9/11-The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

[Large Sarge]

9/11-The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a pilot.

There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.

What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.

A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how “easy” it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the “open sky”. But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.

And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport by themselves are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.

For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.

In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot — and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft.

The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs—even landings, to a certain degree—are relatively “easy”, because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist “outside” the cockpit.

But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues, and is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)

In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.

And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!

The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they ‘lost it’ while flying in IFR conditions.

Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.

In fact, here’s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:

Mohammed Atta: “His attention span was zero.”
http://www.willthomas.net/911/911_Commission_Hearing.htm

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: “We didn’t kick him out, but he didn’t live up to our standards.”
http://100777.com/node/237

Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/9-11_hijackers_still_alive.htm

Salem Al-Hazmi: “We advised him to quit after two lessons.”
http://www.willthomas.net/Books_Videos/911_Investigations_Stand_Down.htm

Hani Hanjour: “His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html

Now let’s take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker Hani Hanjour presumably rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this would present considerable difficulties to a little chap with a box cutter—Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor. But let’s ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.

Imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain’s seat. The weather reports say it was fairly clear, so let’s say Hanjour experienced a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet — 7 miles — below him, a murky brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually devoid of any significant surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).

In a real-world scenario, with this kind of “situational NON-awareness”, Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan—he wouldn’t have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.

After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there’s little point in looking outside—there’s nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.

Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his instrument panel, where he’d be faced with a bewildering array of instruments—nothing like he had seen in a Cessna 172. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position.

After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.

It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn’t have known where to begin.

But, for the sake of discussion let’s stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour—whose flight instructor claimed “couldn’t fly at all”—somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.

Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes—remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).

In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these fellows even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.

To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This still wouldn’t relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let’s assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the aircraft to its intended—and invisible—target on instruments alone until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. (This portion of Flight 77’s flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio.)

According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).

The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” (http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=4084)

And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.

But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).

I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Indeed, the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown entire semi-trucks off the roads this massive aircraft is alleged to have flown over at extremely low altitude. The DVD, “Loose Change – 1st Edition” (http://www.loosechange911.com) contains an excellent clip of trucks being swept off the end of a runway when a jetliner powers up for take-off.

Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground. Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.

At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.

In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)

The very same challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their “final approach” maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft.

The author recently received a letter from a senior 757 captain currently flying with one of the airlines involved in 9/11. It contains the following statement:

“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”

Conclusion

The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers “took control” of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they’d realize the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.

In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH — and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.

[gunDriller]

In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH — and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.


if you look at a map of the WTC site, and look at the path that the second plane took, it is a cork-screwing flight path that made me wonder, "how the heck did they manage that ?"

having worked on airplane electronics for military airplanes, i got a chance to ask my 500 engineer co-workers about the subject of remote control on commercial airplanes. "fly by wire" is one of the terms they use.

this was obviously a subject of interest in the early days after 9-11.

the consensus among these guys - some of whom were involved in designing the same capability (fly by wire) for military aircraft - was that commercial airplanes have had this capability for about 2 decades.

at this point it's almost an "old technology", although the precision keeps improving because the GPS and navigational computers that steer the airplane keep getting updated.

From a project management point of view, the one way to make sure airplane hit the building was to use the electronic navigation. Israel and their supporters in the US were not going to leave the piloting of the airplane up to alleged Scary Muslims like Mohammad Atta.


imagine if the airplane had missed the WTC building, and crashed into the Empire State building - yet the WTC collapsed. that would have been ... odd.

in order for the military operation of 9-11 to "succeed", the airplane had to hit the right building.

[Hatha Sunahara]

This is why the "No Planes Theory" makes extraordinary sense.

There were no planes on 911. What we all saw on TV were digital planes photoshopped onto videos broadcast by the media to make us believe that the WTC towers were brought down by moozlims. By extension, there were no hijackers, no arabs, no moozlims, and no damage to the WTC towers caused by planes. The damage to the WTC towers was caused by explosives placed in the points where the photoshopped planes were supposed to have hit the buildings. Then the towers were pulverized by 150 KT thermonuclear devices exploded 50 meters below the lowest basement of each building.

Anyone who can wrap his head around this understands what 911 really was.

Hatha

[Ponce]

There was a Muslim volunteer tie up to the front of the plane using a walky talkie telling the pilot which way to go... very easy when you know how :conf:

[Fortyone]

This is why the "No Planes Theory" makes extraordinary sense.

There were no planes on 911. What we all saw on TV were digital planes photoshopped onto videos broadcast by the media to make us believe that the WTC towers were brought down by moozlims. By extension, there were no hijackers, no arabs, no moozlims, and no damage to the WTC towers caused by planes. The damage to the WTC towers was caused by explosives placed in the points where the photoshopped planes were supposed to have hit the buildings. Then the towers were pulverized by 150 KT thermonuclear devices exploded 50 meters below the lowest basement of each building.

Anyone who can wrap his head around this understands what 911 really was.

Hatha


I have heard this scenario before, I just dont buy it as there were too many people on the ground who witnessed the actual plane striking the building (second plane).

[keehah]

Nila Sagadevan would learn a lot more if he read 'Crossing the Rubicon (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml)'

Attempts to prove a negative are planed failure and distraction. He pushes no plane hoaxes in other writings, and one can see how this piece fits right in.

Pimping no planes because he is dull makes bad decisions or in support of the governments 9/11 lies.

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

Nila Sagadevan would learn a lot more if he read 'Crossing the Rubicon (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml)'

Attempts to prove a negative are planed failure and distraction. He pushes no plane hoaxes in other writings, and one can see how this piece fits right in.

Pimping no planes because he is dull makes bad decisions or in support of the governments 9/11 lies.


Your link says Dick Cheney orchestrated the attacks because, in part:


Motive - Peak Oil: At some point between 2000 and 2007, world oil production reaches its peak; from that point on, every barrel of oil is going to be harder to find, more expensive to recover, and more valuable to those who recover and control it. Dick Cheney was well aware of the coming Peak Oil crisis at least as early as 1999, and 9/11 provided the pretext for the series of energy wars that Cheney stated, "will not end in our lifetime." (Click here for a summary of these points)

I'm not much for the Peak Oil theory. The No Planes / Nuke theory however, fills a lot of the missing puzzle pieces.

Here's a link to The Third Truth by Dimitri Khalezov. His book makes a convincing case.

http://depositfiles.com/en/files/s5socosne

Read it and feel the cognitive dissonance.

Do you have a pre-2001 dictionary laying around? What's the definition of "ground zero?"

[Ares]

I don't buy the no planes theory. My uncle was in NY that day and saw the second plane strike the tower as he was having breakfast out on the street.

What next a hologram made to look like a plane?

[General of Darkness]

I wonder how much they paid this ahole?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc_abbtRBEo

[old steel]

I am of the opinion that if anything hit the towers would probably have been a missile as it's much easier to target and make no mistake about it those towers absolutely had to come down that day.

Then detonate and it's all down hill.

Nukes would explain why cell phones stopped working, fireman and police radios went dead along with other electronic equipment in the area. Even video cameras would not function unless shielded in mini Faraday cages.

[gunDriller]

I am of the opinion that if anything hit the towers would probably have been a missile as it's much easier to target and make no mistake about it those towers absolutely had to come down that day.


a missile called an "Israeli Special Ops Team".

killing 3000 Americans for National Security Reasons.

[Ponce]

About the first plane.......on 911 I saw in the news this Japanese couple here as tourist taking a video, the woman was kneeling down with the man standing and she was taking a video of him with the top of the twin in the background and it did show the plane hitting to tower......this video was shown only one time and then it went into the Twilight Zone.

What I saw....there was what appeared to be a small parachute trailing behind the plane, this parachute is is what keeps the female fuel hose steady in order for a fuel tanker plane to make the connection and fill up the plane with fuel........I have never seen a civilian plane with this kind of equipment.

Did anyone see this video on 911?

[Agrippa]

I have not the slightest belief in the official story -- but the OP is so full of idiotic assumptions and conclusions that it might as well have been drafted by someone trying to sabotage the 9/11 truth movement. It is also really hard to believe that the author is a pilot -- it sounds to me like he has no experience outside of a simulator.

I am a pilot, and I've taken many people up for their first flight in a small plane. With the plane trimmed up in level flight I've yet to find anyone who couldn't maneuver it around and get it pointed where they wanted to go -- including young children -- on their first try at the controls. Obviously we aren't talking about well-coordinated turns, but most modern aircraft require little help in that regard.

In clear weather visual navigation gets easier the higher one goes, not harder. The OP seems to confuse the lack of visual reference in a simulator with what the hijackers would have experienced in the real aircraft.

The frequently heard claims about the impossible precision with which this or that maneuver was executed assume that what happened was exactly what was intended. If the person making this claim is not a fool, i.e. he is speaking from positive knowledge, then that person needs to be arrested and water-boarded until he spills the beans....

Ultimately all of these planes crashed, which is not generally considered an amazing demonstration of piloting skill.

[Phoenix]

Yet I still see "NYFD"


The firefighters who stormed into those buildings are among America's finest heroes. Totally apart from the politics of the day. I even extend the "heroes" title to the NYPD who joined them. I imagine most of them realized they might not see their families again, considering the damage.

[Phoenix]

the 9/11 truth movement


Seeing all the UTTER BULLSH*T posted here by the "9/11 'Truth' Movement," I am starting to doubt that they are interested in Truth at all.


We KNOW that 19 A-rabs with boxcutters didn't hijack those planes.

We KNOW that kerosene did not bring down the Twin Towers

We KNOW with even more certainty that the planes or kerosene did not bring down WTC7.

We KNOW elements in Israel and the US Government knew "something" was going to happen that morning.


However, these asinine postings made by a few - "Looky Here" and outrageous & in-credible theories - do nothing to aim for Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. It's almost as though these people who claim to be "anti-Zionists" are working for the "other side" and making facts about 9/11 look like topics of interest only to lunatics. Their "Islam is a Religion of Peace" garbage is just icing on the cake.

[Joe King]

I have not the slightest belief in the official story -- but the OP is so full of idiotic assumptions and conclusions that it might as well have been drafted by someone trying to sabotage the 9/11 truth movement. It is also really hard to believe that the author is a pilot -- it sounds to me like he has no experience outside of a simulator.

I am a pilot, and I've taken many people up for their first flight in a small plane. With the plane trimmed up in level flight I've yet to find anyone who couldn't maneuver it around and get it pointed where they wanted to go -- including young children -- on their first try at the controls. Obviously we aren't talking about well-coordinated turns, but most modern aircraft require little help in that regard.

In clear weather visual navigation gets easier the higher one goes, not harder. The OP seems to confuse the lack of visual reference in a simulator with what the hijackers would have experienced in the real aircraft.

The frequently heard claims about the impossible precision with which this or that maneuver was executed assume that what happened was exactly what was intended. If the person making this claim is not a fool, i.e. he is speaking from positive knowledge, then that person needs to be arrested and water-boarded until he spills the beans....

Ultimately all of these planes crashed, which is not generally considered an amazing demonstration of piloting skill.


I don't buy the official story either, and I tend to agree with your post.

I've flown in the in the cockpit of a 757 and I have to say that the pilots did in fact make it look incredibly easy.
They told me that the guidance system{s} were capable of flying the plane and if necessary, landing it and taxiing to within 100' feet of the gate before they'd have to do much of anything at all.
...and you can see for a really long ways at cruising altitude when looking out the front of the plane It's like the World is your "road".
It's way cool. I highly recommend it if you ever get the chance.

So it seems to me that all one would need to be able to do, is be able to enter coordinates, turn on the auto pilot and "enjoy" the ride.
IMO, all you'd have to know is how to enter the GPS location you wish to arrive at, and then turn it on.

Getting GPS coordinates of the 90th floor of the World Trade Center doesn't seem like it'd be too tough of a trick.

[Hatha Sunahara]

The impossible precision is not the only incredible part of the story. The other incredible part of the story is how hollow aluminum tubes on wings can penetrate a building whose structural members are as thick as tank armor? Not only penetrate, but disappear inside of the steel building? And then how those buildings turn into dust. And those clever arabs--they are all responsible for it. Because they hijacked those planes, and suspended our sense of physical reality by making them fly into heavy steel structures, and causing them to crumble before our very eyes. And over and over and over again, until it is burned into our consciousness--those arabs-they did it. Like a cartoon playing on an endless loop.

The official story is propaganda. Repeated--catapulted endlessly. If you believe it, they have you. Something else happened. Something we don't know about. And what that is, is the truth. And if we were to know that, our whole perception of reality would be torn apart. And that is why the truth is so ugly, so few of us can look at it, so we never seek it out. If the boss wants us to keep quiet about it, look the other way, we know which side our bread is buttered on.

While piloting skills may come with long practice, so do computer graphics skills--skills that can insert 'digital airplane images' like a special effect onto a television news feed. No planes, just explosives planted in the building at points that outline the shape of a plane. Those explosions go off, then the digital 'plane' inserts are flown into the buildings on TV. It was all an illusion. A special effect. Like the radio broadcast War of the Worlds, most of us bought into it. It's too bad most of us don't have the will or the energy to look more deeply into this. It would tear up our sense of reality. And then where would we be?

Hatha

[Phoenix]

And then how those buildings turn into dust.


No publicly-admitted technology can do that. Whatever destroyed the Twin Towers also did this:


http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image156.jpg

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image172.jpg

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image174.jpg


What sort of "flames" stop at geometric lines and incinerate things near tires that are not even warped?

[ShortJohnSilver]

It is interesting how UAV and other methods of flying by remote control are now commonplace and relatively inexpensive, yet supposedly there is no method that was available at any price just 9 years ago?

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Bob Dylan

You don't need a physicist to know you can't throw a pepsi can through a steel wall.

[cedarchopper]

I don't doubt Muslim/Middle Eastern groups were plotting to bring down the towers, they almost brought one of them down in 1993. Probably what happened was elements in the CIA/Mossad decided to beat them to the punch and blame it on them.

I also don't think it was fantastical secret technologies that were used either...remote controlled airplane impacts as cover for controlled demolitions. The airliner that went down in PA was probably supposed to hit WTC7...they decided to take it down anyway even without the cover story, maybe their biggest mistake in execution of the crime.

Whatever happened, cave dwelling mujaheddin in Afghanistan couldn't have pulled off this level of sophisticated attack...no way.

[Joe King]

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Bob Dylan

You don't need a physicist to know you can't throw a pepsi can through a steel wall.

Only prob with that is it wasn't a steel wall, but rather an aluminum wall.
The steel support columns were all in the inner part of the WTC towers.

Also, don't forget that that "pepsi can" hit the building at 400+mph while weighing at least 125 tons.
That's a lot of inertia.


Where the problem comes in is that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707, which isn't that different from a 767. (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/boeing_707_767.html?q=boeing_707_767.html)
Also, the jet fuel would have burned of relatively quickly.
So the question is, what fueled the fire to allow it to burn so hot to presumably weaken the support columns enough to cause them to lose their integrity?
Because the plane alone could not have done so.

[Phoenix]

Where the problem comes in is that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707, which isn't that different from a 767.


The smoking gun is WTC7, which was not hit by anything.

[I am me, I am free]

I don't doubt Muslim/Middle Eastern groups were plotting to bring down the towers, they almost brought one of them down in 1993.

It's a matter of record that the FBI facilitated the incident at the WTC in 93.

And FWIW, from an official FEMA publication -

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_target1999.gif

[FunnyMoney]

The miracle of Mohammad Atta's passport says it all. ....


When the laws of physics are no longer anything to be concerned about, about anything is possible.

I'm kind of surprised Atta didn't survive the whole incident. The trial might have brought better ratings than OJ.

[gunDriller]

When the laws of physics are no longer anything to be concerned about, about anything is possible.

I'm kind of surprised Atta didn't survive the whole incident. The trial might have brought better ratings than OJ.


yes. maybe they'll claim a new version.

like the alleged hijacker passport that landed intact on the city street, Atta landed on his feet, un-burned, and headed for the nearest strip-club - where the FBI arrested him.

[Joe King]

Where the problem comes in is that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707, which isn't that different from a 767.


The smoking gun is WTC7, which was not hit by anything.
On that, I'm with you.

[gunDriller]

The smoking gun is WTC7, which was not hit by anything.
On that, I'm with you.
[/quote]

i guess the media talks about WTC7 a little, but not much.

when i ask members of my "informal focus group" (mother, brothers) about WTC7 - they never heard of it. so it must not get much coverage on MSM.

WTC7 was the big mistake the 9-11 perpetrators made.

it was studying WTC7 that got Jim Hoffman to realize that the buildings were demolished. i looked at all his calcs & i was convinced. of course, the WTC7 collapse was also what prompted a lot of the folks who have joined "AE911truth".

[DMac]

I've met people that claim WTC7 is the reason they believe the MSM story. If only debris can hit a 47 story building like that and cause it to collapse into its footprint, well then of course the planes brought down WTC1/2.

/sigh

[oldmansmith]

imagine if the airplane had missed the WTC building, and crashed into the Empire State building - yet the WTC collapsed. that would have been ... odd.



Well one did miss WTC 7 and then was shot down -er- "crashed" in Pennsylvania. It WAS odd.

[Hatha Sunahara]

There is a reason they call the WTC site 'Ground Zero'. Before 9/11/2001, ground zero meant only one thing: the place on, above, or below where a nuclear blast took place.

The building plans for the WTC were not approved until the builders submitted a demolition plan with them. Those demolition plans included a nuclear demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7. It called for a 150 kt thermonuclear device to be placed under the buildings about 50 meters below the lowest point and detonated. An underground blast is far different from an atmospheric blast, and most people would not recognize it because they think all nuclear blasts are like Hiroshima. An underground blast looks like the Storax/Sedan test blast in the Nevada desert, and that looks an awful lot like what we saw on 911.

It was not a secret technology that turned the WTC buildings to dust. It was nuclear bombs applied in a way that is different to how most people visualize a nuclear blast. It was not mini-nukes--but big ones blown up underground below the buildings. There is nothing else that can explain the dustification of the buildings and the pockets of molten metal in the basement that stayed hot for months after 911. There is nothing else that can explain the cancers that the unprotected first responders have experienced. There is nothing else that can explain why if you bring a geiger counter to ground zero, the government can put you in jail and throw away the key.

What we saw on TV was an illusion regarding the planes, and a deception regarding the collapse of the buildings. What else could Larry Silverstein have meant when he said the 'order was given to pull it' when he spoke of WTC7? This guy collected 3.5 billion for the destruction of the WTC by terrorists. Would he have to give the money back if it were proved that there were no terrorists involved?

For those who believe what they saw, and what they were told about 911, I suggest you put your minds in gear and think about whether you were given a big show and lied to. 911 seems to be what separates those whose reality is constructed from thin tissues of lies and propaganda, and those whose reality is constructed as an integrated whole by the efforts of their own critical thinking capabilities.

Hatha

[Joe King]

Does anyone know what type of fuel the planes in question were using that day?

Just curious.

[I am me, I am free]

Does anyone know what type of fuel the planes in question were using that day?

Just curious.


Jet A which is essentially kerosene.

[Phoenix]

I've met people that claim WTC7 is the reason they believe the MSM story. If only debris can hit a 47 story building like that and cause it to collapse into its footprint, well then of course the planes brought down WTC1/2.


This proves my often-cited contention...

People do not want the Truth.

[Phoenix]

There is a reason they call the WTC site 'Ground Zero'. Before 9/11/2001, ground zero meant only one thing: the place on, above, or below where a nuclear blast took place.

The building plans for the WTC were not approved until the builders submitted a demolition plan with them. Those demolition plans included a nuclear demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7. It called for a 150 kt thermonuclear device to be placed under the buildings about 50 meters below the lowest point and detonated. An underground blast is far different from an atmospheric blast, and most people would not recognize it because they think all nuclear blasts are like Hiroshima. An underground blast looks like the Storax/Sedan test blast in the Nevada desert, and that looks an awful lot like what we saw on 911.


Do you realize how retarded this makes you look?

A 150kt blast even 50 meters down would have resulted in the destruction of most of Manhattan. The fireball - which vaporized anything it touches - would have exceeded that depth.

There was no "nuclear" weapon at 9/11. Exotic, yes.

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

There is a reason they call the WTC site 'Ground Zero'. Before 9/11/2001, ground zero meant only one thing: the place on, above, or below where a nuclear blast took place.

The building plans for the WTC were not approved until the builders submitted a demolition plan with them. Those demolition plans included a nuclear demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7. It called for a 150 kt thermonuclear device to be placed under the buildings about 50 meters below the lowest point and detonated. An underground blast is far different from an atmospheric blast, and most people would not recognize it because they think all nuclear blasts are like Hiroshima. An underground blast looks like the Storax/Sedan test blast in the Nevada desert, and that looks an awful lot like what we saw on 911.



Do you realize how retarded this makes you look?

A 150kt blast even 50 meters down would have resulted in the destruction of most of Manhattan. The fireball - which vaporized anything it touches - would have exceeded that depth.

There was no "nuclear" weapon at 9/11. Exotic, yes.


Watch about 1:15 in. There is no fireball. All energy is confined to a small area.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5jfaXSFfGQ

You ever notice that they evacuated the Sears Tower immediately on 9/11? Most wrote that off as because it's one of the tallest buildings in the world and a likely target. Truth is, there may be a nuke underneath it.

Same holds true for all modern day skyscrapers. They need a way to bring them down eventually. An underground nuclear charge fits the bill.

[Libertytree]

I've met people that claim WTC7 is the reason they believe the MSM story. If only debris can hit a 47 story building like that and cause it to collapse into its footprint, well then of course the planes brought down WTC1/2.


This proves my often-cited contention...

People do not want the Truth.


Most people can't fathom the truth, they say they want it but it can't get through the programming they've been saturated with. Even well educated people are morons when it comes to seeing the bare bones of reality, they simply can't comprehend the enormity of it all.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Do you realize how retarded this makes you look?


Yes. And do you understand how you look?


Be careful. It's all about how we look. It's not about any ideas we propose.

Hatha

[Phoenix]

There is a reason they call the WTC site 'Ground Zero'. Before 9/11/2001, ground zero meant only one thing: the place on, above, or below where a nuclear blast took place.

The building plans for the WTC were not approved until the builders submitted a demolition plan with them. Those demolition plans included a nuclear demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7. It called for a 150 kt thermonuclear device to be placed under the buildings about 50 meters below the lowest point and detonated. An underground blast is far different from an atmospheric blast, and most people would not recognize it because they think all nuclear blasts are like Hiroshima. An underground blast looks like the Storax/Sedan test blast in the Nevada desert, and that looks an awful lot like what we saw on 911.



Do you realize how retarded this makes you look?

A 150kt blast even 50 meters down would have resulted in the destruction of most of Manhattan. The fireball - which vaporized anything it touches - would have exceeded that depth.

There was no "nuclear" weapon at 9/11. Exotic, yes.


Watch about 1:15 in. There is no fireball. All energy is confined to a small area.


Tagline on your video:

"A REAL video of a HUGE atomic bomb (100 kilotons) exploding deep underground."

In other words, hundreds of meters/yards underground, not "50 meters."




They need a way to bring them down eventually. An underground nuclear charge fits the bill.


They are brought down with convention explosives, just like WTC7.

Straight down, using carefully-placed charges:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

[Phoenix]

Do you realize how retarded this makes you look?


Yes. And do you understand how you look?


Be careful. It's all about how we look. It's not about any ideas we propose.


Your "ideas" are insane. 150Kt nuclear weapon "50 meters" underneath the Twin Towers. :o

You look like a kook when you put forth insane ideas that have no connection to scientific reality. And you make anyone who believes in the facts about 9/11 look like a kook by association.

[Joe King]

Do you realize how retarded this makes you look?


Yes. And do you understand how you look?


Be careful. It's all about how we look. It's not about any ideas we propose.

Hatha
Hi.
If you ever want an average person to even begin to contemplate any of it, you have to stick with what can easily be shown in a way that makes sense to the average joe.

Even if there was an atomic bomb that brought the building down, the instant you mention it, the average joe is going to tune you out on everything else.

If you want to open eyes, stick with what you can prove in a reasonable manner. Just like a good DA.




Now, about the atomic bomb theory. IMHO, if there were an atomic bomb that detonated under the WTC 1 and 2, don't you think it would have brought both of them down at the same time?
The buildings were only 208' square. Pretty small relative to an atomic blast of any size.

But for the sake of argument lets say that's what happened, ok?
If so, why didn't the whole building collapse from the bottom up?
i.e. if the foundation gets taken, wouldn't the whole building have droped as it collapsed?
I wasn't there myself, but I saw video that showed the building itself standing still as the top crumbled down on top of itself.
Is there video of something other than that?


Further, the "bathtub" under the WTC towers was relatively intact. If an atomic bomb went off 50 meters under it, I'm pretty sure the "bathtub" structure would've sustained more damage considering the displacement of earth that would have surely occurred from an atomic blast. Earth that the bathtub was supporting itself upon I might add.

Also, you mentioned that it was illegal to even take a geiger counter to the WTC site.
Can you show me where it says that? Is it a Federal law? State law? Or something else altogether different?

[Fortyone]

No Nuke brought those down. 50 meters is roughly HALF a football field ,not very far.A 150kt weapon would cause massive damage. the Hiroshima bomb was 13kt! Even underground at five times that distance the crater would have been huge. pre planted charges yes, nukes na ah

[Hatha Sunahara]

Think how much energy it would take to vaporize a sphere of granite 50 meters in diameter. This is a nuclear bomb placed in solid granite--the bedrock under those buildings. This is not an atmospheric blast. This is an underground blast. One whose path of least resistance is the steel building above it, so most of its shock wave is directed up--through the building. Not in all directions like an atmospheric blast. If you do some research on nuclear blasts, you'll appreciate the difference between an underground blast and and an atmospheric blast.

It's because of what you believe, and what you don't know that they were able to set off three nuclear blasts in lower Manhattan, and people still have difficulty grasping that. It's such a big lie that nobody would believe the truth. And the airplane story--about how jet fuel brough down the buildings. How many times was that repeated? How many times did you see a big jet flying into the WTC buildings? How many thousands of times did you see that? I can't blame you for believing that airplanes brought down the buildings. Now it's time to turn your brain back on and try to figure out what really happened. I know how all that conditioning can put up huge resistance to considering something that fits the facts together better.

As for sounding like a retard, here's something Gandhi said:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Gandhi


Hatha

[Hatha Sunahara]

Do you realize how retarded this makes you look?


Yes. And do you understand how you look?


Be careful. It's all about how we look. It's not about any ideas we propose.




Your "ideas" are insane. 150Kt nuclear weapon "50 meters" underneath the Twin Towers. :o

You look like a kook when you put forth insane ideas that have no connection to scientific reality. And you make anyone who believes in the facts about 9/11 look like a kook by association.


And just what 'facts' about 911 should people believe? The same ones you believe? I'm not forcing anyone to believe anything I wrote above. It's easy to call people retarded and insane if you don't agree or reject a line of thinking. I should tell you that it's not just my line of thinking. You might want to check out this thread before you make too many more comments about 911:

http://gold-silver.us/forum/conspiracy-theories/911-wtc-nuclear-demolition-dimitri-khalezov-01-of-26/

You might even want to read the free book at this link:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/dropbox/Dimitri_Khalezov_Book_Third_Truth_911_free_11chapt ers.pdf

I won't be responding to your posts again until you back off on the ad-hominem labeling. It's beneath me to reciprocate with counter-labeling.


Hatha

[Fortyone]

Think how much energy it would take to vaporize a sphere of granite 50 meters in diameter. This is a nuclear bomb placed in solid granite--the bedrock under those buildings. This is not an atmospheric blast. This is an underground blast. One whose path of least resistance is the steel building above it, so most of its shock wave is directed up--through the building. Not in all directions like an atmospheric blast. If you do some research on nuclear blasts, you'll appreciate the difference between an underground blast and and an atmospheric blast.

It's because of what you believe, and what you don't know that they were able to set off three nuclear blasts in lower Manhattan, and people still have difficulty grasping that. It's such a big lie that nobody would believe the truth. And the airplane story--about how jet fuel brough down the buildings. How many times was that repeated? How many times did you see a big jet flying into the WTC buildings? How many thousands of times did you see that? I can't blame you for believing that airplanes brought down the buildings. Now it's time to turn your brain back on and try to figure out what really happened. I know how all that conditioning can put up huge resistance to considering something that fits the facts together better.

As for sounding like a retard, here's something Gandhi said:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Gandhi


Hatha


Firstly, I have worked around Nukes while in the military.Secondly, You have no clue what you are talking about.Again, a 150kt weapon 50 meters under the ground would create a massive crater. Manhattan is an Island,so your NOT going to get the thing 50meters under the building in the first place, you would be in WATER.And no, Im not buying they put the thing there in the 1970s to blow it up 30 years later.

[Phoenix]

(unbelievably unscientific garbage deleted)

As for sounding like a retard


After being told at least twice that your ideas are unsound, you persist. You no longer "sound" like a retard.

[Phoenix]

And just what 'facts' about 911 should people believe?


The facts based on reality and consistent with known or theoretical science.

A "150kt" detonation "50 meters" underground is in no way consistent with even the most fantastic theories.




And just what 'facts' about 911 should people believe?
The same ones you believe?


Actually, yes. Since I adhere only to fact-based Truth, people should indeed agree with me.




I'm not forcing anyone to believe anything I wrote above.


You are making those of us who reject the official tale but adhere to science in trying to explain it look like kooks by association.

"See! See! These 9/11 Truthers are nuts. 'Nuclear weapons' at ground zero, they're all insane!"




It's easy to call people retarded and insane if you don't agree or reject a line of thinking.


I call it like it is.

You obviously know nothing about the effects of nuclear weapons or even basic physics based on your insistence that something which cannot occur actually did occur.




I should tell you that it's not just my line of thinking. You might want to check out this thread before you make too many more comments about 911:

http://gold-silver.us/forum/conspiracy-theories/911-wtc-nuclear-demolition-dimitri-khalezov-01-of-26/

You might even want to read the free book at this link:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/dropbox/Dimitri_Khalezov_Book_Third_Truth_911_free_11chapt ers.pdf


The guy is a madman or professional liar, on the order of "Sorcha Faal."




I won't be responding to your posts again until you back off on the ad-hominem labeling. It's beneath me to reciprocate with counter-labeling.


You have neither facts nor credible insults to use against me.

[Joe King]

Think how much energy it would take to vaporize a sphere of granite 50 meters in diameter. This is a nuclear bomb placed in solid granite--the bedrock under those buildings. This is not an atmospheric blast. This is an underground blast. One whose path of least resistance is the steel building above it, so most of its shock wave is directed up--through the building. Not in all directions like an atmospheric blast. If you do some research on nuclear blasts, you'll appreciate the difference between an underground blast and and an atmospheric blast.

It's because of what you believe, and what you don't know that they were able to set off three nuclear blasts in lower Manhattan, and people still have difficulty grasping that. It's such a big lie that nobody would believe the truth. And the airplane story--about how jet fuel brough down the buildings. How many times was that repeated? How many times did you see a big jet flying into the WTC buildings? How many thousands of times did you see that? I can't blame you for believing that airplanes brought down the buildings. Now it's time to turn your brain back on and try to figure out what really happened. I know how all that conditioning can put up huge resistance to considering something that fits the facts together better.

As for sounding like a retard, here's something Gandhi said:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Gandhi


Hatha

The only problem is that there isn't any granite under the WTC site, as it was built on reclaimed land that at one time had been part of the Hudson River.
Which is why they needed the "bathtub" structure to begin with.

An atomic blast would have liquefied the ground under all the buildings in lower Manhattan. Not just in a 208' x 208' area.
i.e. it'd be similar to what shockwaves from an earthquake can do to soil that has buildings built upon it.
They'd have all come down.

As I said, if you would want people new to all this to listen to any of it, you can't be talking the atomic blast theory of demolishing the WTC.......and especially not 3 of them.
They'll just quit listening and tend to believe the gov story even more.

Until you can show tangible evidence of what you say, you'd be better off keeping it as a "pet theory" as opposed to presenting it as fact.

[Hatha Sunahara]

OK, Phoenix, so you think the ideas I've proposed are insane, and that I'm a retard, and that all the evidence I considered doesn't support the conclusion that WTC buildings were demolished by nuclear blasts. Obviously you think you know what DIDN'T happen on 911.

I'd be interested in hearing what you think DID happen on 911? What brought down those buildings if it wasn't underground nuclear explosions? Tell us how much more (or less) you know about it. I'm not interested in arguing with you about it, I just want to know what you think happened. God knows, we all might just learn something.


Hatha

[Phoenix]

I'd be interested in hearing what you think DID happen on 911? What brought down those buildings if it wasn't underground nuclear explosions? Tell us how much more (or less) you know about it. I'm not interested in arguing with you about it, I just want to know what you think happened. God knows, we all might just learn something.


Since the primary forensic evidence was sequestered and most of it then shipped to China as fast as humanly possible, we only have mostly just secondary evidence (videos, photos, eyewitness accounts) to determine what happened. We can't test the metal, the concrete, the glass, the bodies, and so on, to determine to a certainty what actually happened.

There has been some testing on the dust blown all over Manhattan, and nanoscale particles found point to a very high-tech explosive whose technology is controlled only by the US Government.

What happened? Obviously, all three buildings were brought down by demolition. Internally placed explosives, hence, the collapse into footprint effect. Your "nuclear theory" doesn't work, not only due to the physics of a nuclear explosion or collapse into footprint, but because the collapse of the Twin Towers began well above street level, a series of demolition charges for many floors. We know "individuals" had pretty much unfettered access to the Towers for months before the attacks.

As for the molecular dissociation which seems to have occurred with the concrete of the Twin Towers (i.e., the disintegration into powder), and the unexplained phenomena of vehicles, etc., burned in geometric patterns, points to some sort of unconventional technology, beyond nuclear fission or fusion, that caused such effects. What? I don't know. I don't think anyone outside the US Government really knows about that. Plain old fire doesn't incinerate painted metal on cars while leaving rubber tires unscathed. And the pulverization of the concrete of the Twin Towers is inexplicable as a result of conventional collapse (there should have been a lot less dust, and a lot bigger pieces, with a consequently much higher debris hill at the bottom).

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

I'd be interested in hearing what you think DID happen on 911? What brought down those buildings if it wasn't underground nuclear explosions? Tell us how much more (or less) you know about it. I'm not interested in arguing with you about it, I just want to know what you think happened. God knows, we all might just learn something.


Since the primary forensic evidence was sequestered and most of it then shipped to China as fast as humanly possible, we only have mostly just secondary evidence (videos, photos, eyewitness accounts) to determine what happened. We can't test the metal, the concrete, the glass, the bodies, and so on, to determine to a certainty what actually happened.

There has been some testing on the dust blown all over Manhattan, and nanoscale particles found point to a very high-tech explosive whose technology is controlled only by the US Government.

What happened? Obviously, all three buildings were brought down by demolition. Internally placed explosives, hence, the collapse into footprint effect. Your "nuclear theory" doesn't work, not only due to the physics of a nuclear explosion or collapse into footprint, but because the collapse of the Twin Towers began well above street level, a series of demolition charges for many floors. We know "individuals" had pretty much unfettered access to the Towers for months before the attacks.

As for the molecular dissociation which seems to have occurred with the concrete of the Twin Towers (i.e., the disintegration into powder), and the unexplained phenomena of vehicles, etc., burned in geometric patterns, points to some sort of unconventional technology, beyond nuclear fission or fusion, that caused such effects. What? I don't know. I don't think anyone outside the US Government really knows about that. Plain old fire doesn't incinerate painted metal on cars while leaving rubber tires unscathed. And the pulverization of the concrete of the Twin Towers is inexplicable as a result of conventional collapse (there should have been a lot less dust, and a lot bigger pieces, with a consequently much higher debris hill at the bottom).


Have you found a pre-2001 dictionary yet? What is the definition of GROUND ZERO????

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/ed_ward/use_of_abombs.htm


Declassified August 1958: "Mere fact that the U. S. has developed atomic munitions suitable for use in demolition work." Declassified January 1967, "The fact that we are interested in and are continuing studies on a weapon for minimizing the emerging flux of neutrons and internal induced activity." Declassified March 1976, "The fact of weapon laboratory interest in Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) devices. The fact of successful development of MRR devices."


The factual evidence indicates that our government is using and has used 3rd or possibly 4th generation hydrogen bombs domestically and internationally. The evidence for international usage is not quite as strong as the domestic usage, but when domestic usage is considered, the international usage seems inescapable. The process of exclusion based on the known facts leaves only one viable option for the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings - a relatively pure hydrogen bomb.


click for full size
Just some of the facts are: widespread cancer in the responders, molten steel, melted cars, steel beams hurled hundreds of feet, aerosolized metals, vaporized steel witnessed and video, aerosolized and pulverized concrete, elevated tritium levels, vanishing (vaporized) victims, only sliver fragments of victims on roof tops, EMP - Electro Magnetic Pulse effects on communications, hundreds of eyewitness testimony of ancillary explosions by heroic rescuers and victims, massive dispersal of debris, demolition expert states hydrogen bomb needed for this type of demolition, audio of a massive explosion prior to collapse, video of ancillary explosions, audio of ancillary explosions, significant reduction in debris pile, ancillary thermate found in wreckage, shockwave of a mini yield nuclear blast knocked people off their feet, vaporization of 200,000 gallons of water, removal of wreckage without investigation, only remnants of fire in one tower minutes after the plane collision, unprecedented history of 3 skyscrapers collapsing secondary to fire, early miscalculation stating WTC building 7 'pulled', towers fall at demolition or free fall speed, foreknowledge of WTC 7 immediate collapse, slow-motion video evidence of plane appendage with smoke and explosion immediately prior to impact of both planes, unprecedented NORAD non response to variant flights, FEMA drill scheduled for same day, military 'exercise' of exactly what was taking place to prevent NORAD response, most of NORAD protection planes sent far away in another 'exercise' to prevent response, prevention of examination of wreckage by those assigned to investigate, seismic evidence of a mini yield nuclear explosion, Cheney takes over NORAD response command, Cheney prevents NORAD response, WTC towers designed for 757 collision and fire, 911 used falsely for previously planned war, government fabrication of 'evidence' correlation for starting war, hundreds of people found themselves trapped by locked doors and missing escape routes above and below the impact zone, and not all inclusively, but finally, Bush brands anyone noting any of these facts a terrorist.

The spectrum and percentages of cancer are massive. There are at least 4 classifications of blood-cell cancers: leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkin's and myeloma. There are many more classifications of soft tissue cancers. There is brain cancer. There is breast cancer. For most of these there are subclassifications of many different types of specific cancer in each, so far not publicly disclosed. There are huge percentages of respiratory distress and loss of function. Multiple reports of 'irregular cycles' (miscarriages?). Most likely there will be several more types of cancer to follow. In particular, responders should be checked for thyroid cancer and function. There has been no noting of birth defects which also needs to be done. There is one thing and only one thing that can cause all these cancers and problems - RADIATION.

[Phoenix]

Have you found a pre-2001 dictionary yet? What is the definition of GROUND ZERO????


That's your "proof," that "ground zero" only means "site of a nuclear explosion"?

::) ::)

Why don't you read this, instead of a dictionary:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/




Main Entry: <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ground%20zero">ground zero</a>
Function: noun
Date: 1946

1 : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs
2 : the center or origin of rapid, intense, or violent activity or change; broadly : center 2a <the party town that served as ground zero for those corporate…bashes — Rich Eisen>
3 : the very beginning : square one

[Hatha Sunahara]

Phoenix, do you think it was only the concrete in the WTC that got pulverized? What sort of unknown technology do you think did that? Do you have any guesses? If it was only the concrete that got pulverized, what happened to all the steel in the buildings? After the dust cleared, did the pile of rubble at the base of the buildings seem a bit small?

You've probably read stories of molten metal in the basement of the WTC towers. Do you believe those stories? What do you suppose caused all that steel to melt and stay hot for months after the event?

Do you have any guesses about who really did 911?

Hatha

[Fortyone]

Phoenix, do you think it was only the concrete in the WTC that got pulverized? What sort of unknown technology do you think did that? Do you have any guesses? If it was only the concrete that got pulverized, what happened to all the steel in the buildings? After the dust cleared, did the pile of rubble at the base of the buildings seem a bit small?

You've probably read stories of molten metal in the basement of the WTC towers. Do you believe those stories? What do you suppose caused all that steel to melt and stay hot for months after the event?

Do you have any guesses about who really did 911?

Hatha


Hatha, I believe your intentions are good, but your lack of knowledge of nuclear physics is not helping your cause. Read some physics and youll understand more.

[Phoenix]

Phoenix, do you think it was only the concrete in the WTC that got pulverized? What sort of unknown technology do you think did that? Do you have any guesses?


I don't know, but probably some sort of directed energy or "wave" weapon. Something Tesla dreamed up.




If it was only the concrete that got pulverized, what happened to all the steel in the buildings? After the dust cleared, did the pile of rubble at the base of the buildings seem a bit small?


Yes, of course, but the steel wasn't missing...it was just shipped to China pronto so no one could have a chance to test it for "kerosene fires."




You've probably read stories of molten metal in the basement of the WTC towers. Do you believe those stories? What do you suppose caused all that steel to melt and stay hot for months after the event?


No, I do not. They're in the same category as the "pod" on the plane.

Even if true, nuclear fission or fusion (thermonuclear) weapons would not cause such an effect.




Do you have any guesses about who really did 911?


The US "intelligence community," along with assistance from the Mossad and possibly MI-6. De facto President Cheney obviously knew what was going on.

[cedarchopper]

I don't rule out the possibility that some kind of nukes were used to demolish the WTC site. But aircraft did fly into the towers...after the 1st tower was hit, 1000's of eyewitnesses watched the 2nd aircraft strike...it don't think everybody was delusional or that photoshopping is the most probable scenario.

[I am me, I am free]

I don't rule out the possibility that some kind of nukes were used to demolish the WTC site. But aircraft did fly into the towers...after the 1st tower was hit, 1000's of eyewitnesses watched the 2nd aircraft strike...it don't think everybody was delusional or that photoshopping is the most probable scenario.



Have you considered the possibility of a holographic projection?

If you were to stage the mother of all colossal con jobs, wouldn't you pull out all your hidden technology toys to make sure the production came off without a hitch??

Not saying that there were no planes which struck the WTC, just allowing for the possibility that something was staged with technology we are unaware of at this time. Way too many anomalies to accept ANY pat answers - including the UFOs over the site.

[Serpo]

Do you realize how retarded this makes you look?


Yes. And do you understand how you look?


Be careful. It's all about how we look. It's not about any ideas we propose.



Your "ideas" are insane. 150Kt nuclear weapon "50 meters" underneath the Twin Towers. :o

You look like a kook when you put forth insane ideas that have no connection to scientific reality. And you make anyone who believes in the facts about 9/11 look like a kook by association.


And just what 'facts' about 911 should people believe? The same ones you believe? I'm not forcing anyone to believe anything I wrote above. It's easy to call people retarded and insane if you don't agree or reject a line of thinking. I should tell you that it's not just my line of thinking. You might want to check out this thread before you make too many more comments about 911:

http://gold-silver.us/forum/conspiracy-theories/911-wtc-nuclear-demolition-dimitri-khalezov-01-of-26/

You might even want to read the free book at this link:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/dropbox/Dimitri_Khalezov_Book_Third_Truth_911_free_11chapt ers.pdf

I won't be responding to your posts again until you back off on the ad-hominem labeling. It's beneath me to reciprocate with counter-labeling.


Hatha



tHANKS FOR THE E BOOK

Looks like you have your hands full here....I must be a retard too

[Phoenix]

I don't rule out the possibility that some kind of nukes were used to demolish the WTC site. But aircraft did fly into the towers...after the 1st tower was hit, 1000's of eyewitnesses watched the 2nd aircraft strike...it don't think everybody was delusional or that photoshopping is the most probable scenario.



Have you considered the possibility of a holographic projection?

If you were to stage the mother of all colossal con jobs, wouldn't you pull out all your hidden technology toys to make sure the production came off without a hitch??

Not saying that there were no planes which struck the WTC, just allowing for the possibility that something was staged with technology we are unaware of at this time. Way too many anomalies to accept ANY pat answers - including the UFOs over the site.


Were four large turbofans ever actually found near Ground Zero? We know two were not found near the Pentagon.

[Phoenix]

I must be a retard too


If you insist that "nuclear weapons 50 meters underground" brought down the Twin Towers, after having it explained it is physically impossible to occur as stated, then yes, you are a retard.

[Joe King]

I don't rule out the possibility that some kind of nukes were used to demolish the WTC site. But aircraft did fly into the towers...after the 1st tower was hit, 1000's of eyewitnesses watched the 2nd aircraft strike...it don't think everybody was delusional or that photoshopping is the most probable scenario.



Have you considered the possibility of a holographic projection?

If you were to stage the mother of all colossal con jobs, wouldn't you pull out all your hidden technology toys to make sure the production came off without a hitch??

Not saying that there were no planes which struck the WTC, just allowing for the possibility that something was staged with technology we are unaware of at this time. Way too many anomalies to accept ANY pat answers - including the UFOs over the site.


Were four large turbofans ever actually found near Ground Zero? We know two were not found near the Pentagon.
Yea, that.
I've also always wondered what was in all the surveillance video that has never been released.

Here you have one of the most high security military buildings there is, yet there seems to have been only one functioning security camera anywhere even close to the building that day and it mysteriously didn't capture the plane, but did capture the explosion. ::)
I mean, does anyone have to be a rocket scientist to know they're lying?

C'mon gov. Just make with the footage already.
Unless of course it doesn't show it was a 757. At which point I totally understand not making with the vid.

[Fudup]

Isn't there a whole board for this here somewhere?

Oh yeah.

http://gold-silver.us/forum/911-28/

[vacuum]

I've never seen such a discussion about what truly brought the towers down before, and therefore I've never shared what actually happened to anyone. Since there seem to be people here that understand the question, I'll share what I believe really happened.

This is so far removed from standard theories that I'm just going to state it.

What caused the towers to come down was indeed an "exotic" but well-known technology, called a scalar weapon. A scalar weapon interferes scalar waves at a certain point in space, which cause seemingly amazing effects at that location. A scalar wave is unknown to mainstream science, and was discovered by tesla and later developed by the former soviet union. It is a longitudinal electromagnetic wave, rather than a transverse electromagnetic wave. Longitudinal em waves are made when there is a sudden impulse of electric field in one direction, for example in the impulse and spark-gap experiments tesla worked on in his later career. Longitudinal waves move through all matter (including any amount of metal), and are almost completely indetectable. When two longitudinal waves interfere, they can create (or remove) photons.

These interferometers are what is used to control the weather, by either creating areas of high or low pressure at will, at a distance. This technology can also be used to dissociate matter removing photons instead of creating them. This negative energy causes matter to fall apart. Hence it can cause steel to disintegrate. Bearden claims this is what the Russians did to Challenger: they weakened the metal from a distance.

This dissociation of matter is where all these "overunity" watergas cars are coming from. People are unwittingly generating these waves causing the molecule to fall apart.

The waves themselves can can be generated in a number of ways: plasmas (charged particles) with pressure waves will create them, a sphere where an impulse of current fed to it will create them (anyone familiar with antennas knows this will do nothing in conventional theory), two strong electromagnetic fields that cancel each other out will create these waves. After all, if these waves can create transverse electromagnetic waves, then transverse waves canceling each other create longitudinal waves (the energy just doesn't disappear when electromagnetic waves cancel). The latter is how http://www.doctorkoontz.com/ did his simple bifilar experiment. Dr Konstantin shows how to do it with a sphere and an impulse. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Konstantin_Meyl

Tom Bearden (http://cheniere.org/) has a lot of information that I've just discussed.

Now that you understand a little of the background technology (sorry I explained it so poorly), its easy to see how the towers were taken down. Its been fully documented by Dr Judy Wood: http://www.drjudywood.com/
You can listen to an interview of hers here:
http://audio.achieveradio.com/vortex-net-tech/Oct-18-2008-at-10-00AM---Vortex-Net-Technology.mp3

Here is some really bizzare stuff on her website:
http://i33.tinypic.com/xqmbdw.jpg
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/618/dustspire.gif

She collects all the strange evidence that looks perplexing until you realize it has all the aspects of what I just discussed. I've been interested in this field since before 911 happened, and to me this was an obvious explanation, but to try to explain it to anyone else until now was pointless...hopefully this post hasn't been pointless.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Thanks Serpo. I'm not as good at this as Khalezov. There is a 36 page long thread on Godlike Productions that I follow, where Khalezov is the main event.

As for the people who tell me I need to learn physics--I started reading about nuclear physics when I was in high school in the 1960s. I know the physics really well. What I was ignorant of until recently were the calculations associated with using the right sized nuclear weapon to achieve a particular desired result. Khalezov has been very helpful with this. There is something that few, if any of us know, and that is how advanced nuclear weapons technology has become. I don't think anybody on this forum, myself included, has any idea what the range of sizes and types of nuclear weapons that can be used. Until recently, I thought that big explosions were all conventional explosives because I was unaware of what happens in a nuclear blast. But now I think that a lot of big blasts were nuclear--such as the Marine Barracks explosion in Beirut in 1983, the OKC Murrah building, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the Sari Club in Bali in 2001, the Australian Embassy blast in Jakarta, the Taba Hilton Blast, whatever happened in Fallujah Iraq in 2004, and the Ryongchon blast in North Korea, as well as the Rafiq Hariri assassination in Beirut in Feb 2005--were all nuclear--either mini nukes, or bunker busters. None done by terrorists--only by NGO black ops teams working for and with governments. People who think that the only wartime use of nuclear weapons was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in for a big surprise. I'm not going to try to convince anyone of this. People who are interested will have to do their own research. We have had for a long time an ongoing limited nuclear war engaged in by the US and Israel, and their enemies. The media covers them up by claiming they are car bombs, implying conventional explosives, but the blasts are too big--leaving huge craters in some cases. 911 seems to be the most elaborate, and most ambitious of these nuclear events. If people don't wake up to this, we may all go up in a fireball because the people doing this are sociopaths. Ariel Sharon once boasted 'The Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches." Did anyone wonder what we was talking about?

Hatha

[Hatha Sunahara]

I see a clear demonstration of the 'crush zone' that Khalezov talks about in the video in Vacuum's post above. It's the video of the 'spire' that stood momentarily in the collapse of the WTC North Tower. You can see clearly how the piece of the building that remained in tact is pushed out, as if by a breeze, and then before your eyes, it turns to dust and the dust starts to fall. The exact same thing happened to the entire WTC 7 building around 5PM on 9/11. That crushing force is analogous to the blast wave of an atmospheric blast, but from an underground explosion.

Khalezov shows a video where you can clearly see one of the WTC towers shake, then about 10 seconds later, the building turns to dust. It apparently takes about 10 seconds for that 'crush zone' to reach its full extent. The plumes of debris sure look a lot like the Storax Sedan test.

I've read about Bearden's Scalar Weapons, and once thought that might have been what brought the WTC towers down. Scalar weapons are electromagnetic, and I don't think the technology exists to aim them precisely. HAARP is a scalar device, and I think it can be used to steer hurricanes and for 'psychological tuning' in large areas, but not for destroying large steel buildings. They would have a huge margin for error, and might possibly not have worked well enough for the objectives of the planners of 911.

Hatha

[Phoenix]

Bearden claims this is what the Russians did to Challenger: they weakened the metal from a distance.


I appreciate your post, and believe that "scalar weapons" are the number one suspect for the "exotic" effects we saw.

However, this assertion by Bearden just makes him look like a kook. Challenger went boom because the Bush-Reagan regime insisted that Challenger be launched despite Morton-Thiokol engineers' warnings that the o-rings in the SRBs would not perform at sufficient levels in the cold weather of the day. The o-ring failed, a jet of hot gasses hit the ET, and kaboom when the jet cut through to the hydrogen inside.

[Phoenix]

As for the people who tell me I need to learn physics--I started reading about nuclear physics when I was in high school in the 1960s. I know the physics really well.


When you claim a 150kt blast "50 meters" underground would be contained, uh, no, you don't know the physics.

[Phoenix]

I don't think the technology exists to aim them precisely.


But you believe "150kt" explosions underneath the Twin Towers could:

1) bring them down in their own footprints;
2) make them disintegrate TOP DOWN.

::)

The E-4(s) flying near the Twin Towers that morning were the likely source of whatever energy weapon was used, and I don't see any reason a phased array antenna could not "steer" the energy towards the target, just like phased array antennae do for the Aegis system on cruisers and destroyers.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Phoenix--I suggest you either read Khalezov's book at the link I inserted above, or watch his videos where he explains the size and placement of the nuclear demolition devices used. You don't need to attack me for believing something that I think makes sense.

If you keep a closed mind, and you don't make yourself aware of the details of this explanation you will appear ignorant and your arguments will be ineffective. You don't have to believe any of it, or agree with anything, just make yourself aware of the argument for nuclear demolition. You might find yourself agreeing with it if you really know what you claim to know. God knows, you might learn something from making yourself aware of this argument instead of blindly rejecting it because you have some preconceived bias against it.

I'm not going to make an effort to convince you of anything or relieve you from doing your homework when you make an argument. If you want to make an effective argument, you have to know a little more about what you are arguing against. The nuclear demolition was a part of the building permit issued by New York City--not by me. Do us all a favor and go and look at the evidence Khalezov presents. Then I'd be happy to discuss this with you.


Go here:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/44972/Dimitri_Khalezov___WTC_Nuclear_Demolition_1_26/

Watch the videos, or read his book--free here:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/dropbox/Dimitri_Khalezov_Book_Third_Truth_911_free_11chapt ers.pdf



Hatha

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

I don't rule out the possibility that some kind of nukes were used to demolish the WTC site. But aircraft did fly into the towers...after the 1st tower was hit, 1000's of eyewitnesses watched the 2nd aircraft strike...it don't think everybody was delusional or that photoshopping is the most probable scenario.



I have yet to find even ONE hi-resolution photo of any airliner approaching the WTC. They are all screenshots from the news media.

I have, however, found several hi-resolution shots of the towers AFTER they were hit. Is it mere coincidence that no one was able to capture this plane flying in while they were documenting this event in amateur fashion?

And to be fair, not EVERYONE who was there was a witness to any planes. There are several witnesses who said it was a bomb that went off. Another lady says she didn't see a plane it looked like it came from inside.

You can view the eye-witness testimony as it happened at www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive. See what people were saying before there was a chance to make the story kosher.

News anchors in the studio watch a plane fly into a building while the correspondent on the street saw nothing. Nevermind that the screen went black right before that plane entered the shot.

Another curious shot is the camera showing the whole bay sans any airplane. The camera zooms in and suddenly the plane hits. The timing is way off.

Most of Youtube amateur footage is hosted on the Camera Planet archive. These are clips < 30 seconds. I do not trust this Camera Planet channel. All these videos seem edited down. Where are the originals??

[Phoenix]

Phoenix--I suggest you either read Khalezov's book at the link I inserted above, or watch his videos where he explains the size and placement of the nuclear demolition devices used. You don't need to attack me for believing something that I think makes sense.


I've come across this guy in the past, reviewed some of it, and rejected it once he started discussing impossible physics.



The nuclear demolition was a part of the building permit issued by New York City--not by me.


It shouldn't be hard to post a copy of this "building permit" right?

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

She collects all the strange evidence that looks perplexing until you realize it has all the aspects of what I just discussed. I've been interested in this field since before 911 happened, and to me this was an obvious explanation, but to try to explain it to anyone else until now was pointless...hopefully this post hasn't been pointless.




http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/618/dustspire.gif

Not pointless in the least. Your steel to dust gif from Dr Judy Wood had me looking at the collapse a little differently.

Once you understand that you are watching steel turn to dust before your eyes, all the collapse shots look different.

For example, check out 0:15 into this one. YOU LITERALLY SEE STEEL DUSTIFY BEFORE YOUR EYES!

http://www.youtube.com/v/ZR24kKaToio&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1

[Hatha Sunahara]

Thank you Britches for the post. I started looking at the steel to dust transition after I read Khalezov's explanation.

And Phoenix--you've spoken about impossible physics several times now. What is impossible about detonating a 150KT thermonuclear demolition device 50 meters below the bottom of a building that is embedded in granite? How big do you think a nuclear blast is? Do you know the difference between an underground and an atmospheric blast? Since you claim it is impossible physics, why don't you explain exactly what is impossible about this scenario?

Are you sure you aren't denying this idea for a different reason? Like for example the reason most people have--that it would open up a lot of unanswered questions that would indict their government for committing a crime against its own people? Most people can see that outcome in a lot on 911 scenarios, so they reflexively reject it because that would destroy the fabric of their beliefs about their government and about civilization entirely. They don't want to go there regardless how much they want to know the truth. It's safer just to go along with a lie.

Hatha

[Phoenix]

And Phoenix--you've spoken about impossible physics several times now. What is impossible about detonating a 150KT thermonuclear demolition device 50 meters below the bottom of a building that is embedded in granite?


The fireball would exceed the depth stated, resulting in much of the blast energy being exhibited on the area around the detonation. It's so simple, but you can't get that for some reason.

Further, a nuclear detonation would not - I repeat, not - cause collapse into footprint. The towers would have collapsed starting at their bases, falling over like a tree into other buildings.




Do you know the difference between an underground and an atmospheric blast?


Do not patronize me.




Are you sure you aren't denying this idea for a different reason? Like for example the reason most people have--that it would open up a lot of unanswered questions that would indict their government for committing a crime against its own people?


Are you sure you're not a Zionist agent trying to make all people who believe in 9/11 Truth look like kooks? If not, you might as well be. Pushing and pushing asinine theories about "nuclear weapons" on 9/11 is nut-job work. It's OK for you to have considered it initially, but once it was explained that it could not have worked, you should have dropped it. But you insist.




Most people can see that outcome in a lot on 911 scenarios, so they reflexively reject it because that would destroy the fabric of their beliefs about their government and about civilization entirely. They don't want to go there regardless how much they want to know the truth. It's safer just to go along with a lie.


People do not want the Truth under any circumstances, and that includes you.

[FunnyMoney]

People do not want the Truth under any circumstances...


Most people, yes, I completely agree. But there are a few (some at this forum) who do want the truth. But in this case, that's not really going to help. Just like JFK, it's not the first step to know exactly to the detail what took place - the first step is to know that federal officials lied, have hidden the clues, and have provided an explanation which can simply not be.

Getting at the truth is a goal, the ultimate goal even, but first people must come to recognize in large numbers that the official story is completely outside the realm of any possibility and is entirely contrary to the universal laws of physics.

2 planes could not have brought down these 3 buildings in the manner that they collapsed, it is 100% impossible. Until this becomes the primary point of consensus among most, if not all scientists and engineers worldwide, it's fruitless to even discuss anything else - and worse, those discussions become a distraction from that prerequisite.

[Fortyone]

Thank you Britches for the post. I started looking at the steel to dust transition after I read Khalezov's explanation.

And Phoenix--you've spoken about impossible physics several times now. What is impossible about detonating a 150KT thermonuclear demolition device 50 meters below the bottom of a building that is embedded in granite? How big do you think a nuclear blast is? Do you know the difference between an underground and an atmospheric blast? Since you claim it is impossible physics, why don't you explain exactly what is impossible about this scenario?

Are you sure you aren't denying this idea for a different reason? Like for example the reason most people have--that it would open up a lot of unanswered questions that would indict their government for committing a crime against its own people? Most people can see that outcome in a lot on 911 scenarios, so they reflexively reject it because that would destroy the fabric of their beliefs about their government and about civilization entirely. They don't want to go there regardless how much they want to know the truth. It's safer just to go along with a lie.

Hatha



Why dont you read my post above on why its not feasible? Pretty plain and simple.

[Joe King]

The nuclear demolition was a part of the building permit issued by New York City--not by me.


It shouldn't be hard to post a copy of this "building permit" right?

I'd like to see that too.

Hartha, you do realize that by stating something like that, you're basicly saying that there are atomic bombs planted 50 meters under all buildings greater than 47 stories tall.
If not, why would that be "required" only at 3 buildings at the WTC site?

[Libertytree]

I never chime in on 9/11 threads but I will now.

I'm not a scientist or an engineer and have no knowledge of explosives or demolition, though I have done my fair share of reading material from all sides of this event. As a common lay man I have come to conclusions that seem more than apparent even if one isn't an expert.

To think, as the government would have us think, that a dozen or so towelheads with box cutters pulled this off is utterly laughable, the 3 Stooges would have had a better chance.

There are so many coincidences/holes in the official story that suspend or nullify common sense that it makes it impossible for me to believe. Also, having a track record at deception doesn't help their arguments either.

WT7......

While many may not agree on how it was accomplished, it was accomplished and the how will be a long time coming before it's known.

As was stated earlier, it's unfathomable for most people to even begin to grasp the thought that their government was in any way involved in this atrocity and until those blinders can be removed TPTB will continue pissing on the people and they will gladly believe it's raining.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Forty One--I read your post above. You agree with Phoenix that a nuclear bomb would make a 'huge crater'.

I am repeating an argument made by Dimitri Khalezov, which, if it is wrong, makes me wrong, but I don't believe this argument is wrong. Rather than repeating all the details of this argument, I provided links to stuff Khalezov has written, and to the videos where he explains this whole scenario.

It is a long story, and the videos take up four hours if you watch all of them. This must be too much of a time investment for most people. There is one place where you can get the entire argument in detail in about 10 minutes provided you don't have an attention deficit disorder, and that is here:

http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/atomic-demolition-wtc-controlled-demolition.html

For those people who claim that a nuclear bomb would make a huge crater in granite bedrock, I'll believe you if you present some credentials for being an expert on nuclear explosions. Otherwise, I'll believe Khalezov.

And the comment about being a Zionist shill--I'll just ignore that.

Hatha

[Hatha Sunahara]

Here's a graphic of the demolition:

http://gold-silver.us/forum/gallery/472_20_08_10_10_13_25.jpeg

You can read the SHORT explanation that goes with this here:

http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/atomic-demolition-wtc-controlled-demolition.html

Hatha

[Phoenix]

For those people who claim that a nuclear bomb would make a huge crater in granite bedrock, I'll believe you if you present some credentials for being an expert on nuclear explosions. Otherwise, I'll believe Khalezov.


So you are involved in a cult of personality? He's conned you into believing him based on his "credentials"? If I can present you a Ph.D. in geology, would you believe me when I tell you the Earth is flat?

Do you understand the temperature of the fireball? What is the evaporation point of granite? Do you understand the fireball is much hotter?

WHAT is difficult to understand that the fireball of a "150kt" (not 15kt or less) would be wider than 100 meters in diameter, blowing out through the surface?

[Hatha Sunahara]

Are you sure you're not a Zionist agent trying to make all people who believe in 9/11 Truth look like kooks? If not, you might as well be. Pushing and pushing asinine theories about "nuclear weapons" on 9/11 is nut-job work. It's OK for you to have considered it initially, but once it was explained that it could not have worked, you should have dropped it. But you insist.

...So you are involved in a cult of personality? He's conned you into believing him based on his "credentials"? If I can present you a Ph.D. in geology, would you believe me when I tell you the Earth is flat?

Is this your argument? It sounds like a diatribe against the people making the argument--not a rebuttal. I haven't heard any argument from you yet. Only a lot of name-calling. Retard, Kook, NutJob, insane, Zionist agent, liar, madman, personality cultist. And now I should dismiss this idea because you have explained to me that it cannot work? Khalezov has at least presented some credentials. You have not. Why should I believe you are a bigger expert than Khalezov?

You seem to have a reflex to attack the arguer rather than the argument. That is a tactic used by people who cannot argue against an idea and persuade others not to believe it. That is an appeal to ignorance. And your 'facts' are based on bald assertions, with nothing real backing them up--almost as if you made them up as you go along. You are actually encouraging FortyOne and Joe King to believe that there is no granite under the buildings in Lower Manhattan.

Please, tell us how you became an expert on nuclear detonations. Give us a sound rebuttal to what Khalezov has to say. How big a crater would a 150 KT nuke make? Show us your calculations--show us whatever source you used to make this bald assertion that such a nuke would make a fireball that would rise above the surface of the earth. Have you looked at pictures of the Storax Sedan nuclear test? Do they look remotely like what you saw on TV of the WTC towers turning to dust?

Here is what you say you believe:



Since the primary forensic evidence was sequestered and most of it then shipped to China as fast as humanly possible, we only have mostly just secondary evidence (videos, photos, eyewitness accounts) to determine what happened. We can't test the metal, the concrete, the glass, the bodies, and so on, to determine to a certainty what actually happened.

There has been some testing on the dust blown all over Manhattan, and nanoscale particles found point to a very high-tech explosive whose technology is controlled only by the US Government.

What happened? Obviously, all three buildings were brought down by demolition. Internally placed explosives, hence, the collapse into footprint effect. Your "nuclear theory" doesn't work, not only due to the physics of a nuclear explosion or collapse into footprint, but because the collapse of the Twin Towers began well above street level, a series of demolition charges for many floors. We know "individuals" had pretty much unfettered access to the Towers for months before the attacks.

As for the molecular dissociation which seems to have occurred with the concrete of the Twin Towers (i.e., the disintegration into powder), and the unexplained phenomena of vehicles, etc., burned in geometric patterns, points to some sort of unconventional technology, beyond nuclear fission or fusion, that caused such effects. What? I don't know. I don't think anyone outside the US Government really knows about that. Plain old fire doesn't incinerate painted metal on cars while leaving rubber tires unscathed. And the pulverization of the concrete of the Twin Towers is inexplicable as a result of conventional collapse (there should have been a lot less dust, and a lot bigger pieces, with a consequently much higher debris hill at the bottom).


I won't call you any names for believing this. But it doesn't offer an explanation of what happened, other than some unknown high tech explosive technology controlled by the US Government. Nuclear devices are 'high tech explosive technology controlled by the US Government.' And if you go in that direction, a whole lot of questions suddenly acquire a plausible, holistic, credible explanation. But you categorically rule out nuclear demolition. And you want everybody else to as well. I'm not going to rule out a nuclear demolition. Not based on anything you've put forth here.

Please try to convince me by calling me some more names and throwing out more labels at me. That might be an effective tactic with most people--but not with me.

Hatha

[Phoenix]

Khalezov has at least presented some credentials.


And those are?



How big a crater would a 150 KT nuke make?


150kt would cause approximately a 200 meter fireball, twice the distance needed to break through the surface (based on your radius of 50 meters).

If you want the calculations, do them yourself with information here:

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/nukeffct/index.html