I'd better link to post #24 so that the info doesn't get buried. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=392831&page=3&p=1064674628#post1064674628 Real truthers don't believe there were nukes in the buildings.
Most people do not believe there were nukes in the building. But going around trying to say anybody that believes in it is a government plant is just as crazy of a claim.
Mushroom said: To Mushroom: The time it took the Towers to fall may be one of the most important pieces of evidence in determining their mode of destruction. The top of the North Tower began to suddenly telescope about a fourth of a second after the radio Tower started to fall. The first glimpse of empty space where the building stood is at about 13 seconds. The seismic records of the closest seismic recording station, at Palisades, NY (PAL) show a very similar pattern for the leveling of WTC 1 and 2. In both cases there is about five seconds of high-amplitude movement, followed by about three seconds of movement at less than half that amplitude, and then by about 15 seconds of much weaker movement. In addition there is some still weaker movement starting about 12 seconds before the onsets of the high-amplitude movement. The main difference is that for WTC 1 the initial high-amplitude phase builds in intensity to a much higher spike than any seen for WTC 2. Seismic records of the Twin Tower collapses show a large signal for each collapse lasting just under 10 seconds. The durations of the large signals are widely equated with the durations of the collapses themselves. However, the signals may correspond to only parts of the collapse events, such as the rubble reaching the ground. Video of the collapse suggests that it took WTC 2 about ten seconds for the bottom of the mushrooming dust cloud to reach the ground, and another seven or so for the top of the mushrooming dust cloud to reach the ground. The composite video/seismic-record timeline combines timing estimates of collapse events from video and the PAL seismic record. It assumes rubble hitting the ground caused the large ground movement, and thus that the crumbling of the Tower prior to that caused only minor ground movement. Given that, the times from these pieces of evidence match up remarkably well. I will revise my estimate for the time it took the towers to fall from 10-11 seconds to 10-13 seconds. I stand corrected. While we are all capable of error, I make it a habit not to lie. Mushroom said: Mushroom said: I cannot see remnants of the core with the floors stripped away because I do not have x-ray vision. Since I cannot see them, I cannot say what caused what you see. Mushroom said: Taking what Mushroom says at face value, if smaller I-beams were used in the upper sections, the rectangular columns below them would have been stronger than the smaller I-beams. The smaller (and lighter) I-beams would have had less kinetic energy than the potential energy of the larger and stronger rectangular columns below them. The top of WTC 2 could not have crushed the stronger lower columns; it would have slipped off the side of the building and fallen to the ground. Below is a cross-section picture of a typical steel column used in the construction of the towers. This illustration indicates the typical dimensions and thickness of the smaller core columns, about half-way up the tower. The outermost rows of core columns were considerably larger, measuring 52 inches wide. Both the wall thickness and the overall outside dimensions of these columns decreased in size with successively higher floor. Some of the core columns had outside dimensions of 36 inches by 16 inches. Others had larger dimensions, measuring 52 inches by 22 inches. The core columns were steel box-columns that were continuous for their entire height, going from their bedrock anchors in the sub-basements to near the towers' tops, where they transitioned to H-beams. This photograph from Ground Zero is apparently of one of the smaller core columns connected to a set of I-beams. This image from the documentary Up From Zero shows the base of a core column, whose dimensions, minus the four flanges, are apparently 52 by 22 inches, with walls at least 5 inches thick. This illustration shows what the base of one of the core columns looked like. This illustration shows an overhead view of the 48 core columns. I will correct myself here. As the illustration above shows, there are 48 core columns. In an earlier post I stated there were 47 core columns. Mushroom said: Mushroom said: The cores had their own flooring systems, which were structurally independent of the floor diaphragms that spanned the space between the cores and the perimeter walls. The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed. The tube within a tube design uses a specially reinforced perimeter wall to resist all lateral loading and some of the gravity loading, and a heavily reinforced central core to resist the bulk of the gravity loading. The floors and hat truss completed the structure, spanning the ring of space between the perimeter wall and the core, and transmitting lateral forces between those structures. As the diagram above illustrates, the perimeter wall structures were assembled from pre-fabricated units consisting of 3 column sections and 3 spandrel plate sections welded together. Adjacent units were bolted together; column sections were bolted to adjacent columns above and below, and spandrel plate sections were mated with adjacent sections on either side with numerous bolts. There were 59 perimeter columns on each face of the towers, and one column on each corner bevel, making a total of 240 perimeter columns in each tower. Like the core columns, the thickness of the perimeter columns tapered from the bottom to the top of the towers. The illustrated cross-sections below represent columns near the top, and near the mid-section of the towers. I accept the correction noted in my earlier post referring to the perimeter structural members as "structural steel girders". I should have said "structural steel".
Boy, you had really better learn how to use the quote feature in here! You are attributing to me something I did not even say! Wow, talk about failure! And I agree with who the poster was when they asked "Can't you get anything correct?" Just the fact you could not even do a simple quote right shows that you indeed not get anything right. You just made an entire long post responding to things that I never said and acting that I had.
I trusted what that 2200 architects, engineers and physicists have agreed on. Who do you trust? A gov't commission that was more concerned with covering up for particular people rather than doing serious investigations? It will be the Warren Commission of the 21st century. You know, 2200 proffessionals are more believable than a bunch of politicians and their employees.
what is the official explanation for the damage suffered by those cars? Dust did it? I never heard anyone try to explain it.
Oops, just saw where someone said fire did the car damage. Since that makes sense, ok. BTW, I ain't buying the nuke conspiracy theory. But I do think the attack was allowed to happen, on purpose. So the New American Century could get underway, since they took so long to think it out, in that neo con think tank. Clark the terrorist czar even resigned after Bush wanted him to blame 9-11 on Iraq, so we could go and invade em. New American Century stuff.
My apologies for misattributing comments from Gamalon to Mushroom in my previous post. Gamalon said: Yes. In Comment #38 Mushroom made the following statement. I was only pointing out that there was dust; I was not questioning its source. Examples of this dust are presented in Comment #39 of this thread. Gamalon said: What difference does it make whether it was perimeter or core columns? What would a photograph reference? Gamalon said: I did not initiate the "radiation crap" into that conversation. Margot2 brought that into the discussion in Comment #5 of this thread. Radiation poisoning is not the focus of this discussion. The opening Comment "Does this look like a building is falling down or exploding?" is. With regard to Gamolon's question in Comment #9: I have no idea where that "radiation" claim first turned up. And if I did, what difference would it make? In Comment #9 Galomon said: In the aftermath of the collapse, a team of scientists from the US Geological Survey collected samples of dust from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan where it had come to rest from the enormous pyroclastic dust cloud that enveloped the city. In the dust, they found high levels of chemical elements that had no business being there. Extremely rare and toxic elements. Some of them elements that only exist in Radioactive Form. http://www.nucleardemolition.com/ Gamolon said: The evidence to consider 9-11 as a nuclear event was the National Aeronautics and Science Administration's (NASA's) publication of a thermal survey taken September 16, 2001, that showed ground temperature hot spots of 1,100 and 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit. Such temperatures are far too high to be produced by an open-air hydrocarbon fire except in very short bursts, but certainly not as an enduring after-effect. A vast array of evidence was collected that showed temperatures at the WTC were generated far in excess of what normal hydrocarbon fires could produce. The evidence includes eyewitness testimony of molten iron or steel weeks after the event, videos of orange molten metal pouring from the South Tower minutes before its destruction, and microspheres of once-molten iron in the dust examined by the United States Geological Survey forensics team (without further comment or analysis!). The importance of iron microspheres is simple. Iron melts around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, which is about twice the highest temperature that an open-air fire could produce. A microsphere can only be produced by first melting iron, then dispersing the melted iron by some energetic means (like explosion) into an aerosol whose particles, influenced by the surface tension of the molten metal, form spheres as the smallest surface area required to contain any specified volume of matter. Once again, as with the NASA thermal survey, an intense source of energy other than the WTC fires is required to melt iron or steel, as even the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) admitted in its reports. The science is pretty simple; only its political consequences are complicated, and troubling. Gamolon said: I have done so above.
OK, but you still need to learn how to use the quote system in here, it really is not all that hard to do. And are you ever going to answer the questions asked of you, instead of spinning in circles in 20 different directions?
At Comment # 55 Mushroom said: Mushroom continued: I apologized for this mistake in Comment # 59. I will try to not let this happen again. But to say I have gotten nothing right leads me to believe either you have not studied the information I have presented, or you are incapable of understanding it, and you are incapable of doing anything more than nitpick the information I have presented in my posts.
John T said: In my post, I ended the second sentence with a question mark (?). I intended to end it with a period (.). Gamolon said: I will state here what I intended: It was not jet fuel or falling debris. The point I was trying to make was that it could not have been jet fuel (because there was no jet fuel at ground level), and it could not have been falling debris because falling debris may have crushed the cars, but it could not have burned the tires and paint off of these cars. So no, I am not saying the damage was caused by fire. I am asking, What caused the amount of heat to burn tires and paint off of these cars? I do believe heat caused the damage to the cars. I do not believe the heat was due to fires. What are the other sources from where this heat may have come?
Gamolon said twice: I was under the impression you have done some prior independent research on this topic. My assertions are common knowledge among those who have studied this topic. You take on an air of authority as you critique my comments. Are you incapable of researching some of these fact on your own? Don't ask me to do your homework for you. So I will ask you again: Why did the new owner of the complex sign a 99 year lease with the Port Authority knowing he would need to invest an additional $1 billion to remove the asbestos? and: Why did the owner of the lease to the complex (who took possession of the complex on July 24, 2001 prior to the demolition) specifically add a clause in the insurance contract that specifically referenced protection against "terrorist attacks"?
Mushroom said: Well, putting a nuke under WTC 4 would probably work. Mushroom said: Now you're starting to get it. Variable yieldor dial-a-yieldis an option available on most modern nuclear weapons. It allows the operator to specify a weapon's yield, or explosive power, allowing a single design to be used in different situations Variable yield technology has existed since at least the early 1960s. Examples of variable yield weapons include the B61 nuclear bomb family, B83, W80, W85, and WE177A warheads. The perpetrators didn't need to completely destroy all of the buildings; they only needed to damage them enough to require demolition later. It worked as planned. We must remember we were told this event was pulled off by some guys with box cutters and airplanes. I doubt even the perpetrators thought a mushroom cloud over New York was a good idea as it would raise suspicions about the actual abilities of the hijackers to pull of such a stunt.
Mushroom said: I have attempted to answer all of the questions addressed to me on this thread. If there are any you have seen that I have missed, please bring them to my attention.
Sorry,but the lowest yield weapons would still be far too powerful,and generate too much heat and EMP,Sock.... Fail
Then explain how a nuke in WTC 4 left a crater under the building left the building largely intact, but caused enough damage to the basements to create such a hole. And for goodness sakes, LEARN HOW TO USE THE FRACKING QUOTE FEATURE!
OMG. I can't believe someone posted that. Since when have any members of AE911T done any serious research? None of what they posit is credible, and there are many other faculties throughout the world that have corroborated the accepted version with peer-reviewed papers. AE911T have not produced one, nor will they. Where do truthers get this silly idea that only the government produced the details of the story? Do truther sites spoon-feed these lies to the gullible, or do they just make this stuff up on their own?
Gamolon said: Well finding a building that was struck by a jet, suffered resultant, unfought fires, and remained standing; or finding a building that was struck by falling debris from another skyscraper, suffered unfought fires, and remained standing is a pretty tall order. The fires in WTC 7 were all but put out by 5:00 pm on 9-11, but WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20 pm. BBC live television reported WTC 7 to have fallen around 5:00 pm, 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. [video=youtube;ltP2t9nq9fI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI[/video] This proves there was foreknowledge of the WTC 7 collapse. In fact no steel frame-high rise-buildings has ever collapsed due to all of the stipulations you mentioned. But we were told this happened on 9-11. There have been high rise fires in the past, but none of the buildings collapsed so none of them fill your bill; but of course that was the intention of your question. The B-25 Empire State Building crash was a 1945 aircraft accident in which a B-25 Mitchell bomber, piloted in thick fog over New York City, crashed into the Empire State Building. The accident did not compromise the building's structural integrity, but it did cause fourteen deaths (three crewmen and eleven people in the building) and damage estimated at $1,000,000 ($13,000,000 in 2013 dollars) B-25 Empire State Building crash in 1945 First Interstate Tower fire in 1988 Executive Council Building during the Siege of Sarajevo in 1996 Windsor Tower in Madrid 2005 None of these fires caused the buildings to collapse. WTC Towers in 2001 Black smoke indicates an oxygen starved fire. Yet, We are supposed to believe these oxygen starved fires caused this. Don't say the towers collapsed because they were damaged by the airplane. Those airplanes had about as much chance damaging those buildings as an shelled fresh egg has passing through a cheese grater. With the exception of the twin towers on 9-11, no high rise, steel framed office building has never caused a global collapse.
Do you even comprehend or pay attention to what you are posting in this thread? The title of this thread, started by you, is DOE agrees 9-11 was a Nuclear Event, not Does this look like a building is falling down or exploding?. Here is your first post that links an article about a nuclear event that you are trying to imply was the cause of the supposed explosion. Margot2 brought a counterpoint to your nuclear event claims above by saying that there was no indication of radiation contamination to support your claim. You then posted this next quote to supposedly show that there was radiation contamination present. I then posted evidence that the bolded part of the quote that again, YOU posted as evidence, was never said by any medical professional and that it was in fact said by David Jones, an author from Exopolitics Canada. Exopolitics Canada deals with UFOs and aliens. The amount of tap-dancing you are currently doing to try and not discuss quotes and information you provide that have been shown to be bogus is unbelievable.
Mushroom said: I did address this question in Comment #65. A nuke in the basement of WTC 4 could very well have caused the desired and limited affect that resulted in the incomplete destruction of the building. Below are pictures of the buildings before and after the dust had settled. Note the clearly defined holes in portions of some buildings. Falling debris would not have carved holes such as these. One alternative for what caused these holes is nukes. Perspective of the WTC Complex. View of the WTC Complex after the dust settled. Building 3 had no blowout holes and was covered with debris even though it was directly adjacent to both WTC 1 and WTC 2. Why did buildings 4, 5, and 6 have holes in them, but building 3 did not? View attachment 33182 Circular holes in building 4 Circular hole in building 5 Hole in building 6 In the aftermath of the collapse, a team of scientists from the US Geological Survey collected samples of dust from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan where it had come to rest from the enormous pyroclastic dust cloud that enveloped the city. In the dust, they found high levels of chemical elements that had no business being there. Some of these elements are extremely rare and toxic, and only exist in Radioactive Form. Elements such as Strontium, Barium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum and Yttrium. The concentrations of these rare elements in the dust samples were related to each other by significant mathematical relationships. Although these elements discovered in high quantities are very rare in the general environment, one well known situation occurs in which they are very common. In fact, the elements discovered form a distinctive signature and hallmark of a certain well known chemical process. Nuclear weapons have been made relatively small and with variable yield. The lightest nuclear warhead ever acknowledged to have been manufactured by the U.S. is the W54, which was used in both the Davy Crockett 120 mm recoilless riflelaunched warhead, and the backpack-carried version called the Mk-54 SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition). The bare warhead package was an 11 in by 16 in (28 cm by 41 cm) cylinder that weighed 51 lbs (23 kg). It was, however, small enough to fit in a footlocker-sized container. While the explosive power of the W54up to an equivalent of 6 kiloton[a] of TNT (though the more common yield was much lower)is not much by the normal standards of a nuclear weapon (the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II were around 16 to 21 kilotons each), their value lies in their ability to be easily smuggled across borders, transported by means widely available, and placed as close to the target as possible.
So you think that when less than 1% of the engineering community says something, it supposed to have meaning? Especially when NONE of them present and calculations or whitepapers that go against what the official report says? What a joke! Talk about believing something on faith alone. Point me to calculations and whitepapers disproving the "official story" and I'll be happy to read through them. Question for you. How many of those 2200 professionals are actual structural engineers? You are aware that some of those people are, for example, landscape engineers, electrical engineers, etc?
Pyroclastic cloud huh? Do you know what a pyroclastic cloud is by definition? Are you suggesting that a volcano erupted in within the towers? I think you need to look up the definition of pyroclastic and then tell me that the dust cloud had those same characteristics. I personally think that you just parrot what you read instead of actually researching it. So from the link above, let's take a look some of what is contained therein. Nuclear fission is a "chemical process"? I beg to differ. http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-nuclear-reaction-and-chemical-reaction/ Strontium exists in granite. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v184/n4701/abs/1841792a0.html Barium can exist in paint, bricks, tiles, glass, and rubber in addition to other things. http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/ba.htm Thorium exists naturally in nature and can be used as an alloying agent. http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/90/thorium Cerium can be used in flat-screen TVs, low-energy light bulbs, floodlights, and cigarette lighters. http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/58/cerium Lanthanum can be used in cigarette lighters and batteries used in hybrid cars. http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/57/lanthanum Yttrium can be used in aluminum and magnesium alloys. http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/39/yttrium So the statement "Some of them elements that only exist in Radioactive Form.", with the exception of Thorium, is completely wrong. Thorium is slightly radioactive. So this begs the question. What ISOTOPE of each listed above existed in the dust due to a nuclear event. Do you have that information? Or did they find just the "normal" element form?
You've GOT to be kidding me! You wanted to know why the columns were dusty which implies you had no idea where or why the dust was trailing off the columns. I explained that there was quite a bit of gypsum planking that was cruched creating the dust. Also cieling tiles. Why WOULDN'T we see dust trailing off falling objects? Can you please stop the tap-dancing when you are shown to be wrong? Just admit it and move on.
