alex Jones Micronuclear Devices Used in OKC Bombing: Explosives Placed by FBI, ATF 8 September 2004, prisonplanet.com, Bill Deagle, M.D. APPENDIX A: THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, FROM: http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html 13 What is the ``scientific method''? The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this: • 1. Observe some aspect of the universe. • 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. • 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. • 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. • 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made. Figure 1.1: Flow diagram describing the scientific method. 14 The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded. A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied. When studying the cosmos we cannot perform experiments; all information is obtained from observations and measurements. Theories are then devised by extracting some regularity in the observations and coding this into physical laws. There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable. In contrast, the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Nb: While one speaks of “a hypothesis” to be tested, there can be several hypotheses under consideration, of course. Each stands or falls based on empirical data.
1 Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers Letter, by Dr. Steven E. Jones 28 Sept 2006 (Updated Jan. 2007, peer-reviewed, accepted for publication 7 Jan 2007. Appendix A added 16 January 2007.) Introduction The ancient Greek method of “science” was to start with one or several observations, then apply LOGIC to seek an explanation. For example, the Greek idea that the earth was at the center of the universe explained many observations without a telescope. And where the data did not “fit”, Plato declared that they should “save the hypothesis” – putting the “logical” explanation ahead of empirical data and experiments. I have observed that many people today use this method without realizing that it has been supplanted in the scientific community by a much better way to arrive at facts. Modern Scientific Method: start with several observations, and generate a hypothesis (or hypotheses) to be tested. (See Appendix A.) Then perform further EXPERIMENTS and measurements to test each hypothesis and its predictions. Keep challenging the hypothesis with more experiments – and modify the hypothesis as more empirical data are acquired. Finally, based on solid evidence and analyses, arrive at a conclusion and publish results in a peerreviewed journal or book. In this way, many hypotheses (including the flat-earth and geo-centric universe concepts) have been discarded “scientifically,” while a small number of robust theories have survived (like Quantum Theory). While many pieces of evidence may support a hypothesis, it logically takes only one soundly established contradictory piece of evidence to require the abandonment of a hypothesis.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: RickyJ, wudidiz, TwentyTwelve (#0)
The entire hypothesis is, alas, predicated upon a faulty premise. The author assumes that the publicly available knowledge represents the limits of technology, and yet we have multiple large laboratory reservations which operate at levels of secrecy above top secret. Therefore the premise is unwarranted and unsupported. The likelihood is very high, and in my occasionally humble opinion certain, that there are technologies of which we are completely unaware. Outside observers and analysts routinely assume, based on past evidence, that the technology available in the above top secret black budget world is anywhere between 20 and 40 years ahead of what has been released to the public and in some areas, such as weapons technology, possibly further in advance of that. So, assuming that the publicly available technology is the only technology is not only unwarranted but is most probably completely false. Now I am not maintaining that this proves mini-nukes were used in the demolition as we have only circumstantial evidence to go on. My only contention is that the assumptions made in this article are most likely false or at best insufficient to prove the point.
That sounds so very intellectual. The author assumes that the publicly available knowledge represents the limits of technology, and yet we have multiple large laboratory reservations which operate at levels of secrecy above top secret. Therefore the premise is unwarranted and unsupported. Uh huh. So, Duff Man, if someone told you that he saw a flying pig doing immelmanns and split s's at mach 50, you would entertain the possibility because "we have multiple large laboratory reservations which operate at levels of secrecy above top secret." You really are an idiot. .
#2. To: Original_Intent, another Duff Man special, 4 (#1)
The entire hypothesis is, alas, predicated upon a faulty premise.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
ruin everything, including sig lines.
#3. To: RickyJ (#0)
A) What vaporized the central core? B) Demonstrate and/or explain why and how the dust billowed UPWARDS from the collapsing structure, and estimate how many "cutting charges" would need to be placed in order for the structure to turn almost completely into dust. C) Since a large portion of mass was turned into dust and did NOT add to the total downward force claimed to be responsble for the collapse, why and how did the collapse occur close to freefall speed? D) If regular explosives turn buildings to dust (which I've yet to see an example of), then why didn't Building 7 turn into dust as well?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#4. To: RickyJ (#0)
Well then he is LYING, since it's clear that radioactivity WAS present in the WTC remains and surrounding areas.
I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY (meaning nothing above background).
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#5. To: PSUSA (#2)
Are you trying to say that the government has no secrets, and every little bit of technology they have in their possession is public knowledge?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#6. To: Original_Intent (#1)
The author is stating the null hypothesis, which state that the evidence is not there for the use of nukes. If the author is honest and his instruments are correctly calibrated that means we must look for other evidence that says that nukes were there. I found this picture that seems to refute the nuke story, at least as it is portrayed in the Khalezov "buried nuke" scenario. It shows the building collapse beginning at upper floors. Whereas Khalezov maintains that the collapse radiated upwards as the buildings were consumed in a shockwave from below. Where do we go forward from here? Wherever that is, let's hope that we can take that walk without the taunts, catcalls, jeers and sophomoric recriminations that often accompanies these types of threads.
The entire hypothesis is, alas, predicated upon a faulty premise.
It is a violation of Natural Law to use this document in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.
#7. To: randge, Original_Intent (#6)
I'd assume the core was vaporized by a mini-nuke, whereas the top floors were collapsed with cutter charges. Nano-thermite may have been applied at key areas of the building to assist in the collapse. With the core gone and the top floor supports destroyed, the collapse would proceed as witnessed.
I found this picture that seems to refute the nuke story, at least as it is portrayed in the Khalezov "buried nuke" scenario. It shows the building collapse beginning at upper floors.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#8. To: randge (#6)
I have drawn no firm conclusions beyond the general that nano-thermites were used in concert with explosives of some form. Beyond that the evidence needs further sifting and analysis. I am not defending the Khalezov "buried nuke" scenario what I am suggesting is that the refutation of it is logically unsound. It may well be that the Khalezov "buried nuke" scenario is incorrect and that is a point I do not dispute. What I do reject upon logical grounds is the refutation as being equally unproved. The evidence is what it is. We can continue to look at it and make inferences based upon the precious little hard physical evidence, but the plotters who conducted this operation were very thorough in getting rid of most of the evidence quickly and not allowing it to be examined by a competent forensics team. So, the upshot is that I am not wedded inextricably to any of the existing hypotheses as to the mechanics of the collapse beyond the fact that two airplanes whose fuel burned up in the first ten minutes do not account for the observed phenomena.
#9. To: FormerLurker (#5)
Since you asked me a stupid question, I will ask you one too. Are you saying that there could be flying pigs? .
Are you trying to say that the government has no secrets, and every little bit of technology they have in their possession is public knowledge?
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
ruin everything, including sig lines.
#10. To: PSUSA (#9)
I wasn't talking about pigs, flying or otherwise. What YOU were saying is that since something isn't public, then it can't exist.
Since you asked me a stupid question, I will ask you one too. Are you saying that there could be flying pigs?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#11. To: PSUSA (#2)
How nice. I am just so chagrined by your puerile "wit" that I just do not know what to do. Oh, boo hoo! You really are an idiot.
#12. To: FormerLurker, BSUSA, PSUSA, all (#10) (Edited)
I wasn't talking about pigs, flying or otherwise. What YOU were saying is that since something isn't public, then it can't exist. There is just no percentage in arguing with stupid. Just look at it as he is up to his usual tricks: Since you asked me a stupid question, I will ask you one too. Are you saying that there could be flying pigs?
#13. To: PSUSA (#9)
That was an unnecessary riposte. We can have a conversation here without the use of those kinds of adjectives.
Since you asked me a stupid question
It is a violation of Natural Law to use this document in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.
#14. To: FormerLurker (#10)
That was your interpretation. I didn't say that it can't exist. But is it outlandish to believe it does exist? Yes. Especially when people grasp so desperately at straws in order to try and made their ideas fit, no matter how strange their ideas are. It would be interesting to see where you, and particularly Duff Man, draw the line between the credible and incredible. Using that silly "we don't know what they have so therefore this idiotic idea has merit" phrase, and you can say the strangest things about any topic. .
What YOU were saying is that since something isn't public, then it can't exist.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
ruin everything, including sig lines.
#15. To: randge (#13)
You want to be a moderator? Ask Christine and see what she says.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
ruin everything, including sig lines.
#16. To: PSUSA (#9)
If buckets of chicken can score touchdowns on kick returns, then why can't pigs fly?
#17. To: Original_Intent (#1)
The author has more than publicly available knowledge available to him through his own research in cold fusion and at the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility in New Mexcio. Assuming anything with the scientific method is not the scientific method. He is not assuming anything, he is using the available evidence and reports to come to the conclusion that a mini-nuke was not used. I agree with his conclusion.
The author assumes that the publicly available knowledge represents the limits of technology, and yet we have multiple large laboratory reservations which operate at levels of secrecy above top secret.
So, assuming that the publicly available technology is the only technology is not only unwarranted but is most probably completely false.
God is always good!
#18. To: All (#16)
Btw, my kids got a kick out of your avatar.
#19. To: randge, FormerLurker, BSUSA, christine, wudidiz, all (#13)
That was an unnecessary riposte. We can have a conversation here without the use of those kinds of adjectives. Oh, we could but then the hate that colors everything he writes would not get to be expressed. As well he seems to have become the Official Site Disruptor™. He wants to be abrasive so as to derail debate and try to throw in disruptive, logically unsound, comments to speed along the disruption. Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation The main one at play here is #17 - by being abrasive, hate filled, and offering weak alternatives (which also qualifies as #9 Playing Dumb) the game is to disrupt and prevent intelligent conversation and debate.
Since you asked me a stupid question
"A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric."
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
"5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."
"9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect."
"17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues."
#20. To: RickyJ (#17)
Sure he is, and yes it is part of the Scientific Method. In order to form a hypothesis one has to take a given set of facts and set them up in a trial solution called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is, by definition, an assumption that a given set of facts "may" fit and prove the trial solution. It then takes further research confirming or disproving a given hypothesis. In short a "hypothesis" is a formal "educated guess" i.e., an assumption. Q.E.D.
Assuming anything with the scientific method is not the scientific method.
#21. To: PSUSA (#14)
It is outlandish to believe that it CAN'T exist. When you look at the evidence of what DID happen, the central core apparently vaporized. Now WHAT would cause that to happen?
But is it outlandish to believe it does exist? Yes. Especially when people grasp so desperately at straws in order to try and made their ideas fit, no matter how strange their ideas are.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#22. To: FormerLurker (#4)
Well then he is LYING, since it's clear that radioactivity WAS present in the WTC remains and surrounding areas. No he is not lying, you are taking his words out of context. He mentioned the radioactivity measured shortly after the towers fell and found it way too low to be from a nuclear bomb even a mini-one. He is measuring dust samples here for radioactivity many years after 9/11 and finds no radiation. He then compares that with sand around known nuclear explosions in the 40s which still today show high amounts of radioactivity.
I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY (meaning nothing above background).
God is always good!
#23. To: PSUSA (#14)
What it comes down to PSUSA, there is NO reason to believe that a mini-nuke or some other exotic weapon wasn't used, since conventional explosives doesn't explain the observed phenomenon. So if it wasn't conventional explosives, it HAD to have been something else. We are not certain what that something else is, but we DO know that it was SOMETHING, and a mini-nuke is a possibility.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#24. To: Obnoxicated, BSUSA (#18)
That seems reasonable. After all that is the level of his "debate".
Btw, my kids got a kick out of your avatar.
#25. To: RickyJ, FormerLurker (#22)
The fundamental flaw in that reasoning though is that it assumes that the technology has not progressed since that first fission bomb. Just from what is in the public record we can discard that as unfounded i.e., false. One of the keys of 4th generation nuclear weapons is that they have a more complete conversion of mass to energy and thus fewer radioactive particles i.e., they do not produce as much radiation and because of the smaller size and lower yield they produce less. Thus it does not prove the point.
He then compares that with sand around known nuclear explosions in the 40s which still today show high amounts of radioactivity.
#26. To: Original_Intent, FormerLurker (#19)
@ FormerLurker When you look at the evidence of what DID happen, the central core apparently vaporized. Now WHAT would cause that to happen? You know what? I don't know. And, I refuse to fake it and act like I do know, and neither will I use $10 words in order to TRY and make a silly idea sound plausible, ala Duff Man. It is one thing to claim that the central core "apparently vaporized". It's quite another to say that a mysterious unknown kind of nuke may have done it. .
To: ... christine ...
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
ruin everything, including sig lines.
#27. To: Original_Intent, Obnoxicated (#24)
I guess they forgot to rehearse this one... And Duff Man, my pics are more informative than your weird speculations. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
ruin everything, including sig lines.
#28. To: RickyJ, Original_Intent, range, PSUSA (#22)
But then he later writes this... So which is it, "ZERO RADIOACTIVITY (meaning nothing above background)", or TWICE the background level? As so far he discusses what SORT of markers should be present if a nuclear device were to have detonated, he is using information that pertains to KNOWN nuclear processes and materials. A 4th generation device may not even use known processes, and would very possibly utilize materials which leave a very different footprint.
No he is not lying, you are taking his words out of context. He mentioned the radioactivity measured shortly after the towers fell and found it way too low to be from a nuclear bomb even a mini-one. He is measuring dust samples here for radioactivity many years after 9/11 and finds no radiation. He then compares that with sand around known nuclear explosions in the 40s which still today show high amounts of radioactivity.
We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#29. To: PSUSA (#27)
Have another beer Homer.
#30. To: PSUSA (#27)
Now THAT'S a funny gif! Anyone you know?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#31. To: FormerLurker (#28) (Edited)
Again you are taking words out of context. If you read the formatted PDF you would have known that this sample was not tested for radioactivity by Steven Jones many years after 9/11 , but rather by Paul J. Lioy shortly after 9/11 and that the results of these tests were not indicative of a nuclear explosion.
God is always good!
#32. To: PSUSA (#15)
I don't have to ask anyone about anything here. And I have no desire to be a moderator. I do find that threads like this and the forum as a whole click along quite well without the LP-type vituperation. That's why a lot of us are here.
You want to be a moderator? Ask Christine and see what she says.
It is a violation of Natural Law to use this document in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.
#33. To: randge (#32)
Normally I would just tell you to butt out. But FL and I have had some good honest conversations. He (or she) knows that I have no problem with him / her. I did not call him or her stupid. I said that the question was stupid. Big difference there. Face it, it was a stupid question. Now, butt out. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
ruin everything, including sig lines.
#34. To: RickyJ (#31)
The very next sentence states "These very low levels of radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC dust are by themselves sufficient to rule out the use of atomic bombs ". Even in the formatted PDF, it's not entirely clear whether he's quoting from the specified study, or whether he means himself and others when he uses the word "we". In the following paragraph he states ZERO radioactivy beyond background was detected, when using the word "I" in the sentence. What it comes down to is whether or not a 4th generation device were detonated can not be proven or disproven by applying criteria for KNOWN nuclear devices, since the process of detonation of such a device is UNKNOWN. He even states that a KNOWN process CAN lead to room temperature fusion by the way of using muons, although the KNOWN ways of producing such a reaction would not be sufficient for producing the energy of a nuclear blast. I'd say perhaps there might be an UNKNOWN method, or perhaps a different process altogether which CAN. Note: controlled, even room-temperature “pure” fusion is possible using elementary particles known as muons, in muon-catalyzed fusion. See paper by the author in Nature 321: 127-133 (invited paper), also Rafelski and Jones in Scientific American, July 1987. The energy yields are not enough by muoncatalyzed fusion for commercial power generation (unfortunately) – nor for a nuclear bomb (fortunately). Again you are taking words out of context. If you read the formatted PDF you would have known that this sample was not tested for radioactivity by Steven Jones many years after 9/11 , but rather by Paul J. Lioy shortly after 9/11 and that the results of these tests were not indicative of a nuclear explosion.
From the article;
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#35. To: RickyJ (#0)
Perhaps using the word "LYING" is a bit harsh. I'll change that to "misleading", perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#36. To: PSUSA (#33)
Your first question on this thread concerning flying pigs was a bit stupider than what I asked you. In fact, my question was more rhetorical than "stupid".
Face it, it was a stupid question.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#37. To: FormerLurker (#36)
Well, so was mine. ,
In fact, my question was more rhetorical than "stupid".
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
ruin everything, including sig lines.
#38. To: PSUSA (#33)
Make me. ;]
Now, butt out.
It is a violation of Natural Law to use this document in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.
#39. To: Original_Intent (#8)
Thanks once again for a thoughtful response. It's a tragedy what little hard evidence we have left. Another is that we cannot seem to agree what school of "experts" are taking the most comprehensive and objective look at this thing. But, yes, we are agreed on the basics as you've stated them.
So, the upshot is that I am not wedded inextricably to any of the existing hypotheses as to the mechanics of the collapse beyond the fact that two airplanes whose fuel burned up in the first ten minutes do not account for the observed phenomena.
It is a violation of Natural Law to use this document in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.
#40. To: Original_Intent, RickyJ, randge, FormerLurker (#1)
The spires immediately before they vaporized. 
Thermite?
No Planes. Think about it. ................. Guaranteed Penetration (no it's not porn)
.
.
.
Comments (41 - 79) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest