The nuclear theory is refined, confirmed

Discussion in '9/11' started by Eleuthera, Sep 4, 2019.

  1. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,568
    Likes Received:
    2,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Geiger counters detect only a few types of radiation.

    They do not detect neutron radiation among others.
     
  2. DaveBN

    DaveBN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are there devices that could?
     
  3. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,165
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I will answer your question with a question ... how much of the report do you understand? ...

    I am not an expert in most of what he and his team are trying to explain ... are you? ...

    I have already expressed my concerns regarding NIST and Hulsey ... this has not changed ...

    back on topic ... what are your thoughts on nuclear devices being used on the towers? ... do you think they were possibly used on 7 as well? ...
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not an answer.

    It's irrelevant to the question I asked you. Having said that, I understand the vast majority and all the salient points. I'm pretty sure you do too (assuming you read it). There are some portions that are highly technical and above my pay grade (and yours and the vast majority) but none of these complications should change anyone's basic understanding of Hulsey's conclusions. By anyone I mean anyone with any reasonable level of intelligence.

    As explained in the prior paragraph, no one needs to be an expert, the explanations are quite clear. Only the most intricate technical details require expertise.

    So you're saying that you haven't changed your mind about characterizing NIST's investigation and reports as "adequate" and since you've never critiqued Hulsey's draft report, you predetermined it somehow. Note the only critique I found from your post(s) are:

    Anyone can plainly read the predetermined drivel you posted. I think Hulsey made it quite clear on numerous levels and in numerous ways that NIST's findings are IMPOSSIBLE and far from "adequate". He also made it quite clear that the ONLY model he could create that would essentially mimic the way WTC7 globally collapsed involved removing all the core columns simultaneously followed by removing all the remaining columns simultaneously a fraction of a section afterward. These 2 conclusions are the heart of his findings. How expert do you (or anyone) need to be to grasp these realities?

    To say Hulsey's findings "mean nothing" and that he has produced "nothing of substance" is just pure cognitive dissonance (i.e. an outrageous denial of reality) on your part.

    It's one theory among many. As stated numerous times, I'm only interested in the OCT because that one has deadly consequences, all others are harmless.

    I have no idea if nukes were used or not but I highly doubt it. For me it's the cart before the horse. First, determine if the OCT is correct or not. Then if it isn't, throw it out like any other piece of garbage and begin a REAL investigation to try to determine what the most likely possibilities are. Fortunately logic alone has the most likely answer. If the OCT is wrong and there is no legitimate scientific study that can show what we already know is incredibly unlikely (i.e. the official NIST conclusions) then there is only one other known possibility. This isn't rocket science, even though Hulsey put it in rocket science terms.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2019
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry brain fart. Make that a fraction of a second afterward.
     
  6. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,568
    Likes Received:
    2,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm no authority, but probably there are.
     
  7. bigfella

    bigfella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    1,927
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Neutron bombs use a fission bomb as a detonator and depleted uranium to surround the device. These are all detectable by geiger counters. So, there goes that claim.

    Neutron bombs (as with other nuclear devices) emit an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that fries certain electronic components within a certain radius. There is no evidence of this phenomenon happening on 9/11.

    Neutron bombs are specifically designed to emit a lot of radiation relative to their explosive power. Had such a device gone off bystanders would have been killed where they stood. People would have noticed.

    All of this is known by anyone with the slightest understanding of how these weapons work. Guess that ain't you or any of the sources you are relying on.

    Oh, and your largely detail free article claimed all the first responders died of radiation poisoning or somesuch. You would literally have to be brain dead to believe that claim.

    So, just another day in troofer land.
     
    Badaboom likes this.
  8. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,568
    Likes Received:
    2,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How many government employees were walking around with Geiger counters that day? How many EPA employees were measuring the air quality as the head of the EPA announced that the air was fine to breathe? None.

    However, if you read Jeff Prager's book, you will discover that a USGS crew collected samples from 35 locations within a 1KM radius, and found among other things Thorium at 6 times higher than the lowest levels detected, and those samples were found on girders.

    You will also read the story of Matt Tartaglia of Perkasie PA, who reported that nuclear protocols were in effect in the "hot spots", and he was involved. By 2005 his teeth were falling out, and not long after he died from radiation poisoning. Tartaglia's story was once on the internet but was taken down by somebody with the ability to do it.

    As reported by Christopher Bollyn, the air was not sampled UNTIL a conscientious USGS employee called to have the Delta Group come and sample the air. They found air samples toxic, with iron microspheres present. The only way iron microspheres can be generated is for iron to reach the boiling point.

    Office fires and gravity cannot make iron boil, but nuclear events can.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you really expect an intelligent response? This is the level of intelligence you're dealing with:

    BTW, nuclear or no nuclear my understanding is that thermitic products can also cause iron to boil. Either way, there were multiple corroborating reports of seeing molten steel on 9/11, including one from FEMA investigator Abolhassan Astaneh who claims to have seen the melting of girders in the World Trade Center. NIST's John Gross never heard of it so it must not exist because he said so despite that there's a photo of him standing on a pile of corroded 9/11 steel. So facts don't matter to these folks, what matters are idiotic terms such as "troofer" or "tin foil hat", that says all there is to know about 9/11.

    Personally, as far as I'm concerned, nothing about 9/11 is or should be off the table. We are where we are because everything about 9/11 was officially off the table except what they want us to believe.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  10. bigfella

    bigfella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    1,927
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, and just in case anyone
    You really don't understand this stuff, do you? There don't need to be people with geiger counters wandering around ground zero for people to know a nuclear explosion has taken place. In fact, if every single person in the US was somehow in on the conspiracy it wouldn't matter a damn.

    Let me break it down for you skippy. When North Korea tests a nuke underground (yes, under tonnes of rock etc.) people half way around the world know that they have set off a nuke. How do they do this, you might ask (well, based on how little you clearly know lets assume you have to). There is this organisation called the CTBTO (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization) that has monitoring stations all over the world specifically looking for evidence of nuclear tests. One of the methods they use is detecting noble gasses emitted by nuclear explosions. There are thirty stations dotted all over the world that can detect the gasses released by an underground test thousands of kms away. So, they can most certainly detect an above ground explosion, even a small one.

    So, once again your near total ignorance of this issue is on display. You still haven't explained why there was no EMP & no mass death of bystanders due to the neutron radiation. Just add the lack of any noble gasses to the stuff you won't bother explaining while still claiming something for which there is no evidence actually happened.

    Now its time for you and the other troofers to run around claiming that somehow the conspiracy is even bigger then you thought.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2019
  11. bigfella

    bigfella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    1,927
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He is dealing with someone intelligent enough to at least spend a few minutes of his life learning enough about nuclear weapons to know when someone is straight out making up stuff about their use. I would have thought any intelligent person planning to make claims about them would do the same.

    Clearly being informed isn't very important to you, while agreeing with you that some grand conspiracy is afoot is. Nothing we don't already know, but always nice to have you confirm it.

    Feel free to address any of the factual holes in your little friend's story any time.
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    know when to pull the "troofer" and "skippy" cards. Sorry nothing very bright or mature here son.

    Says the man in the mirror. My posts are loaded with facts, read them sometime when you grow up, you might learn something. I've spent nearly every day during the last 15 years or so getting informed about 9/11, I suggest you start if you're at all interested (besides learning how to spell that nonsensical "troofer" term you learned to use from "debunkers").

    Thanks for your permission bigfella, the nuke theory is not my focus on 9/11. Speaking of "little friends", as explained numerous times so a child can understand, the OCT is a lethal theory, impossible as it is, the 9/11 nuke theory is harmless no matter how possible or impossible. There is a world of difference. The OCT is my personal focus because of its deadly nature. And as such, all alternate theories are on the table as far as I'm concerned, even UFOs, gremlins and pixie dust because none were ever on the table other than the garbage fairy tale made for children they fed us. I could care less about any of these alternate theories unless and until they can be proven to be worth attention.
     
  13. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,568
    Likes Received:
    2,720
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Who am I going to believe--you or Heinz Pommer?

    Another poster defending a bankrupt theory told by known liars, or a nuclear physicist who has analyzed the facts?

    It's pretty easy BigFella.
     
  14. bigfella

    bigfella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    1,927
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You will believe whoever tells you what you want to hear. Apparently they haven't told you enough about nuclear weapons to answer a few simple questions or even credibly post like you know what you are talking about, so all you have is appeal to authority.

    This is why no one has the slightest respect for your views. You don't even understand the theory you are defending, and when cornered you refuse to answer basic questions.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What a load of excrement, speak for yourself, you speak for no one else. Views and posts I have no respect for are the kind that hurl indoctrinated name calling terms at those who disagree with or contradict the OCT, not to mention those who support and/or defend genocide and other human rights atrocities. I also have no respect for anonymous posters who pretend to know better than REAL experts.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2019
    Eleuthera likes this.
  16. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,568
    Likes Received:
    2,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To be clear, I am thrilled that men like you have no respect for my views. I know that means you are somehow threatened by my views.

    You demonstrate Orwell's point that in a time of universal deception, speaking the truth is a radical act.

    I speak the truth, you see it as a radical act.

    The appeal to authority is what you defend here. It is what you practice here--appeals to authority combined with appeals to emotion.
     
  17. bigfella

    bigfella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    1,927
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When did I indicate that I see your parroting of bad ideas you don't even understand is a 'radical act'? It is as mundane an act as can be imagined. History is jam packed full of people regurgitating foolish ideas that they are themselves too foolish or ill informed to understand. If you think it makes you special or 'threatening' then the depth of the delusion is profound indeed.

    Now, I'm still waiting for answers. Why wasn't radiation from the tests detected? Why hasn't it been detected at ground zero or further afield? In addition to the noble gasses I mentioned the dust cloud would have been radioactive, yet nothing was detected. You say it was neutron radiation, so why weren't people killed on the spot? Where was the EMP? You can't just hide that.

    If you are going to propose a theory you need to be able to answer simple questions about it.

    You can reel off all the rote learned phrases you want, but you won't answer the most basic questions your theory demands. Instead you just say 'some guy said so', yet apparently he hasn't said enough for you to to even answer some basic questions.
     
  18. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,568
    Likes Received:
    2,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What you are ignoring is that your theory of the damage observed being caused by office fires and gravity fails.

    Well, actually, you are ignoring all sorts of facts about the whole story, the big picture. Going back and forth with a BigFellaTrueBeliever would be a waste of time.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So by your non-response and despite that you claimed you were "anxiously waiting for the report" it seems you have nothing to say about Hulsey's draft report other than you are purportedly concerned that it doesn't match the OCT so it's "meaningless" and "nothing of substance". Details are irrelevant, eh Shiner?
     
  20. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,165
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I am not on here all the time and don't make **** up about me ... I never mentioned the term "OCT" regarding NIST or Hulsey ...

    You have no capacity to understand the report other than I am sure summaries or other bits in pieces that fit your confirmation bias ... remember the Coste vids that you posted and your mind was already made up from the introduction before you even watched the vids? ... you are doing the same thing with Hulsey ...

    Neither Hulsey nor NIST were in the building when it came down and were able to measure fire temps or damage prior to the collapse ... also, Hulsey started his modeling without any damage to the building ... bad start to a project right there ...

    and to be fair, I have stated numerous times the problems I have with the NIST report regarding WTC7 ...

    so what details should I find relevant? ... how about the details that you find irrelevant? ... care to talk about these Bobby? ... or will you continue down the troofer path and ignore the elephant in the room? ...
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't have to, all your posts show your extreme faith and devotion to the OCT, regardless of the massive amount of evidence that contradicts or questions it.

    Check the mirror Mr. "Engineer". Based on this response and many others in the past, it's you who shows no capacity to understand very much of anything on this topic. Any fool with minimal intelligence can understand the report. The only thing about it that requires expertise is to be able to understand and use the data to confirm the models. I have no doubt they are accurate because common sense alone dictates that a massive steel frame structure such as WTC7 cannot possibly drop at free fall through its own structure unless all the columns are removed simultaneously. Only an absolutely ignorant person could buy the phony hypothesis peddled by NIST that this was a "progressive collapse" caused by fire alone, for the first time in history yet. You claim to be an engineer but you show absolutely zero understanding of basic physics. Shyam Sunder explained it to you, "free fall time would be an object that has NO structural components below it". Would you say WTC7 had NO structural components below itself? How is the free fall drop of a 47 story acre per floor steel frame structure consistent with a "progressive collapse", Mr. "Engineer"?

    So you're saying all of the following:

    1. That one has to be IN THE BUILDING while it's coming down in order to properly investigate why and how it came down. Tell that to all the fire investigators who have ever investigated building fires.

    2. That you actually believe that the global collapse of WTC7 in free fall depends on fire temperatures and/or damage. Hulsey shows that the only possible model he could develop that could mimic what we all can see on video involves the simultaneous removal of all the columns of WTC7. What does that have to do with temperatures and/or damage?

    3. That you know better than Hulsey how to model WTC7 despite that you admit you don't even understand his draft report.

    4. That you either haven't truly read Hulsey's draft report or you didn't understand that he used NIST's own data as he claimed in his draft report, including their contrived stated temperatures to prove that NIST's hypothesis was impossible.

    As to "damage", what kind of naturally caused damage could possibly cause the free fall global collapse of WTC7? Not to mention that the damage caused by the debris from the destruction of the North Tower was mostly relegated to one exterior corner of WTC7 and did not affect the interior of the building. Even NIST agreed to that.

    To be fair and if you really want to be honest (ahem), you once claimed that NIST's investigation and report were "adequate". Perhaps you changed your mind?

    So you're saying that neither NIST nor Hulsey influenced your belief as to how WTC7 "collapsed", yet you believe it was a natural progressive collapse due to fire and damage. You admit you don't understand the most basic premise of Hulsey's draft report yet you somehow arrived at your own conclusion(s). On what basis pray tell? It obviously has nothing to do with science/physics or even reality. So I'm guessing it's all about your own "confirmation bias" BS that you keep trying to shovel down my throat.

    Is that even a serious question? In your case though, none, there is nothing on this planet you are going to find relevant that might contradict your own beliefs. If you actually read the draft report you would know that Hulsey points out a host of intricate detail exposing NIST's fraud, from data to structural components to procedural. How in the world is that not relevant to you? And if NIST's investigation was fraudulently based and it is the officially accepted version of what happened to WTC7 and there is no other officially accepted version, then we're left with ZERO. But you have your own personal version, eh? The other little piece of relevance is the model that shows how WTC7 could have possibly dropped in free fall as seen on all the videos which involves the simultaneous removal of all the columns. How in the world does fire and damage do that? But that's all irrelevant to you because you figured it out all by your Einstein self so it's got to be as you dreamed it up.

    Actually in a way the entire draft report is irrelevant because:

    1. WTC7 could not possibly have been a progressive collapse due to fire and/or damage alone. The videos all show a global collapse quite graphically. No one needs Hulsey to assess what one can see with a pair of functioning eyeballs.

    2. If it wasn't a natural progressive collapse due to fire and/or damage, then there is only one other possibility, there is not a third possibility. This is simple deductive reasoning, not rocket science. No one needs Hulsey for that either.

    3. And if #2 is true, anyone who knows the basics about controlled demolitions also knows you have to remove all the columns simultaneously to achieve a global collapse at free fall into a building's own structure. No one needs Hulsey's computer model to know what the entire CD industry knows. It works in real life, never mind a computer model.

    However, if one needs a thorough technical analysis, then one needs Hulsey.

    Ah you can't possibly have a discussion about 9/11 with anyone who doesn't buy the OCT without pulling out the "troofer" card. That always helps to support your argument, doesn't it? You also keep bringing up some kind of pachyderm in the room but never explain what that's supposed to be.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2019
  22. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,165
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yes I know that an elephant is a pachyderm Bobby ... you don't need to use 15 dollar words to try and convey how smart you think you are ...

    we all know what the elephant in the room is Bobster ... the lack of ANY evidence that buildings were brought down by controlled demolition ... you can go on and on with your selected witnesses hearing "explosions" (which I have gone into detail about in the past) but not one iota of physical evidence ... why is that Bobby? ...

    frankly I am bored with troofer nonsense ... but please "donate" your 30 smackers to Richard Gage for the new Dylan Avery vid to keep you on the righteous path ...
     
    ArmySoldier likes this.
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So let me get this straight. In your world, forget about the science/physics and even forget about the FACT that there is NO EVIDENCE and no one has legitimately proven (or can prove) that the building came down naturally strictly as a result of fire, damage or both. And also forget about the visual EVIDENCE, the eyewitness EVIDENCE, the video EVIDENCE with audio that corroborates their claims of explosions, the expert witness EVIDENCE and even the physical EVIDENCE that shows John Gross standing on a pile of corroded steel. Let's create a Dumbo "elephant" that you imagine “we” all know what it is just because YOU believe the entire world shares YOUR delusions Shinester. Yeah for you none of that EVIDENCE exists because you don’t want it to exist.

    There ya go Shiner, EVIDENCE or should I say Dumbo elephants that contradicts your OCT fantasy magically morphs into that all purpose idiotic “troofer” card. So what else is new?
     
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,568
    Likes Received:
    2,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Facts mean nothing to OCT true believers. Facts scare them, enabling cognitive dissonance.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is also the fact that the US government destroyed as much of the physical evidence as possible just so these OCT enablers can claim “ooh look, there’s no evidence”. Fortunately they could not get rid of all the physical evidence or the video and eyewitness evidence.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.

Share This Page