• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Thermonuclear devices?

Puggy

Thinker
Puggy
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
172
Just wanted to get your opinions on some stuff.

I've been debating this CTist for a while. He's been very active in the university doing showings of all the "Truut Movement" videos. So as a skeptic and scientifically minded person, I feel it is my obligation to balance the equation.

After sending him a link to Gravy's "World record for a high-rise steel structure for CD is..." thread, he responded:

Why nobody mentions the thermonuclear devices?
if there was any specialist on the subject there I'm sure it would
have come up...

Yes it was a part top cut (about the height of the impact)
and part bottom cut by the hydrogen bomb. Send them (JREF) this link
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm)

Nobody sees the evidence of the upward energy projected by the bottom
explosion? you should see : "911 Eyewitness"
Does it not amaze you that in the case of one of the towers the top
had already achieved an angle of approx. 10deg yet it finds no
resistance to completely tip over against the stump of the building?
Have you seen the 10 story building their constructing right now on la
costera? the steel profiles get progressively thicker to the bottom.

Anyhow you post my objections I'm sure they would censor me...
Click to expand...

I'm sure this has mostly been debated here and on other sites, and will post my findings at this thread, as a public debunking of my friend's (and many other's) hypothesis, but any help would be appreciated.
 
Yes it was a part top cut (about the height of the impact)
and part bottom cut by the hydrogen bomb.
Click to expand...
stop right there

hydrogen bombs have a minimum yeild in the hundreds of kilotons, if an h-bomb was detonated at the WTC it would have pretty much vaporized both towers and destroyed most if not all of manhattan

a-bombs have a much smaller yeild all the way down to .1 kilotons, however low-yeild a-bombs emit a disproportionately large amount of radioation, the WTC site would probably still be hot today if that were the case
 
Last edited:
the end to all "new-que-leer" arguments is why there isn't any radiation in the area and NYC allow the hundreds of thousands of vistitors a year to Ground zero.
 
Puggy said:
Just wanted to get your opinions on some stuff.

I've been debating this CTist for a while. He's been very active in the university doing showings of all the "Truut Movement" videos. So as a skeptic and scientifically minded person, I feel it is my obligation to balance the equation.

After sending him a link to Gravy's "World record for a high-rise steel structure for CD is..." thread, he responded:



I'm sure this has mostly been debated here and on other sites, and will post my findings at this thread, as a public debunking of my friend's (and many other's) hypothesis, but any help would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

You said that this guy is german, am i right? If so - i would like to discuss the issue in german. Maybe you encourage him to sign up to JREF. :)
 
even a 100 tonne (thats 200,000 lbs) bomb, would have blown the bottom right out of the WTC, and likely taken out everything in a 100 yard radius. You are not talking 200,000lbs of explosives dispersed over a 110 storey building, but 200,000 lbs worth of explosives detonating at a single point, and all of its energy going out from that point, in all directions. JHC would they get real with this SHAITE.

TAM
 
Oliver said:
You said that this guy is german, am i right? If so - i would like to discuss the issue in german. Maybe you encourage him to sign up to JREF. :)
Click to expand...

That's what I'm trying to accomplish by posting his message here, so he feels compelled to sign up.

Lets see if it works.
 
No no no. It was a super secret gravimetric singlarity generator that created a black hole for 3/5 of a second to cause the suppoting structure of the towers to dissappear.

When are you people going to look at the logical evidence? There is no trace of this device because it consumes itself upon activation.
 
i suspect that even a small singularity would consume a good chunk of the eastern seaboard in 3/5 of a second
 
Not if its really really really small. Wake up and smell the coffee, dude...
 
dont ask me why i spent 15 minutes of my life doing this, but....

the smallest singularity that can form from self-gravitation has a mass of about 1,000,000 times that of the earth and an event horizon 17.6km across

i think someone would have noticed :)
 
I know what the bomb was! Remember that bomb the alien hunter set off at the end of Predator? :eek:
 
defaultdotxbe said:
stop right there

hydrogen bombs have a minimum yeild in the hundreds of kilotons, if an h-bomb was detonated at the WTC it would have pretty much vaporized both towers and destroyed most if not all of manhattan

a-bombs have a much smaller yeild all the way down to .1 kilotons, however low-yeild a-bombs emit a disproportionately large amount of radioation, the WTC site would probably still be hot today if that were the case
Click to expand...

True indeed. And about the easiest CT to disprove. Take a piece of filter paper, swipe it on anything in the vicinity of Ground Zero, and send it off to a lab for radiochemical analysis. If it isn't MANY times hotter than background then no nukes were used and one more wacky CT bites the dust. (But of course what CTer would want to perform any kind of experiment to prove or disprove a theory?)
 
Hamradioguy said:
True indeed. And about the easiest CT to disprove. Take a piece of filter paper, swipe it on anything in the vicinity of Ground Zero, and send it off to a lab for radiochemical analysis. If it isn't MANY times hotter than background then no nukes were used and one more wacky CT bites the dust. (But of course what CTer would want to perform any kind of experiment to prove or disprove a theory?)
Click to expand...
hell just bring a geiger counter to GZ

but your right, CTers wont do anything like that because then they cant dismiss the results, they just tell us "well you go do and prove me wrong" then you do it and they say your lying, lol
 
As I've stated in other posts, the idea that nukes were used by the government as part of the 9/11 conspiracy is probably the single dumbest thing I've ever heard.
 
shuize said:
As I've stated in other posts, the idea that nukes were used by the government as part of the 9/11 conspiracy is probably the single dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Click to expand...
Its really a tough call, they have so many contenders.
 
shuize said:
As I've stated in other posts, the idea that nukes were used by the government as part of the 9/11 conspiracy is probably the single dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Click to expand...

I'd use a much stronger word than 'dumb'!
 
T.A.M. said:
even a 100 tonne (thats 200,000 lbs) bomb, would have blown the bottom right out of the WTC, and likely taken out everything in a 100 yard radius. You are not talking 200,000lbs of explosives dispersed over a 110 storey building, but 200,000 lbs worth of explosives detonating at a single point, and all of its energy going out from that point, in all directions. JHC would they get real with this SHAITE.

TAM
Click to expand...

It gets much worse TAM
Over on the UK 911 forum there's a poster arguing for "directional min-nukes" that work in a linear fashion. They'd melt the steel columns specifically upwards, but not trouble the dry walling etc and show their ugly faces to the outside world. Some radioactivity found at one of the recovery storage depots proves this, we hear.
 
Thanks a bunch for the link, Puggy. You shattered my comforting illusion that no one here in Finland takes part in this sillines... :Dhole!

Seriously re: testing radioactivity
Would this reveal radioactivity if it were present?
Buy photographic film and get soil samples. In a dark room pack the soil with strips of film into a sealed containers. After some hours develop the film. If there is no exposure then there is no radioactivity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom