Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next
9/11 -- the smoking gun 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9582
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
UncleZook wrote:
Nanothermite explosives are consistent with what was observed, including pulverized-dust energy.

Don't be an idiot, Zook. (I know, too late for that...)

Nanothermite is a precise instrument with a precise purpose. It is used as a cutting charge to sever the steel core columns. Although it is explosive, it is not a general explosive in the same way as a mini-nuke, and it can't possibly do anywhere near the damage to the towers that we witnessed on 9/11. Its energy is designed to be focused on the steel it is meant to cut, not on the surrounding environment.

UncleZook wrote:
Any nuclear detonation at any level would have to be accompanied by a bright flash (similar to the luminosity of the Sun)

You idiot! If you knew anything about physics, you would know that nuclear energy can be created without the emission of light. Light emission is not a requirement of nuclear fission! Just as you can make "clean" nuclear bombs, you can make "dark" nuclear bombs. Old style nuclear bombs from the 1950s were designed to be super powerful, so the production of radiation and light was not an issue. Mini-nukes are designed to be clandestine, so the production of radiation and light would be engineered out of such weapons.

UncleZook wrote:
An epic fail on your part, Chico ... and more evidence of your sandbox knowledge of nuclear physics.

N'est-ce pas.

UncleZook wrote:
I know something about nuclear physics. You don't even know that much. This is evidenced by our respective arguments.

Indeed it is.

UncleZook wrote:
Asbestos in the dust adequately explains the cancer rates. No need to conjecture about nuclear radiation fallout, unless one is intending to deceive.

Or seek the truth. Asbestos causes a specific kind of cancer -- lung cancer. Everyone breathing the dust would be at risk for lung cancer, and the dust settled all over New York City. Radiation is concentrated at ground zero. Those working at ground zero would be most at risk. Like first responders, exactly like we see.

UncleZook wrote:
also, aluminothermic thermal signatures loitering in the rubble weeks after the attacks, here, a nuclear attack would be hardpressed to explain this residual heat that was captured in infrared images and in the visible photographic evidence of construction crews removing debris).

The evidence is good that thermite was used to cut the steel columns. That does not exclude the use of mini-nukes to blow the buildings to smithereens. The fission byproduct evidence is good for that as well, as is the visual evidence. And wouldn't mini-nukes be a good idea to erase much of the evidence of controlled demolition by disintegrating it into dust? Do you think sociopaths sitting on this kind of technology would not think of this?

UncleZook wrote:
FTR, the what of bringing down the twin towers is a secondary pursuit when the who have been isolated by their fingerprints elsewhere in the preponderance.

Wrong. How the towers were brought down leads to who did it. That's the purpose of any criminal investigation. If you just grab the first suspect and string him up (as was actually done with Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden), it allows the true perpetrators to get away with the crime. And that's how they planned it.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:19 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
You idiot! If you knew anything about physics, you would know that nuclear energy can be created without the emission of light. Light emission is not a requirement of nuclear fission! Just as you can make "clean" nuclear bombs, you can make "dark" nuclear bombs. Old style nuclear bombs from the 1950s were designed to be super powerful, so the production of radiation and light was not an issue. Mini-nukes are designed to be clandestine, so the production of radiation and light would be engineered out of such weapons.

Interesting claim, can you explain how this is done or is this just speculation?

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:49 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
UncleZook wrote:
Nanothermite explosives are consistent with what was observed, including pulverized-dust energy.

Don't be an idiot, Zook. (I know, too late for that...)

Nanothermite is a precise instrument with a precise purpose. It is used as a cutting charge to sever the steel core columns. Although it is explosive, it is not a general explosive in the same way as a mini-nuke, and it can't possibly do anywhere near the damage to the towers that we witnessed on 9/11. Its energy is designed to be focused on the steel it is meant to cut, not on the surrounding environment.


Your prevarications notwithstanding nor with standing your certitude that nanothermite "can't possibly do anywhere near the damage to the towers that we witnessed on 9/11" (what magic hat did you pull that conclusion from?) ... we are not talking about nanothermite as a general explosive. We're talking about military-grade super explosives as per the research of physicist Stephen Jones et al.

Indeed, the cutting was probably done by a thermite/thermate??/nanothermite?? aluminothermic reaction ... whilst the explosion to pulverize into dust requires something like military-grade high explosives, and that could be a combination of conventional and sol-gel based nanothermite explosives. Aluminothermic application using finer composite particles versus explosives application using sol gels. Get it, Cupid?

http://digwithin.net/2011/06/19/the-exp ... othermite/

beginExcerpt
6. This article helps us understand how the military has been leveraging the potential explosive power of nanoenergetic compounds, specifically nanothermites. It describes a –

“new class of weaponry that uses energy-packed nanometals to create powerful, compact bombs.” Purdue professor Steven Son, who has become a leading expert on nanothermites, goes on to say that “Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times…resulting in a very rapid reactive wave…used in many applications, including…explosive devices.” The article says that such nanoenergetics enable “building more lethal weapons such as cave-buster bombs that have several times the detonation force of conventional bombs.”
http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/14105/?a=f
end




Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Any nuclear detonation at any level would have to be accompanied by a bright flash (similar to the luminosity of the Sun)

You idiot! If you knew anything about physics, you would know that nuclear energy can be created without the emission of light. Light emission is not a requirement of nuclear fission! Just as you can make "clean" nuclear


Perhaps not in general. But in the specific collapse of one of the twin towers, there was an instance of high luminosity near the impact zone. After that, no similar luminosity could be observed as more explosions occurred and the collapse wave descended floor by floor. Question then naturally begs, if a nuke was used near the impact zone where a bright flash was observed ... why weren't there more flashes as the other putative nukes went off? After all, we can confidently state that any other similar nuke would be expected to exhibit the same kind of flash. It wouldn't make much sense for the perps to use both light-emitting nukes and dark nukes ... that would create more overhead to explain and defend, that sorta thing.

Because only one instance of the collapse showed bright luminosity, we can reasonably conclude that nukes were not involved. The argument of nukes could still be plausible if all floors exhibited the same behavior, either flashes all the way down for light-emitting nukes ... or no flashes all the way down for dark nukes. I suppose you can still argue that the debris dust occluded the view of potential flashes all the way down ... but you have to then make a lot of other assumptions as well ... for example, shift the argument from light waves to sound waves and convince that the pop-pop explosions match the audio signature of a mini-nuclear bomb. Which invites more Rumsfeldian known unknowns jibber jabber.

Or you can look at the evidence of nanothermite explosives, iron spherules in the dust, Stephen Jones et al expert analysis, etc. ... and wait for future post-empire study to establish the exact how they done it ... and shift to other parts of the preponderance to identify the perps that designed that attacks.

But it appears to me that you would rather focus on expanding uncertainty where it's not really warranted than diminishing it. So be it.

Pax

ps: Your type makes me nauseous, Chico ... so you'll have to forgive me for exiting your goose chase after unknown knowns, a bit prematurely. Common sense does not appear to penetrate your thick skull.

ps2: Btw, your earlier videos referencing mini-nuke technology all showed bright light flashes. I merely picked up the analysis from your starting point. If dark nukes exist, then this is the first I've heard of it.

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Sun Jun 01, 2014 1:43 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9582
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
andywight wrote:
Interesting claim, can you explain how this is done or is this just speculation?

It's classified, and you don't have the necessary clearance. You don't even have the necessary educational background. Did you ever take a course in physics in your entire life? How about nuclear physics?

I didn't think so.

Would you like me to explain to you how your boat floats in the water? That is some basic physics you might be able to understand even without the educational background. Heck, go look it up yourself. It's not classified.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Jun 01, 2014 3:53 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
It's classified, and you don't have the necessary clearance. You don't even have the necessary educational background. Did you ever take a course in physics in your entire life? How about nuclear physics?

I didn't think so.

Would you like me to explain to you how your boat floats in the water? That is some basic physics you might be able to understand even without the educational background. Heck, go look it up yourself. It's not classified.

As I suspected, nothing but speculation!

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Sun Jun 01, 2014 4:22 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9582
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
andywight wrote:
As I suspected, nothing but speculation!

As I suspected, nothing but sociopathic come-backs. Why don't you speculate for us about how Richard targeted you at Nexus with the "Miserable User" module? Go ahead, prove for us that it happened. If you can't, then you've got nothing, at least according to your faulty reasoning.

And to think I defended you to the point of being banned. I'd do it again too, not for you, but because it was the truth.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Jun 01, 2014 4:33 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
andywight wrote:
As I suspected, nothing but speculation!

As I suspected, nothing but sociopathic come-backs. Why don't you speculate for us about how Richard targeted you at Nexus with the "Miserable User" module? Go ahead, prove for us that it happened. If you can't, then you've got nothing, at least according to your faulty reasoning.

And to think I defended you to the point of being banned. I'd do it again too, not for you, but because it was the truth.

Tell the truth for change Chicodoodoo!!!

I clearly stated on the forum and to you in private the the "beauty" of the module is that you can't prove that it was used, you're the idiot who jumped the gun and accused then of using it, not me!

But didn't you latter rescind your accusation and publicly apologize to King Richard? :lol:

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Sun Jun 01, 2014 4:59 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9582
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
andywight wrote:
But didn't you latter rescind your accusation and publicly apologize to King Richard? :lol:

Yes, because Whitehaze produced evidence that I was wrong. Shortly thereafter, I discovered Whitehaze's evidence actually confirmed that I was right, and I rescinded the apology that I had made in error. But you know that. You omit it so that you can twist the truth around to benefit your attempts at character assassination. That's the old "twist and shout" strategy that sociopaths use so effectively.

You expose yourself with every post, Andy.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Jun 01, 2014 5:56 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
andywight wrote:
But didn't you latter rescind your accusation and publicly apologize to King Richard? :lol:

Yes, because Whitehaze produced evidence that I was wrong. Shortly thereafter, I discovered Whitehaze's evidence actually confirmed that I was right, and I rescinded the apology that I had made in error. But you know that. You omit it so that you can twist the truth around to benefit your attempts at character assassination. That's the old "twist and shout" strategy that sociopaths use so effectively.

You expose yourself with every post, Andy.

So you had to rescind your rescind? :lol:

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Sun Jun 01, 2014 6:06 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9582
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
andywight wrote:
So you had to rescind your rescind? :lol:

Did you not comprehend what I wrote, or does it depend on what the definition of 'is' is?

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Jun 01, 2014 6:34 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.