To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: 911 WTC - Evidence of an Nuclear explosion?
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Other Sci-Tech Topics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

MMC
12th January 2006 - 07:37 AM
A finnish military expert has provided an opinion that a small nuclear device was involved in the collapse of the WTC...the report can be found here, in both English and Finnish:

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm


Here are the noted observations, please follow the link to find a thermographic picture which accompanies the report:

QUOTE

Observations Suggesting the Use of Small Hydrogen Bombs
1) The concrete pulverized into fine dust, 70…300 micron particles (just this could take more energy than the total gravitational energy available). See Gehue plates 6 and 7

2) Very energetic – hot – dust after the explosions. (Demolition charges would produce white clouds of dust, which would not move much, and a gravity-driven collapse would produce much less and more coarse dust.)

3) Brown shades of color seen in the air – these are produced by nuclear reactions of a thermonuclear device. The reactions use (gamma radiation caused by free neutrons, N2, O2, H2O > nitrid acid, NO2, NO3). These clouds soon get their usual white color after some minutes as the heat and fast movement of the clouds cease becoming ordinary clouds with some water.

Note: many of the pictures taken regarding the WTC Towers and the clouds seem to have been developed too blue, killing shades of brown. (This may have been an attempt to suppress the evidence.) Also there was supposed to be 200 000+ gallons of water on the roof of each tower – this water was spilled into stairwells etc, but was later all converted into water vapour reducing the brown color.

4) Superheated steel objects, disintegrating into steel vapour. Molten ponds of steel were found in the elevator shafts. There were lots of burned cars in the parking areas of the towers. The fire department did not announce until 12/19/2001 that the fires under the WTC rubble have been distinguished (more than 3 months after the incident). For more, see (Gehue plate 8)

location F C name
A 1341 727 WTC7
B 1034 557 WTC7
C 1161 627 WTC1
D 963 517 WTC1
E 819 437 WTC3
F 801 427 WTC2
G 1377 747 WTC2
H 1017 547 WTC4


The thermal survey of the WTC 9/16/2001 (NASA /US Geological Survey). Despite of fire department having cooled the rubble, aluminium would still be melting in some sites 5 days after the incident.

5) Elevated values of tritium in this area, but not elsewhere in New York. The University of California found elevated values on 9/13/2001 and 9/21/2001 within bounds of the WTC. They found them harmless for health. In pure hydrogen bomb isotopes of hydrogen are fused (D + T > n + a + 17.6 MeV).

6) An EMP-type phenomenon blacked out cellular phones at the moment when the first (southern) tower started to 'fall down', at the exact moment when a small thermonuclear bomb was detonated. Even in electronic cameras and videos a strange afterglow was seen in the late phase of the 'collapse' of both of the towers. See Gehue plate 5

7) A wave of pressure was witnessed in the root of the tower at the moment when the so-called collapse was progressing just about two hundred meters and nothing had fallen down to earth. The blast wave turned over for example a photographer and a fireman close to the entrance, who was taking photos of the dust cloud. The burst of the dust cloud on the root of the tower was photographed as well. In the image at the left below is what probably was the explosion of WTC 6. The Customs building was deliberately exploded for some reason - it was not damaged because of the falling girders as they had not yet reached the roof of WTC 7 when the photo was taken. A couple of seconds later the clouds of the explosion were already partly above the roof of WTC 7, which was too energetical to be caused by usual blasting agents. This suggests it was the second hydrogen bomb in the WTC block. The first hydrogen bomb is discharging upwards (pulverized concrete) exactly in the picture, and the steel structures vaporized by the bomb are already falling down 100 meters (approx. 328 ft.) farther down. The mass of cloud, caused by vaporized steel, is seen in the center of the picture and even more clearly in the picture at the right.

 

8) In the cellar, out of all the 47 ultra strong steel pillars, the steel was melted completely at the length of more than 20 meters (approx. 65 ft). Even cars were melted and burned in the cellar. The pillars were far too thick for thermite, which some have suggested. An explosion of a thermonuclear bomb explains the phenomenon well.

9) Steel columns and pillars were ejected in the surroundings of the building. In the beginning of the so-called collapse, exists no such energy exists that could throw steel pillars outwards from 60 to 175 meters (approx. from 170 to 574 ft.) from trunk. Not even cutting charges can do that. Instead, the blast wave from a nuclear bomb is capable to do that.


http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier4.htm



Below are two photographs, the first the WTC, the second is the Storax Sedan 104 Kt shallow underground nuclear detonation.
If the pictures are missing, please follow this link to view them, they are about mid-way down the page:

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm

user posted image

User posted image


The question are...

Is this plausable?

Where is the energy coming from directing matter skywards?
gbs5009
12th January 2006 - 08:11 AM
I doubt it. There hasn't been any fallout detected.
skeptic
12th January 2006 - 02:04 PM
http://www.letsroll911.org/[/SIZE]


sad.gif
philip347
12th January 2006 - 10:07 PM
I do not see a missile fired.

If a missile were fired, there would be a genesis point, from the ventral part of the fuselage, if this were the case.

The flash on the building wall, I think is the beginning of mass to energy conversion and might be the hydraulic fuel, igniting from compression?
MMC
13th January 2006 - 12:08 AM
QUOTE

I doubt it. There hasn't been any fallout detected.


Firstly, a pure hydrogen bomb does not leave the fallout that a thermonuclear device would. So, fallout would not be expected, the following was detected, which is consistant with a small hydrogen bomb...

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

I doubt it. There hasn't been any fallout detected.


Firstly, a pure hydrogen bomb does not leave the fallout that a thermonuclear device would. So, fallout would not be expected, the following was detected, which is consistant with a small hydrogen bomb...


5) Elevated values of tritium in this area, but not elsewhere in New York. The University of California found elevated values on 9/13/2001 and 9/21/2001 within bounds of the WTC. They found them harmless for health. In pure hydrogen bomb isotopes of hydrogen are fused (D + T > n + a + 17.6 MeV).



http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier4.htm



QUOTE

I do not see a missile fired.  If a missile were fired, there would be a genesis point, from the ventral part of the fuselage, if this were the case.

The flash on the building wall, I think is the beginning of mass to energy conversion and might be the hydraulic fuel, igniting from compression?


No one is saying a missile, but rather, that a device was present.



Is no one able to offer an explanation to the energy forcing matter skywards?

It is 100% from an explosion, as recorded on siesmographs of the event, the only question is, what type?
MMC
13th January 2006 - 12:22 AM
If you look at this siesmograph of the 911 WTC collapse, you can see the spike consistant with the detonation.

User posted image
Guest
13th January 2006 - 12:30 AM
MMC

The nuts belong in the creation/evolution or the 9/11 Conspiracy forums. Please stop contaminating this serious forum and take you/r nuts to those forums. Thankyou.
MMC
13th January 2006 - 12:36 AM
QUOTE

The nuts belong in the creation/evolution or the 9/11 Conspiracy forums. Please stop contaminating this serious forum and take you/r nuts to those forums. Thankyou.


What do you know, an anonymous poster wants us all to stop examing the 911 WTC collapse from a physics perspective.

Get lost.
MMC
13th January 2006 - 12:55 AM
The official explantion for the 911 WTC collapse cites that it was a "gravity collapse", however, the following photograph completely eliminates that viewpoint.

A "gravity collapse" does not suddenly turn into a large scale explosion and project matter in all directions, nor does it generate a siesmic spike.


user posted image


The US administration would have us believe that the laws of physics were suspended for this incident.

This is impossible and this photograph provides empirical evidence that the official explanation is a complete fabrication.

The ONLY questions left are these, what types of bombs were used and how many?
board member here
13th January 2006 - 01:01 AM
If you had used a miniature hydrogen bomb, you would have had a miniature sun, involved inside of the WTC buildings.

This would have lifted the entire section of the building upwards, instead of a downwards collapse.

There could not have been I feel placed charges in those levels, as the plane, through the process of being spread around, would have scraped the cement from those vertical members.
MMC
13th January 2006 - 01:12 AM
QUOTE

board member here


Another anonymous poster...


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

board member here


Another anonymous poster...



If you had used a miniature hydrogen bomb, you would have had a miniature sun, involved inside of the WTC buildings.


To some degree...although in reality, nowhere near it in terms of mass or power.



QUOTE

This would have lifted the entire section of the building upwards, instead of a downwards collapse.


As the Sorax explosion (see first post) demonstrates it would project matter upwards and outwards, which is consistant with the photograph of the WTC.

As for lifting the building, well, that all depends on where it was positioned and the number.

Low yield devices, are quite similar to conventional explosives in terms of damage, they just occupy less space.



QUOTE (->
QUOTE

This would have lifted the entire section of the building upwards, instead of a downwards collapse.


As the Sorax explosion (see first post) demonstrates it would project matter upwards and outwards, which is consistant with the photograph of the WTC.

As for lifting the building, well, that all depends on where it was positioned and the number.

Low yield devices, are quite similar to conventional explosives in terms of damage, they just occupy less space.




There could not have been I feel placed charges in those levels, as the plane, through the process of being spread around, would have scraped the cement from those vertical members.


That's impossible...

The photograph is UNQUESTIONABLE, it takes energy to project matter upwards and outwards. The only way to achieve the effect caught in the above photograph is from an explosion.

It is not like Hollywood, there are no big flames, it is a pressure wave. That's what is caught on camera.
halolover
13th January 2006 - 01:56 AM
hay it true that a hydrogen bomb does not leave fallout but there would have been
more than that explosion. and there were radiation counters out there there wasa no ratiation besides normal levels.
adoucette
13th January 2006 - 02:16 AM
QUOTE (mmc+)
Firstly, a pure hydrogen bomb does not leave the fallout that a thermonuclear device would. So, fallout would not be expected, the following was detected, which is consistant with a small hydrogen bomb...


There is no such thing as a "pure hydrogen bomb".

You need a trigger.

The only trigger we have is a Fission bomb.

They DO leave a radioactive foot print.

While there is the ability to build a "mini" nuke, via a dirty fission bomb, one can't build a "mini" hydrogen bomb.

Well, except in the pulp fiction novels.

Arthur
MMC
13th January 2006 - 02:30 AM
QUOTE

The only trigger we have is a Fission bomb.


No, that's not true...a plasma trigger of deuterium and lithium (or similar substances), would eject neutrons...


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

The only trigger we have is a Fission bomb.


No, that's not true...a plasma trigger of deuterium and lithium (or similar substances), would eject neutrons...



They DO leave a radioactive foot print.


With low yield devices, the footprint would be minimal and easily over-looked, or attributed to various sources. Given that the site was cleared without investigation, any radio-active footprint would also have been removed also.

Now read this lot:

QUOTE

Small quantities of acetone added to fuel may improve economy and engine performance, though this is only anecdotal and refuted by most automotive engineers.

Acetone has been used in the manufacture of TNT. During World War I a new process of producing acetone through bacterial fermentation was developed by Chaim Weizmann, to help the British war effort.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Small quantities of acetone added to fuel may improve economy and engine performance, though this is only anecdotal and refuted by most automotive engineers.

Acetone has been used in the manufacture of TNT. During World War I a new process of producing acetone through bacterial fermentation was developed by Chaim Weizmann, to help the British war effort.

Source: American Association For The Advancement Of Science 
Date: 2002-03-05

Fusion In A Flash?

Researchers Report Nuclear Emissions From Tiny, Super-Hot Collapsing Bubbles

The dramatic flashing implosion of tiny bubbles--in acetone containing deuterium atoms--produces tritium and nuclear emissions similar to emissions characteristic of nuclear fusion involving deuterium-deuterium reactions. This finding was reported in the 8 March issue of the peer-reviewed journal Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Shock wave simulations also indicate that temperatures inside the collapsing bubbles may reach up to 10 million degrees Kelvin, as hot as the center of the sun. Although the high temperatures and pressures within the bubbles would be sufficient to generate fusion, the overall results of the study only suggest, but do not confirm, nuclear fusion in the bubbles’ collapse.

Nuclear fusion joins together light atoms, such as hydrogen, in a reaction that creates a third heavier atom and converts some of the original atoms’ mass into energy. Nuclear fission, the type of reaction currently used in commercial power plants, splits heavy atoms like uranium and releases some of the excess energy stored as mass in the uranium atoms. Scientists have been eager to harness fusion as an energy source, because unlike fission, fusion uses readily available raw material as fuel and produces fewer radioactive waste products.

The experiments performed by the Science researchers suggest that nuclear fusion might occur in bubbles created by “acoustic cavitation,” a phenomenon studied for nearly a century. In acoustic cavitation, the pressure of a sound wave creates and collapses bubbles in a liquid. The first part of the wave is a tension wave, which stretches the liquid and pulls apart a space for bubbles to form when the liquid is bombarded by energetic particles like neutrons. A second compression wave follows close behind, squeezing and bursting the bubbles, which then emit a brilliant but extremely brief flash of light called sonoluminescence.

Sonoluminescence’s exact cause is still somewhat mysterious, but many researchers believe that the shock waves of the collapse generate high temperatures and pressures in the bubble’s gas, which releases a burst of energy. Scientists have learned to trap single bubbles within a sound wave, causing them to swell and shrink and emit light in a regular fashion.

Temperatures inside these bubbles can be as high as 5000-7000 degrees Kelvin, about as hot as the sun’s surface. But, recent experiments by a number of researchers suggest that bubble temperatures can reach even higher temperatures--closer to the heat needed for nuclear fusion--if the original bubbles are very small and allowed to grow rapidly before collapse.

Rusi P. Taleyarkhan of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and colleagues devised an experiment to produce these super-hot bubbles, trapping bubbles in deuterated acetone (acetone with its normal hydrogen atoms replaced by deuterium, a heavy hydrogen isotope that can undergo fusion reactions). The experiment’s entire apparatus is well within the bounds of “table-top physics,” about “the size of three coffee cups stacked one on top of the other,” says Taleyarkhan.

Using a pulse of neutrons to first “seed” the tiny bubbles, each no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence, the Science authors then used a sound wave to grow the bubbles rapidly just before their implosion. The process produced stable bubbles that could expand to nearly a millimeter in radius before collapsing, a key part of producing very high pressures and temperatures.

The researchers then searched for signs that fusion might be taking place in the implosions. Deuterium-deuterium fusion reactions create two telltale products: neutrons of a characteristic energy and tritium, another hydrogen isotope. Using very sensitive detectors, Taleyarkhan and colleagues detected higher levels of tritium in samples with extensive bubble implosion. The researchers also observed the emission of neutrons with energy close to 2.5 million electron volts, which is the characteristic neutron energy associated with deuterium-deuterium fusion.

As a part of an elaborate series of control experiments conducted throughout the research, the authors prepared identical experiments in non-deuterated (normal) acetone, and observed no neutron emission or tritium production in these experiments.

Currently, the level of neutron emissions with the characteristic fusion energy appears to be lower than would be expected from the tritium signals observed in the experiment. Further tests are needed to account for this discrepancy, and to verify the observed relations between the neutron emissions, tritium production, and bubble collapse.

If fusion is confirmed in further tests, these bubbles would still have a long way to go before they could be considered as a possible energy source with any commercial value, says Science co-author Richard T. Lahey Jr. of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. First of all, the bubble reaction would have to demonstrate net energy gain--that is, it should produce more energy than the energy needed to drive the reaction itself. Second, scientists would have to find a way to make the reaction perpetuate itself in a chain reaction, without constant input from a neutron source.

In the short term, the research may provide a more convenient way for scientists to produce and study nuclear fusion processes in the laboratory, says Fred D. Becchetti of the University of Michigan, in an accompanying Perspective article.


The other members of the research team include C.D. West, retired, formerly of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, J.S. Cho of Oak Ridge Associated Universities, R.I. Nigmatulin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ufa, Russia, and R.C. Block, retired, formerly of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. This research was supported in part by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...20305074203.htm


Fits together quite nicely, if you understand what you are looking at...
MMC
13th January 2006 - 02:58 AM
So, a neutron source, acetone and soundwaves can produce a nuclear fusion type scenario, or temperatures high enough to collapse a structure such as the WTC. Another effect is the production of tritium...

Now consider the observations again:

QUOTE

Observations Suggesting the Use of Small Hydrogen Bombs
1) The concrete pulverized into fine dust, 70…300 micron particles (just this could take more energy than the total gravitational energy available). See Gehue plates 6 and 7

2) Very energetic – hot – dust after the explosions. (Demolition charges would produce white clouds of dust, which would not move much, and a gravity-driven collapse would produce much less and more coarse dust.)

3) Brown shades of color seen in the air – these are produced by nuclear reactions of a thermonuclear device. The reactions use (gamma radiation caused by free neutrons, N2, O2, H2O > nitrid acid, NO2, NO3). These clouds soon get their usual white color after some minutes as the heat and fast movement of the clouds cease becoming ordinary clouds with some water.

Note: many of the pictures taken regarding the WTC Towers and the clouds seem to have been developed too blue, killing shades of brown. (This may have been an attempt to suppress the evidence.) Also there was supposed to be 200 000+ gallons of water on the roof of each tower – this water was spilled into stairwells etc, but was later all converted into water vapour reducing the brown color.

4) Superheated steel objects, disintegrating into steel vapour. Molten ponds of steel were found in the elevator shafts. There were lots of burned cars in the parking areas of the towers. The fire department did not announce until 12/19/2001 that the fires under the WTC rubble have been distinguished (more than 3 months after the incident). For more, see (Gehue plate 8)

location F C name
A 1341 727 WTC7
B 1034 557 WTC7
C 1161 627 WTC1
D 963 517 WTC1
E 819 437 WTC3
F 801 427 WTC2
G 1377 747 WTC2
H 1017 547 WTC4


The thermal survey of the WTC 9/16/2001 (NASA /US Geological Survey). Despite of fire department having cooled the rubble, aluminium would still be melting in some sites 5 days after the incident.

5) Elevated values of tritium in this area, but not elsewhere in New York. The University of California found elevated values on 9/13/2001 and 9/21/2001 within bounds of the WTC. They found them harmless for health. In pure hydrogen bomb isotopes of hydrogen are fused (D + T > n + a + 17.6 MeV).

6) An EMP-type phenomenon blacked out cellular phones at the moment when the first (southern) tower started to 'fall down', at the exact moment when a small thermonuclear bomb was detonated. Even in electronic cameras and videos a strange afterglow was seen in the late phase of the 'collapse' of both of the towers. See Gehue plate 5

7) A wave of pressure was witnessed in the root of the tower at the moment when the so-called collapse was progressing just about two hundred meters and nothing had fallen down to earth. The blast wave turned over for example a photographer and a fireman close to the entrance, who was taking photos of the dust cloud. The burst of the dust cloud on the root of the tower was photographed as well. In the image at the left below is what probably was the explosion of WTC 6. The Customs building was deliberately exploded for some reason - it was not damaged because of the falling girders as they had not yet reached the roof of WTC 7 when the photo was taken. A couple of seconds later the clouds of the explosion were already partly above the roof of WTC 7, which was too energetical to be caused by usual blasting agents. This suggests it was the second hydrogen bomb in the WTC block. The first hydrogen bomb is discharging upwards (pulverized concrete) exactly in the picture, and the steel structures vaporized by the bomb are already falling down 100 meters (approx. 328 ft.) farther down. The mass of cloud, caused by vaporized steel, is seen in the center of the picture and even more clearly in the picture at the right.

 

8) In the cellar, out of all the 47 ultra strong steel pillars, the steel was melted completely at the length of more than 20 meters (approx. 65 ft). Even cars were melted and burned in the cellar. The pillars were far too thick for thermite, which some have suggested. An explosion of a thermonuclear bomb explains the phenomenon well.

9) Steel columns and pillars were ejected in the surroundings of the building. In the beginning of the so-called collapse, exists no such energy exists that could throw steel pillars outwards from 60 to 175 meters (approx. from 170 to 574 ft.) from trunk. Not even cutting charges can do that. Instead, the blast wave from a nuclear bomb is capable to do that.


http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier4.htm


It fits quite nicely...especially when the photographs provide empirical evidence of a large scale explosion...

user posted image
gbs5009
13th January 2006 - 03:44 AM
Even IF you did have a "pure" hydrogen bomb, the neutron burst would induce radioactive decay in surrounding materials. As much fun as nukes are in conspiracy theories, you aren't going to set one off in NY without a GM counter somewhere noticing.
RealityCheck
13th January 2006 - 03:54 AM
QUOTE (MMC+Jan 12 2006, 07:37 AM)

user posted image

Where is the energy coming from directing matter skywards?


Hi MMC.

You fail to mention what was happening BEFORE the effect pictured. There was a great hunk of building structure ABOVE the plane-impacted/fire-damages levels that failed. And when those levels failed, the whole top of the building including a very strong/heavy hat truss structure plus roof and outer-perimeter walls/inner-core-walls columns plus floors/office/equipment etc plus trapped people ALL FELL ONTO THE POINT FROM WHICH ALL THE CHAOTIC EJECTIONS ARE HAPPENING. What did you expect to happen in such a situation? A gentle 'burp' perhaps?

Don't be disingenuous; if you are a true scientist, you would give everyone ALL THE FACTS PRECEDING YOUR POINT OF DISINFORMATION. I'm very disappointed, mate; very disappointed in you.

RC.
.
fivedoughnut
13th January 2006 - 07:00 AM
By response to this article, perhaps MMC was merely trying to gauge the
magnitude of human ineptitude, leading many to believe implausible stuff like,
smashing particles together reveals hidden composite structure.

Good experiment MMC biggrin.gif
MMC
13th January 2006 - 10:10 AM
QUOTE

Even IF you did have a "pure" hydrogen bomb, the neutron burst would induce radioactive decay in surrounding materials. As much fun as nukes are in conspiracy theories, you aren't going to set one off in NY without a GM counter somewhere noticing.


Whilst I can understand where you are coming from, the truth is this, a low yield device, especially, in a collapsed building can go undetected. At the other end of the scale, the unease such an event would cause in the public, is also a major factor...

If we are considering something like the acetone, then radio-active decay in surrounding materials could be minimal, it would have supplied all the heat and energy, without the background radiation.

A small, pure hydrogen bomb, would have a similar effect. Both scenarios, produce elevated levels of tritium.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Even IF you did have a "pure" hydrogen bomb, the neutron burst would induce radioactive decay in surrounding materials. As much fun as nukes are in conspiracy theories, you aren't going to set one off in NY without a GM counter somewhere noticing.


Whilst I can understand where you are coming from, the truth is this, a low yield device, especially, in a collapsed building can go undetected. At the other end of the scale, the unease such an event would cause in the public, is also a major factor...

If we are considering something like the acetone, then radio-active decay in surrounding materials could be minimal, it would have supplied all the heat and energy, without the background radiation.

A small, pure hydrogen bomb, would have a similar effect. Both scenarios, produce elevated levels of tritium.


5) Elevated values of tritium in this area, but not elsewhere in New York. The University of California found elevated values on 9/13/2001 and 9/21/2001 within bounds of the WTC. They found them harmless for health. In pure hydrogen bomb isotopes of hydrogen are fused (D + T > n + a + 17.6 MeV).


This is confirmed by the US Department of Energy:

QUOTE

Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at[the]World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A method of ultralow-background liquid scintillation counting was used after distilling HTO from the samples. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.174 plus or minus 0.074 (2s) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53 plus or minus 0.17 and 2.83 plus or minus 0.15 nCi/L, respectively. Several water and vegetation samples were analyzed from areas outside the ground zero, located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Kensico Reservoir. No HTO above the background was found in those samples. All these results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure.


http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=799642


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at[the]World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A method of ultralow-background liquid scintillation counting was used after distilling HTO from the samples. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.174 plus or minus 0.074 (2s) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53 plus or minus 0.17 and 2.83 plus or minus 0.15 nCi/L, respectively. Several water and vegetation samples were analyzed from areas outside the ground zero, located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Kensico Reservoir. No HTO above the background was found in those samples. All these results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure.


http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=799642



You fail to mention what was happening BEFORE the effect pictured. There was a great hunk of building structure ABOVE the plane-impacted/fire-damages levels that failed.

And when those levels failed, the whole top of the building including a very strong/heavy hat truss structure plus roof and outer-perimeter walls/inner-core-walls columns plus floors/office/equipment etc plus trapped people ALL FELL ONTO THE POINT FROM WHICH ALL THE CHAOTIC EJECTIONS ARE HAPPENING. What did you expect to happen in such a situation? A gentle 'burp' perhaps?

Don't be disingenuous; if you are a true scientist, you would give everyone ALL THE FACTS PRECEDING YOUR POINT OF DISINFORMATION. I'm very disappointed, mate; very disappointed in you.


Firstly, I assumed the majority would be aware of the event. Secondly, I grew up in Northern Ireland and explosions and their effects are something I would be familiar with.

Thirdly, the WTC collapse is a "gravity collapse", that is, the entire building collapsed under its own weight, at least, that is the official explanation.

I'm have seen both "gravity collapses" and explosions, the two are quite distinct, especially, in terms of how they function and the associated effects. Whilst it may seem,that a gravity collapse could provide the basic energy, I'm afraid that no such thing is possible.

Extensive matter is being ejected, at least 100m vertically and around 60m horizontally. The amount of energy need to achieve that is unbelievable, no known gravity collapse, of which millions have occured, have reproduce similar effects, gravity pulls the matter downwards, not blasting it skywards.

The photograph shows the building being turned into dust and that dust being ejected from the central core, as observed by the Finnish military expert, it requires a greater amount of energy to achieve this, than is available from a gravity collapse:

QUOTE

1) The concrete pulverized into fine dust, 70…300 micron particles (just this could take more energy than the total gravitational energy available). See Gehue plates 6 and 7


Now, if you remember Chernobyl and the fire that ensued afterwards, creating the now infamous "Elephant's foot", the following will sound familiar:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

1) The concrete pulverized into fine dust, 70…300 micron particles (just this could take more energy than the total gravitational energy available). See Gehue plates 6 and 7


Now, if you remember Chernobyl and the fire that ensued afterwards, creating the now infamous "Elephant's foot", the following will sound familiar:


4) Superheated steel objects, disintegrating into steel vapour. Molten ponds of steel were found in the elevator shafts. There were lots of burned cars in the parking areas of the towers. The fire department did not announce until 12/19/2001 that the fires under the WTC rubble have been distinguished (more than 3 months after the incident). For more, see (Gehue plate 8)


Jet fuel burns at around 800 degrees C, whereas, the melting point of steel is above 1500 degrees C. The fires caused by the jet fuel were also out within the structure.

Here is a statement from Time magazine on the Chernobyl fire:

QUOTE

Fueled by the white-hot graphite core of one of Chernobyl's four reactors, the runaway blaze burned at temperatures of up to 5000 degrees , or twice that of molten steel. The crippled reactor itself was unapproachable--too hot from the fire ravaging it, too dangerous radioactively. ''No one knows how to stop it,'' said one U.S. expert. ''It could take weeks to burn itself out.''


http://www.time.com/time/daily/chernobyl/860512.cover.html

Here is a link to a mainstream media source confirming the event of the longterm fires:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml

Here is a link to US government thermal imaging showing a number of "hotspots" around the WTC in the days after the attack, of around 800C to well over 1000C:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Fueled by the white-hot graphite core of one of Chernobyl's four reactors, the runaway blaze burned at temperatures of up to 5000 degrees , or twice that of molten steel. The crippled reactor itself was unapproachable--too hot from the fire ravaging it, too dangerous radioactively. ''No one knows how to stop it,'' said one U.S. expert. ''It could take weeks to burn itself out.''


http://www.time.com/time/daily/chernobyl/860512.cover.html

Here is a link to a mainstream media source confirming the event of the longterm fires:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml

Here is a link to US government thermal imaging showing a number of "hotspots" around the WTC in the days after the attack, of around 800C to well over 1000C:


AVIRIS data collected on September 16, 2001, revealed a number of thermal hot spots in the region where the WTC buildings collapsed. Analysis of the data indicated temperatures greater than 800oF in these hot spots (some over 1300oF) . Over 3 dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature were present in the core zone of the WTC. By September 23, most of these fires that were observable from an aircraft had been eliminated or reduced in intensity.


http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html



As a final note, the area was filled in with cement, instead of continuing the exploration, such measures are consistant with procedures in nuclear incidents.

QUOTE

AMEC Construction Management, a subsidiary of the British engineering firm AMEC, renovated Wedge One of the Pentagon before 9-11 and cleaned it up afterward.

AMEC had also renovated Silverstein?s WTC 7, which collapsed mysteriously on 9-11, and then headed the cleanup of the WTC site afterward. The AMEC construction firm is currently in the process of closing all its offices in the United States.


http://www.total911.info/2004/10/radiation...gon-on-911.html



QUOTE (->
QUOTE

AMEC Construction Management, a subsidiary of the British engineering firm AMEC, renovated Wedge One of the Pentagon before 9-11 and cleaned it up afterward.

AMEC had also renovated Silverstein?s WTC 7, which collapsed mysteriously on 9-11, and then headed the cleanup of the WTC site afterward. The AMEC construction firm is currently in the process of closing all its offices in the United States.


http://www.total911.info/2004/10/radiation...gon-on-911.html




By response to this article, perhaps MMC was merely trying to gauge the
magnitude of human ineptitude, leading many to believe implausible stuff like,
smashing particles together reveals hidden composite structure.


hehe...more like that we are well aware that it takes certain energies to achieve certain effects and that the WTC collapse shows energies inconsistant with the observations and breaks the known laws of physics.


QUOTE

From 1993 through 2000, the U.N. agency, which monitors nuclear security, confirmed 153 cases of theft of nuclear materials. The thefts included plutonium and highly enriched uranium that could be used immediately as fuel for a nuclear weapon, as well as less volatile nuclear material, such as uranium fuel and wastes from nuclear power reactors, that would need high-tech processing before it could trigger a nuclear blast.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

From 1993 through 2000, the U.N. agency, which monitors nuclear security, confirmed 153 cases of theft of nuclear materials. The thefts included plutonium and highly enriched uranium that could be used immediately as fuel for a nuclear weapon, as well as less volatile nuclear material, such as uranium fuel and wastes from nuclear power reactors, that would need high-tech processing before it could trigger a nuclear blast.



U.S. concern centers on small, portable nuclear weapons called "suitcase bombs." Russian officials insist that fewer than 100 of the devices were ever constructed and all have been destroyed or put under impregnable security. U.S. officials fear however that the Russians can't account for all of them.

Even if some portable devices were stolen, the sophisticated hand-held units would need expert maintenance — such as replacement of fast-decaying tritium used in triggering mechanisms — to retain their effectiveness.


Both above quotes are from the following article:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/1...eat-usatcov.htm


The analysis is quite legitimate, so it is time to put your thinking caps on people...
MMC
13th January 2006 - 03:36 PM
I'll now continue this to cover the other points made throughout the Finnish military expert's observations:

QUOTE

2) Very energetic – hot – dust after the explosions. (Demolition charges would produce white clouds of dust, which would not move much, and a gravity-driven collapse would produce much less and more coarse dust.)


Matter is being ejected from the building in a violent manner, this is inconsistant with the plumes created by a gravity collapse. They are being forced skywards and outwards, the collapse of the top section would not result in such an event, it is the hallmark of an explosion:

user posted image


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

2) Very energetic – hot – dust after the explosions. (Demolition charges would produce white clouds of dust, which would not move much, and a gravity-driven collapse would produce much less and more coarse dust.)


Matter is being ejected from the building in a violent manner, this is inconsistant with the plumes created by a gravity collapse. They are being forced skywards and outwards, the collapse of the top section would not result in such an event, it is the hallmark of an explosion:

user posted image



3) Brown shades of color seen in the air – these are produced by nuclear reactions of a thermonuclear device. The reactions use (gamma radiation caused by free neutrons, N2, O2, H2O > nitrid acid, NO2, NO3). These clouds soon get their usual white color after some minutes as the heat and fast movement of the clouds cease becoming ordinary clouds with some water.


So, let's look at nitric acid:

QUOTE

At room temperature it gives off red or yellow fumes in moist air. Commonly used as a laboratory reagent, it is used in the manufacture of explosives such as nitroglycerin and trinitrotoluene (TNT), and as well as of fertilizers such as ammonium nitrate. It has additional uses in metallurgy and refining as it reacts with most metals, and in organic syntheses. When combined with hydrochloric acid it forms aqua regia, one of the few reagents capable of dissolving gold and platinum. Nitric acid is also a component of acid rain.


As you will see, we are coming back to conventional explosives also...this allows two scenarios, a small hydrogen device, or an acetone and conventional explosives mix.

As I said before, both would result in increased levels of tritium.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

At room temperature it gives off red or yellow fumes in moist air. Commonly used as a laboratory reagent, it is used in the manufacture of explosives such as nitroglycerin and trinitrotoluene (TNT), and as well as of fertilizers such as ammonium nitrate. It has additional uses in metallurgy and refining as it reacts with most metals, and in organic syntheses. When combined with hydrochloric acid it forms aqua regia, one of the few reagents capable of dissolving gold and platinum. Nitric acid is also a component of acid rain.


As you will see, we are coming back to conventional explosives also...this allows two scenarios, a small hydrogen device, or an acetone and conventional explosives mix.

As I said before, both would result in increased levels of tritium.



Note: many of the pictures taken regarding the WTC Towers and the clouds seem to have been developed too blue, killing shades of brown. (This may have been an attempt to suppress the evidence.) Also there was supposed to be 200 000+ gallons of water on the roof of each tower – this water was spilled into stairwells etc, but was later all converted into water vapour reducing the brown color.


200,000+ gallons of water, hitting an acetone or small hydrogen bomb, would result in a massive steam explosion, similar to Chernobyl...this would provide the energy to push massive amounts of material skywards. A delay would be expected, as it would take some time to convert that water to steam and for the falling material to act as a source of resistance.



QUOTE

6) An EMP-type phenomenon blacked out cellular phones at the moment when the first (southern) tower started to 'fall down', at the exact moment when a small thermonuclear bomb was detonated. Even in electronic cameras and videos a strange afterglow was seen in the late phase of the 'collapse' of both of the towers. See Gehue plate 5


Still looking for info on this...will get back to it, but, this should be important. The fact that the mobile network was eliminated and other forms of electronic devices remained alright, could point to a pulse across a limited band of frequencies, that could help us identify the weapon.



QUOTE (->
QUOTE

6) An EMP-type phenomenon blacked out cellular phones at the moment when the first (southern) tower started to 'fall down', at the exact moment when a small thermonuclear bomb was detonated. Even in electronic cameras and videos a strange afterglow was seen in the late phase of the 'collapse' of both of the towers. See Gehue plate 5


Still looking for info on this...will get back to it, but, this should be important. The fact that the mobile network was eliminated and other forms of electronic devices remained alright, could point to a pulse across a limited band of frequencies, that could help us identify the weapon.




7) A wave of pressure was witnessed in the root of the tower at the moment when the so-called collapse was progressing just about two hundred meters and nothing had fallen down to earth. The blast wave turned over for example a photographer and a fireman close to the entrance, who was taking photos of the dust cloud. The burst of the dust cloud on the root of the tower was photographed as well. In the image at the left below is what probably was the explosion of WTC 6. The Customs building was deliberately exploded for some reason - it was not damaged because of the falling girders as they had not yet reached the roof of WTC 7 when the photo was taken. A couple of seconds later the clouds of the explosion were already partly above the roof of WTC 7, which was too energetical to be caused by usual blasting agents. This suggests it was the second hydrogen bomb in the WTC block. The first hydrogen bomb is discharging upwards (pulverized concrete) exactly in the picture, and the steel structures vaporized by the bomb are already falling down 100 meters (approx. 328 ft.) farther down. The mass of cloud, caused by vaporized steel, is seen in the center of the picture and even more clearly in the picture at the right.


There are some stunning photographs of this and in the live video footage, you see this appear BEFORE the collapse...

I will find the video link and post it later...


QUOTE

8) In the cellar, out of all the 47 ultra strong steel pillars, the steel was melted completely at the length of more than 20 meters (approx. 65 ft). Even cars were melted and burned in the cellar. The pillars were far too thick for thermite, which some have suggested. An explosion of a thermonuclear bomb explains the phenomenon well.


...or acetone, there are also stunning pictures of the cars burnt outside,...links will be posted later...


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

8) In the cellar, out of all the 47 ultra strong steel pillars, the steel was melted completely at the length of more than 20 meters (approx. 65 ft). Even cars were melted and burned in the cellar. The pillars were far too thick for thermite, which some have suggested. An explosion of a thermonuclear bomb explains the phenomenon well.


...or acetone, there are also stunning pictures of the cars burnt outside,...links will be posted later...



9) Steel columns and pillars were ejected in the surroundings of the building. In the beginning of the so-called collapse, exists no such energy exists that could throw steel pillars outwards from 60 to 175 meters (approx. from 170 to 574 ft.) from trunk. Not even cutting charges can do that. Instead, the blast wave from a nuclear bomb is capable to do that.


This is quite correct, a bomb of several thousand pounds, would have great difficulty in projecting steel pillars and under no circumstances could a gravity collapse project steel pillars over a quarter of a kilometer...that's a hallmark of an explosion.
trueinfo
13th January 2006 - 05:38 PM

Oh for Christ's sake this thread is filled to the brim with disinfo.

The seismographs have a bad scale on x-axis.

Steel did not melt, molten steel was the initial official theory.

There were no missiles.

There was no nuke.

The towers were demolished with thermite that produced molten iron. WTC7 was pulled with conventional charges.

(And before anyone asks, there WAS a large plane at the Pentagon and it hit the building.)

See this page for info on bogus theories:

http://oilempire.us/bogus.html

As well as this site for an engineering approach:

http://911research.wtc7.net/

Try not to get taken in by disinfo, this issue is important.
TimeMan
13th January 2006 - 06:23 PM
Lets make this very clear.
No nuke's or other means of a missile were used.


MMC
13th January 2006 - 09:35 PM
Let's make this VERY clear...the views of anonymous posters are not considered in any form or fashion...

For all we know, you could be terrorists...
MMC
13th January 2006 - 09:44 PM
Ok, here is an area that most members should be able to assist in...statistics and concentration levels...I have taken some time to study the report on elevated tritium levels and I have come up with this basic assessment.

The idea here is to expand upon this very basic analysis and provide one or more scenarios...

If you want to prove this theory wrong or right, this is how to approach it...become a member and begin work on the facts...

...wild comments, without any supporting basis, are completely useless and only undermine those trying to debunk the Finnish military expert's claims.

Only by explaining each aspect, with proper supporting physics, would you be able to achieve that.

This is a physics site...you will need to use physics.

Let the games begin...

QUOTE

The modeling suggests that the contribution from the aircraft would imply the HTO deposition
fraction of [3]%, a value which is judged somewhat too high. Therefore, the source term from
the airplanes alone is insufficient to explain the measurements and modeling.

Several weapons were present and destroyed at [the]WTC. The modeling is also consistent with the second tritium source from the weapon sights (plus possibly tritium watches)where tritium was slowly released from the debris in the lingering fires, followed by an oxidation and removal with the water flow. Such a limiting case would require a minimum of 115 weapons and a quantitative capturing of tritium. Therefore, such a mechanism alone [seems in]sufficient,
which indicates that the weapon/watch source complemented the airplane source.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE

The modeling suggests that the contribution from the aircraft would imply the HTO deposition
fraction of [3]%, a value which is judged somewhat too high. Therefore, the source term from
the airplanes alone is insufficient to explain the measurements and modeling.

Several weapons were present and destroyed at [the]WTC. The modeling is also consistent with the second tritium source from the weapon sights (plus possibly tritium watches)where tritium was slowly released from the debris in the lingering fires, followed by an oxidation and removal with the water flow. Such a limiting case would require a minimum of 115 weapons and a quantitative capturing of tritium. Therefore, such a mechanism alone [seems in]sufficient,
which indicates that the weapon/watch source complemented the airplane source.

A method of ultralow-background liquid scintillation counting was used after distilling HTO from the samples. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.174 plus or minus 0.074 (2s) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53 plus or minus 0.17 and 2.83 plus or minus 0.15 nCi/L, respectively.
The fact is most of those source would be close to, if not older than the 12.4 year half-life. Tritium loses about 5% of it mass every year.

The concentration is too high, you are asking me to believe that every source of tritium gathered in the same place and that the basement, sealed from the building, saturated in water which would dilute the concentration, managed to gather 5 times the amount, over a week later.

No, that would indicate that more leached downwards over time, indicating that the source of the tritium was midway up the building...


QUOTE

It was determined that [the]Boeing 767-222 aircraft operated by the United Airlines that hit WTC Tower 2 as well as [the]Boeing 767-223ER operated by the American Airlines, that hit WTC Tower 1, had a combined 34{.3} Ci of tritium at the time of impact, contained in emergency signs.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE

It was determined that [the]Boeing 767-222 aircraft operated by the United Airlines that hit WTC Tower 2 as well as [the]Boeing 767-223ER operated by the American Airlines, that hit WTC Tower 1, had a combined 34{.3} Ci of tritium at the time of impact, contained in emergency signs.

Tritium is rare in nature because of its 12.4-year half-life. It is produced by cosmic radiation in the upper atmosphere where it combines with oxygen to form water. It then falls to earth as rain, but the concentration is too low to be useful in a nuclear weapons program. Most tritium is produced by bombarding 6Li [ 6 Li(n, a) 3 H] with neutrons in a reactor; it is also produced as a byproduct of the operation of a heavy-water-moderated reactor when neutrons are captured on the deuterons present. It has been suggested that it may be feasible to produce tritium in an accelerator (electronuclear breeder) in which protons bombard an appropriate target.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/tritium.htm


The tritium was diluted by 200,000+ gallons of water, from each tower, not to mention the amount of water afterwards and the uneven distribution of such material would make samples vary widely.

QUOTE

nanocurie (nCi)
a common unit of radioactivity. The nanocurie equals 10-9 curie or 37 becquerels; this corresponds to a radioactivity of 37 atomic disintegrations per second.

curie (Ci)
a unit of radioactivity. One curie was originally defined as the radioactivity of one gram of pure radium. In 1953 scientists agreed that the curie would represent exactly 3.7 x 1010 atomic disintegrations per second, or 37 gigabecquerels (GBq), this being the best estimate of the activity of a gram of radium. See also becquerel. The unit is named for Pierre and Marie Curie, the discoverers of radium.
A sample is around 10ml, that means the concentration over the entire site would have been thousands times more. That would place the origional amount somewhere in the region of around...wait for it...

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

nanocurie (nCi)
a common unit of radioactivity. The nanocurie equals 10-9 curie or 37 becquerels; this corresponds to a radioactivity of 37 atomic disintegrations per second.

curie (Ci)
a unit of radioactivity. One curie was originally defined as the radioactivity of one gram of pure radium. In 1953 scientists agreed that the curie would represent exactly 3.7 x 1010 atomic disintegrations per second, or 37 gigabecquerels (GBq), this being the best estimate of the activity of a gram of radium. See also becquerel. The unit is named for Pierre and Marie Curie, the discoverers of radium.
A sample is around 10ml, that means the concentration over the entire site would have been thousands times more. That would place the origional amount somewhere in the region of around...wait for it...


Several environmental measurements were made to confirm or disprove this hypothesis. Water was distilled once from the environmental stationary water samples, and twice from the vegetation samples. 10 ml of such distillate was mixed with 13 ml of Instagel XF cocktail (Packard) in a borosilicate glass vial and measured on an ultralow-background liquid scintillation counter TRI-CARB, model 3170TR/SL by Packard.
200,000 gallons = 757,082,400 ml

Divide that amount into 10ml...
/ 10 = 7570824 samples

If 10ml samples were used, the origonal amount of tritium was in the order of:
7570824 * 3.53 = 26725008.72 nCi/L of HTO
7570824 * 0.174 = 1317323.376 nCi/L of HTO

That's per tower, so we must double those figures. The next major factor is that only a fraction of oxidized tritium would be converted to HTO, the rest would excape as a gas...tritium has the same properties as hydrogen.

Next up, is the physical area that is covered and the absorbtion by surrounding materials and the flow of water away from the site...we are only left with residue.

The authors of the report noted this and came to this conclusion:

QUOTE

Therefore, such a mechanism alone [seems in]sufficient, which indicates that the weapon/watch source complemented the airplane source.
I agree, however, I have additional considerations:

If we now add the additional water sources noted by the report and run the calculation:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Therefore, such a mechanism alone [seems in]sufficient, which indicates that the weapon/watch source complemented the airplane source.
I agree, however, I have additional considerations:

If we now add the additional water sources noted by the report and run the calculation:


Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 (the day of the reported measurement).
4,000,000 Gallons = 15,141,648,000ml

/10 = 1,514,164,800 samples
/100 = 151,416,480 samples

If 10ml samples were used:
1,514,164,800 * 3.53 = 5,345,001,744 nCi/L of HTO
1,514,164,800 * 0.174 = 263,464,675.2 nCi/L of HTO

Now from here we can see that the first sample would provide a value of 5.35Ci/L of HTO...

The plane had "34{.3} Ci of tritium at the time of impact"...the fist result ALONE would have accounted for 1/6 of the ENTIRE plane's content of tritium.


When you add this fact on top:

QUOTE

Th[is] water met and combine[d] with the estimated 26 million gallons of water that leaked from the Hudson River, as well as broken mains, during the same period of 10 days after the attack. The combined 30 million gallons of water {were} collect[ed] in the PATH train tunnel and [were] continuously {being} pumped out to prevent flooding.
and even account for the tritium contained in the exit signs:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Th[is] water met and combine[d] with the estimated 26 million gallons of water that leaked from the Hudson River, as well as broken mains, during the same period of 10 days after the attack. The combined 30 million gallons of water {were} collect[ed] in the PATH train tunnel and [were] continuously {being} pumped out to prevent flooding.
and even account for the tritium contained in the exit signs:


Taking into consideration 2 Twin Towers, 110 floors each, and assuming 5 EXIT signs per floor, 10 Ci of 3H each, would result in a total of 1.1×104Ci
Then you can see we have a scenario were vast amounts of tritium would have been present.

Therefore, the simple answer is this, yes, it is plausible that after 2 days (9/13/01) and 8 days later (9/21/01) the majority of the HTO was:

pumped out,
drained out,
absorbed by material,
absorbed by the ground,
escape as a gas

and that the residual amounts left represented around 1% of the total volume.


It must be remembered that the evaluation was on health grounds only and further tests were not made:

QUOTE

Thus tritium was detected in these limited samples at ground zero, but the concentrations are very low. In fact, 3 nCi/L is about 7 times less than the EPA limit in drinking water of 20 nCi/L (CFR, 141.66). No health implications are known or expected at such low concentrations (Hill and Johnson, 1993). As a consequence no additional ground-zero samples were judged necessary
This is very quick, so please excuse any minor errors, the bulk of this is correct.
yquantum
13th January 2006 - 10:10 PM
MMC,

The government, civil service, in fact no one could keep a secret of such magnitude, do you really think? If such a device was used there would be signs showing by now in many forms.

What is my concern for those in the USA, it could happen in fact anywhere in the world for that event to take place?

But there is one more fact that must be considered, MMC.

People with exposures of 50 Gy or more invariably die within 24-48 hours from complications of the neurovascular syndrome. This is characterized by a rapid onset of apathy, lethargy, and prostration. If that weren't enough, they then usually have seizures which range from random muscle contractions to generalized tonic-clonic (grand mal) . . . which end in ataxia and death. If there is early neurologic involvement, there is also usually a cardiovascular syndrome, which is characterized by severe blood pressure depression, cardiac arrhythmias, and shock before the patient dies.

It has been over a year MMC. That type of dirty bomb does not just disappear.

Unlikely from my humble view,
yquantum
MMC
13th January 2006 - 11:21 PM
I think it is important to point this out...

Until I have worked it out at a physics level, it would be completely stupid to support it, or to claim that it is junk.

The idea here is "myth busting"...

Conspiracy theorists do not believe the "official" versions and distrust governments of any country when they provide opinions. Therefore, the idea is to test each analysis, in series, and for that to be conducted by the general public.

The one thing that is unquestionable is that the photograph shows some form of explosion, ejecting matter 100m skywards and around 60m horizontally, a gravity collapse does not do this...the following is a small list of possible sources of this energy:

1. A small nuclear device...
2. Plasma...or plasma cutting charges...resulting in a steam explosion.
3. Other materials burning- resulting in either an explosion of gases, or a steam explosion.
4. Conventional explosives. - possibly hot enough to cause a steam explosions also.
5. Acetone - again steam explosion.
6. Gas explosions - various gases would be produced, that could ignite.
7. Explosive compound creation - Certain compounds could be created which would be unstable.

As for surrounding issues that are outside the remit of physics they will not be discussed, this is a physical examination. The facts should speak for themselves.

I'm going to play the "devil's advocate" for the conspiracy theorist's, in that, I will defend their point of view and rip apart official explanations and alternate theories.

As soon as one theory has been established to be false, we will then progress to the next theory and so forth, until all have been covered. As well as providing a good service, this will also provide a more practical viewpoint of physics in general.

Its a good test of people's skills... smile.gif


QUOTE

What is my concern for those in the USA, it could happen in fact anywhere in the world for that event to take place?


Yes, we need to understand the circumstances and by covering it in an open forum, were anyone can join and review the material, the final conclusions and the people who would support those conclusions, would be very strong material.

Who knows, perhaps we may find something that has been overlooked?



QUOTE (->
QUOTE

What is my concern for those in the USA, it could happen in fact anywhere in the world for that event to take place?


Yes, we need to understand the circumstances and by covering it in an open forum, were anyone can join and review the material, the final conclusions and the people who would support those conclusions, would be very strong material.

Who knows, perhaps we may find something that has been overlooked?




It has been over a year MMC. That type of dirty bomb does not just disappear.


I understand that, however, the WTC building was composed of a lot of substances that could absorb neutrons, with a properly positioned low-yield device, there is a possibility that the majority of the dense radio-active material was absorbed within a short distance of the device...only to be scrapped later. The remaining energy could be directed into the structure itself.

QUOTE

The seismographs have a bad scale on x-axis.


That's nonsense, a spike is a spike and the x-axis shows that spike relative to other events...laugh at the person who told you this piece of "gold" information.

In the case of plasma cutting charges, there may be limited use of radio-active material that has been attributed to other sources...

With fires lasting 3 months, the heat required to melt steel into pools of molten metal, the energy required to reduce concrete to 70-300microns, the energy required to eject almost 10,000 tonnes of matter skywards, the energy required to eject steel pillars over a quarter of a kilometer, increased tritium levels, the vertical collapse, the recorded basement level explosions and the numerous other anomolies, there is solid grounds for this.

I find the entire event puzzling and since I have the ability to examine it, why not?
RealityCheck
14th January 2006 - 12:35 AM
MMC.

Apparently you are not aware that (obviously) more experienced/learned physicists than yourself have THOROUGHLY covered the WTC 9/11 physics/mechanics/chemistry etc RIGHT UNDER YOUR NOSE...right HERE in PhysOrgForums...under the "PHYSICS GENERAL" Forum (in the Topic thread "Basic Physics"). Learn; and stop being disingenuous. It doesn't become a true scientist.

RC.
.
MMC
14th January 2006 - 02:57 AM
I have looked at it and more, they don't cover the aspects I am about to go through...if they did, someone would have provided a reasonable explanation for around 10,000 tonnes being projected into the air.

Also, I would feel very few, if any, have direct experience with explosions and terrorism in general...I've had the chance to be face to face with quite a few.

They don't answer all the questions...

RealityCheck
14th January 2006 - 03:41 AM
QUOTE (MMC+Jan 14 2006, 02:57 AM)
I have looked at it and more, they don't cover the aspects I am about to go through...if they did, someone would have provided a reasonable explanation for around 10,000 tonnes being projected into the air.

Also, I would feel very few, if any, have direct experience with explosions and terrorism in general...I've had the chance to be face to face with quite a few.

They don't answer all the questions...

MMC.

Think of the MASS of the top of the building falling onto the section of the building where they 'collide chaotically'. Think further of the BURNING DEBRIS in those top floors. Think further STILL of the hot gases from massively widespread/raging fire in those floors and the floors immediatel above/below the plane impact levels, and THEN think of those ALREADY HIGH TEMP SOLIDS/GASES/BURNING-MATERIALS being further compressed by the top/bottom sections meeting and trapping those gases temporarily before they are expelled 'explosively'...from the energy of compression/grinding/fire/collision. If you can make a bicycle pump heat cool air and the pump body by just a few strokes from your puny arms, imagine the 'concentration and sudden release' of the energies involved in that scenario (all the scenario, and NOT just beginning from your picture).

It doesn't matter what type of sudden energy flows do the job, there was PLENTY of such energy-flow-rate to do all that is seen in the picture at that stage.

One further detail regarding 'illusion'. Due to the fact that the physical contact areas and pneumatic expulsion are BOTH proceeding DOWNWARDS as part of the catastrophic rush to the ground, any debris, gases and BEAMS etc that are expelled MERELY SIDEWAYS or just EVEN MERELY 'TEMPORARILY ARRESTED' in place because of any MODEST upwards-directed force vectors imparted by the impacts/expulsions, they WOULD ONLY SEEM 'relatively' TO BE GOING HIGHER THAN THEY ACTUALLY ARE because of RELATIVE motion of the rest of the collapse front moving along DOWN while the 'ejected/arrested' pieces and smoke SEEM TO BE MOVING UP much more than they actually are. Something like you just throwing a ball a LITTLE way UP (or even just letting it go where it is) WHILE MOVING YOUR HAND QUICKLY DOWN AND AWAY...the illusion is that the ball is 'moving up' a little or fast, depending on whether you just let go or gave it a little up-and-out 'push' before letting go of it. That has a little to do with the overall 'picture' too.

The forces/energies/temps involved are AMPLE for explaining the chaotic phenomena of snapping/springing-away and ejection of smoke, hot gases and chunks/beams.

Your attempt to bring exotic energy-sources/mechanisms into the picture have ALSO been attempted in that other thread, and have been dealt with satisfactorily (although you may pursue your particular 'fusion/fuel' system scenario there and be sure that someone will only be too happy to answer you IN CONTEXT rather than in this isolated and misleading thread you started out with here).

READ AGAIN THE THREAD I REFERENCED EARLIER THOROUGHLY...then come back and point out WHICH of your POINTS are NOT COVERED/EXPLAINED, and point out in WHAT WAY the explanations there are unsatifactory to you. Perhaps THEN people might take you as 'genuine'. And in any case, since THAT thread exists and is MUCH MORE EXHAUSTIVE, IT WOULD BE THE LOGICAL THING TO DO TO PUT YOUR QUESTIONS/CONCERNS THEREIN, so that people familiar with these matters can help you MORE EXPEDITIOUSLY/EFFICACIOUSLY than people here who are unfamiliar with the factors involved can do WITHOUT REPLICATING MUCH OF WHAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THAT OTHER THREAD.

Good luck and good thinking.

RC.
.
MMC
14th January 2006 - 03:57 AM
Right, let's deal with the missile theory as presented at letsroll911.org...

http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/index...=view&ANN_id=16

According to letsroll911.org:

QUOTE

As the 2nd plane, alleged to have been Flight 175, approaches the South Tower, a bright white flash lights up the entire side of the aircraft. And some kind of projectile is fired from the planes under-carriage and flies nose to nose with the aircraft the last few hundred feet.


Firstly, if you examine the second moving image, what you can see, is that the "bright white flash" is simply the reflection of the sun caught at low resolution. This is to do with the camera angle and possibly, reflection from the windows of the WTC building.

The "projectile" that "appears" to separate from the plane, is actually the engine separting from the wing under the sheer forces being generated. The camera is looking at the plane from a 3/4 angle (looking up) and you can clearly see the engine begins to twist to the left.

In the image that appears directly below, what appears to be a bulge, is actually the shadow of the wing mounts which extend under the aircraft...

A commercial airliner was not built to go flat out in a dive, no matter how shallow, the kinetic energy gathered, combined with atmospheric drag, rips the plane apart. The heaviest, or the most dense componants, experience the greatest drag. With very little support on the wing mounting, engine separation is a classic phenomenon under stress.

All missiles are designed to catch their targets, this means that they have a high burn rate of fuel, typically 2-3 secs worth, they then "glide" using the kinetic energy and the rudders control the direction. They are super-sonic (sidewinder - Mach 2.5) and push around 26g-30g during acceleration. A missile fired at high altitude will travel further, as it falls in an arc pattern. This means that a missile fired at sea-level will not travel as far. Extensive documented evidence on the effectiveness of various missiles and altitude required to achieve specific distances is available on the web.

The only exception is cruise missiles, which fly at sub-sonic speeds similar to aircraft, a photograph can be seen below. Quite a few attempts have been made at home made versions, rather crude affairs, the principle does work, however, they do not have the range and accuracy of the real thing and certainly could not follow an aircraft. As for the real thing, Cruise missiles are 20 feet (6.25 meters) long and 21 inches (0.52 meters) in diameter. At launch, they include a 550-pound (250-kg) solid rocket booster and weigh 3,200 pounds (1450 kg).

No such object is mounted on the aircraft in any of the photos.

If any of the below pictures are missing follow these links:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/cruise-missile2.htm
http://www.pbase.com/kiwirob/image/46416812

A Cruise missile produced by Ratheon...

user posted image


A 3/4 under-view of a 767, showing the engines and wing mounts...

User posted image

I'm afraid there is no big mystery in these pictures.
MMC
14th January 2006 - 05:24 AM
QUOTE

Think of the MASS of the top of the building falling onto the section of the building where they 'collide chaotically'.


This may appear satisfactory as a thought experiment, however, a gravity collapse does not produce that effect in reality.

There are two events happening...the first is the standard gravity collapse of the upper section, the second event, you would only notice if you have ever seen an explosion.

As the matter collapses onto the building, some form of shockwave is delivered up through the building, the classical signs are the "mushrooming" type effect. It can be compared to blowing air up a vertical pipe, partially filled with flour and watching it "mushroom" upwards and outwards, at its peak, covering almost 200m (almost a quarter of a kilometer).

It must be noted that I do not disagree that the building pancaked, there is no force large enough to move mass anywhere but straight down, what I am saying is that there was a very large explosion and that it was a directional blast, straight up through the building...

The blast wave of the explosion has been incorrectly interpreted as energy from the downwards collapse of the upper section.

The ONLY question I have is what form of device produced sufficent force to create a "volcanic like blast" that far up?

That's one hell of a bang and too much for 10m/s given the mass of the top portion. The entire 110 story structure weighed 500,000 tonnes and the plane hit between the 94th and 98th floors according to the FEMA report.

That's around 4545 tonnes per floor, if we take damage from the 90th floor upwards, that amounts to around 99090 tonnes traveling at 10m/s with an arrest in that velocity not long after, before a continuation of the collapse.

That's enough to pancake the building, however, it is not enough to create a "mushroom" effect, as the force is distributed over a wide area and what is being ejected is 30-700 micron particles of concrete. The gravitational energy, of a single tower, would be around 400,000 KWH, in excess of 1,400,000 KWH is required to produce particles of this magnitude.

That's 1,000,000 KWH of energy unaccounted for.

I have considered the "bicycle pump effect", where the collapsing matter compressed the interior atmosphere rapidly, causing it to super-heat and, thus, convert the 200,000+ gallons of water to steam and ejecting it out through the top, however, such an event would have blown out every window...it would be almost like a scene from the film "Independence Day". No such event occurs.

That tells us that compression from the top was not a factor. The ONLY thing that is left is a shockwave travelling from the bottom, to the top, in a HIGHLY directed fashion, with an estimated energy of around 1,000,000 KWH. This results in the "compression" of concrete to fine dust and the upwards thrust ejecting material 100m-200m into the air and pretty much in diameter also.

In addition to this, it was clearly reported on National TV, of the existance of not only a basement level explosion, but also, of secondary devices, watch the news report for yourself here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/decem...5foundbombs.htm

The following photos demonstrate that it is not a "plume", but a "targeted ejection" of matter at high velocity, similar to the effect of when a volcano erupts...

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image
adoucette
14th January 2006 - 05:50 AM
QUOTE (MMC+)
This may appear satisfactory as a thought experiment, however, a gravity collapse does not produce that effect in reality.

There are two events happening...the first is the standard gravity collapse of the upper section, the second event, you would only notice if you have ever seen an explosion.


I love it when such global statements are made with NOTHING to back them up.

Two questions.

What is the most common metal for making springs?

Why?

Arthur
MMC
14th January 2006 - 08:16 PM
QUOTE

love it when such global statements are made with NOTHING to back them up.


Similar to the "official" explanation.

The bottom line is this...

The gravitational energy, of a single tower collapsing, would be around 400,000 KWH.

To achieve particle sizes of 60 microns, energies of at least 900,000 KWH are required.

That's more than both towers put together.

To achieve 30 microns, energies of somewhere between 1,500,000 KWH and 1,800,000 KWH are required.

The energy of both towers collapsing is around 800,000 KWH.

That 1,000,000 KWH unaccounted for, at least.

The explosion caught on camera is equivilent to a 300 KT detonation.


There is no escaping that, deny the facts of reality all you like...
MMC
14th January 2006 - 09:27 PM
Anyone care to speculate on how to achieve the extra 1,000,000 MWH needed to create 30 micron dust particles?
Guest
14th January 2006 - 09:44 PM
flatulence?
Guest
14th January 2006 - 09:51 PM
LOL
RealityCheck
15th January 2006 - 01:46 AM
MMC.

You are a disgrace to the word 'scientist'. You have OBVIOUSLY NOT read all the info on that other thread, otherwise you would not be repeating the same debunked assertions here. And you missed where I said that about the 'compressed' BURNING MATTER AND COMBUSTION GASES...and not just 'air'. The sudden concentration of energy involved would have produced 'explosive' combustion in the compressed FUEL-AIR situations within the collapsed floors. There's your 'bomb'. And since the 'concrete' used on the floors was of the LIGHTWEIGHT consistency; and the panels and wall-coverings were of the soft 'drywall' variety, then of course the collapse would EASILY produce such dust; not to mention the 'calcining' (to CaO+CO2) of some 'concrete' material by the high temps involved. Please do yourself a favour: RE-READ AND COMPREHEND FULLY THE MEANING OF ALL THAT APPEARS IN THAT OTHER THREAD before going on with THIS farce of a 'scientific treatment'. Your attempts here have so far done nothing but bring the spectre of disrespect and derision for all true scientists here.

RC.
.
DaBigEd
15th January 2006 - 06:05 AM
Hey man i know im not a registered member or nothing, but can you explain how the many millions of degrees necessary for a nuclear fusion explosion was created without the use of a fission device.

Furthermore, could you enlighten us as to how exactly, if a fission bomb was not used, the fusion event was triggered.

Thanks
reasonwhy
15th January 2006 - 08:55 AM
QUOTE (MMC+Jan 12 2006, 06:30 PM)
QUOTE

The only trigger we have is a Fission bomb.


No, that's not true...a plasma trigger of deuterium and lithium (or similar substances), would eject neutrons...


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

The only trigger we have is a Fission bomb.


No, that's not true...a plasma trigger of deuterium and lithium (or similar substances), would eject neutrons...



They DO leave a radioactive foot print.


With low yield devices, the footprint would be minimal and easily over-looked, or attributed to various sources. Given that the site was cleared without investigation, any radio-active footprint would also have been removed also.

Now read this lot:

QUOTE

Small quantities of acetone added to fuel may improve economy and engine performance, though this is only anecdotal and refuted by most automotive engineers.

Acetone has been used in the manufacture of TNT. During World War I a new process of producing acetone through bacterial fermentation was developed by Chaim Weizmann, to help the British war effort.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Small quantities of acetone added to fuel may improve economy and engine performance, though this is only anecdotal and refuted by most automotive engineers.

Acetone has been used in the manufacture of TNT. During World War I a new process of producing acetone through bacterial fermentation was developed by Chaim Weizmann, to help the British war effort.

Source: American Association For The Advancement Of Science 
Date: 2002-03-05

Fusion In A Flash?

Researchers Report Nuclear Emissions From Tiny, Super-Hot Collapsing Bubbles

The dramatic flashing implosion of tiny bubbles--in acetone containing deuterium atoms--produces tritium and nuclear emissions similar to emissions characteristic of nuclear fusion involving deuterium-deuterium reactions. This finding was reported in the 8 March issue of the peer-reviewed journal Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Shock wave simulations also indicate that temperatures inside the collapsing bubbles may reach up to 10 million degrees Kelvin, as hot as the center of the sun. Although the high temperatures and pressures within the bubbles would be sufficient to generate fusion, the overall results of the study only suggest, but do not confirm, nuclear fusion in the bubbles’ collapse.

Nuclear fusion joins together light atoms, such as hydrogen, in a reaction that creates a third heavier atom and converts some of the original atoms’ mass into energy. Nuclear fission, the type of reaction currently used in commercial power plants, splits heavy atoms like uranium and releases some of the excess energy stored as mass in the uranium atoms. Scientists have been eager to harness fusion as an energy source, because unlike fission, fusion uses readily available raw material as fuel and produces fewer radioactive waste products.

The experiments performed by the Science researchers suggest that nuclear fusion might occur in bubbles created by “acoustic cavitation,” a phenomenon studied for nearly a century. In acoustic cavitation, the pressure of a sound wave creates and collapses bubbles in a liquid. The first part of the wave is a tension wave, which stretches the liquid and pulls apart a space for bubbles to form when the liquid is bombarded by energetic particles like neutrons. A second compression wave follows close behind, squeezing and bursting the bubbles, which then emit a brilliant but extremely brief flash of light called sonoluminescence.

Sonoluminescence’s exact cause is still somewhat mysterious, but many researchers believe that the shock waves of the collapse generate high temperatures and pressures in the bubble’s gas, which releases a burst of energy. Scientists have learned to trap single bubbles within a sound wave, causing them to swell and shrink and emit light in a regular fashion.

Temperatures inside these bubbles can be as high as 5000-7000 degrees Kelvin, about as hot as the sun’s surface. But, recent experiments by a number of researchers suggest that bubble temperatures can reach even higher temperatures--closer to the heat needed for nuclear fusion--if the original bubbles are very small and allowed to grow rapidly before collapse.

Rusi P. Taleyarkhan of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and colleagues devised an experiment to produce these super-hot bubbles, trapping bubbles in deuterated acetone (acetone with its normal hydrogen atoms replaced by deuterium, a heavy hydrogen isotope that can undergo fusion reactions). The experiment’s entire apparatus is well within the bounds of “table-top physics,” about “the size of three coffee cups stacked one on top of the other,” says Taleyarkhan.

Using a pulse of neutrons to first “seed” the tiny bubbles, each no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence, the Science authors then used a sound wave to grow the bubbles rapidly just before their implosion. The process produced stable bubbles that could expand to nearly a millimeter in radius before collapsing, a key part of producing very high pressures and temperatures.

The researchers then searched for signs that fusion might be taking place in the implosions. Deuterium-deuterium fusion reactions create two telltale products: neutrons of a characteristic energy and tritium, another hydrogen isotope. Using very sensitive detectors, Taleyarkhan and colleagues detected higher levels of tritium in samples with extensive bubble implosion. The researchers also observed the emission of neutrons with energy close to 2.5 million electron volts, which is the characteristic neutron energy associated with deuterium-deuterium fusion.

As a part of an elaborate series of control experiments conducted throughout the research, the authors prepared identical experiments in non-deuterated (normal) acetone, and observed no neutron emission or tritium production in these experiments.

Currently, the level of neutron emissions with the characteristic fusion energy appears to be lower than would be expected from the tritium signals observed in the experiment. Further tests are needed to account for this discrepancy, and to verify the observed relations between the neutron emissions, tritium production, and bubble collapse.

If fusion is confirmed in further tests, these bubbles would still have a long way to go before they could be considered as a possible energy source with any commercial value, says Science co-author Richard T. Lahey Jr. of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. First of all, the bubble reaction would have to demonstrate net energy gain--that is, it should produce more energy than the energy needed to drive the reaction itself. Second, scientists would have to find a way to make the reaction perpetuate itself in a chain reaction, without constant input from a neutron source.

In the short term, the research may provide a more convenient way for scientists to produce and study nuclear fusion processes in the laboratory, says Fred D. Becchetti of the University of Michigan, in an accompanying Perspective article.


The other members of the research team include C.D. West, retired, formerly of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, J.S. Cho of Oak Ridge Associated Universities, R.I. Nigmatulin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ufa, Russia, and R.C. Block, retired, formerly of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. This research was supported in part by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...20305074203.htm


Fits together quite nicely, if you understand what you are looking at...

What fits together? I do not understand the acetone.
MMC
15th January 2006 - 10:14 AM
QUOTE

Hey man i know im not a registered member or nothing, but can you explain how the many millions of degrees necessary for a nuclear fusion explosion was created without the use of a fission device.


Just you keep reading Wikipedia and watching TV...it doesn't work that way. The details are to thwart any would be developer, that's why you don't get many countries with weapons...

I'm sorry, I'm being vague because I support the practice, when it comes to those details, I'm writing for those who would already understand the process.



QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Hey man i know im not a registered member or nothing, but can you explain how the many millions of degrees necessary for a nuclear fusion explosion was created without the use of a fission device.


Just you keep reading Wikipedia and watching TV...it doesn't work that way. The details are to thwart any would be developer, that's why you don't get many countries with weapons...

I'm sorry, I'm being vague because I support the practice, when it comes to those details, I'm writing for those who would already understand the process.




And you missed where I said that about the 'compressed' BURNING MATTER AND COMBUSTION GASES


haha...you need a RealityCheck...it looks like your practical physics is about as solid as your theoretical work....

30 micron dust particles, requires over 1,000,000 KWH, that's more energy than available in the collapse of both buildings.

For your "'compressed' BURNING MATTER AND COMBUSTION GASES" theory to be accurate, there would need to be something delivering the energy to it...do you have any idea of the amount of energy in 1,000,000 KWH or to produce 30 micron dust particles???

Let me give you a rough comparison:

QUOTE

The first year of operation of the Goodyear Lake small-scale hydro plant near Oneonta, NY is reported with monthly data for August 1980 through July 1981 on power generated, operating costs, income generated, and maintenance requirements.^Due to the dryest year in living memory in the area with an average flow of 60% of the mean flow for the past 20 years, the plant produced on 3,886,050 kWh versus an estimated 7,500,000 kWh.^Actual operating costs were $89,011 as compared with an estimate of $99,840.^(LCL)


http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/produc...osti_id=6676571


It's about 2-4 months worth of energy from a power station...when operating under normal conditions.

Get a grip...there is only one thing that can deliver that amount of energy, in the time it takes for a building to collapse...
Guest
15th January 2006 - 10:20 AM
I'd give up if I were you RC, MMC doesn't sound like he wants any sort of productive exchange, he just likes to hear himself talk.
MMC
15th January 2006 - 10:24 AM
As I said before....traitors trying to cover their tracks, posting as anonymous posters with dismissive comments, trying to mislead the general public...will be laughed at....

Sockpuppets trying to deny the facts of reality are a disgrace...
MMC
15th January 2006 - 10:26 AM
It would appear our "guests" do not understand the first thing about physics...
MMC
15th January 2006 - 10:29 AM
QUOTE

And you missed where I said that about the 'compressed' BURNING MATTER AND COMBUSTION GASES


haha...you need a RealityCheck...it looks like your practical physics is about as solid as your theoretical work....

30 micron dust particles, requires over 1,000,000 KWH, that's more energy than available in the collapse of both buildings.

For your "'compressed' BURNING MATTER AND COMBUSTION GASES" theory to be accurate, there would need to be something delivering the energy to it...do you have any idea of the amount of energy in 1,000,000 KWH or to produce 30 micron dust particles???

Let me give you a rough comparison:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

And you missed where I said that about the 'compressed' BURNING MATTER AND COMBUSTION GASES


haha...you need a RealityCheck...it looks like your practical physics is about as solid as your theoretical work....

30 micron dust particles, requires over 1,000,000 KWH, that's more energy than available in the collapse of both buildings.

For your "'compressed' BURNING MATTER AND COMBUSTION GASES" theory to be accurate, there would need to be something delivering the energy to it...do you have any idea of the amount of energy in 1,000,000 KWH or to produce 30 micron dust particles???

Let me give you a rough comparison:


The first year of operation of the Goodyear Lake small-scale hydro plant near Oneonta, NY is reported with monthly data for August 1980 through July 1981 on power generated, operating costs, income generated, and maintenance requirements.^Due to the dryest year in living memory in the area with an average flow of 60% of the mean flow for the past 20 years, the plant produced on 3,886,050 kWh versus an estimated 7,500,000 kWh.^Actual operating costs were $89,011 as compared with an estimate of $99,840.^(LCL)


http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/produc...osti_id=6676571


It's about 2-4 months worth of energy from a power station...when operating under normal conditions.

Get a grip...there is only one thing that can deliver that amount of energy, in the time it takes for a building to collapse...

That's simply fact. Try to deny that and your lying through your teeth...I've done enough material science in my time...
MMC
15th January 2006 - 10:35 AM
Before we get any more "guests" shooting their mouth off, I would just like to show everyone, that more highly respected scientists than myself, question 9/11 in general...

QUOTE

What Really Happened on 9/11; Why All the Secrecy?

by Dr. Robert M. Bowman

 
      There are conspiracy theories flying around the internet like seagulls around a landfill.  Many people are convinced that George W. Bush knew what was going to happen and purposely allowed it to happen so he and his neo-conservative buddies could have the “new Pearl Harbor” they needed to justify their wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.  Others go further.  They are absolutely sure Cheney and company actually planned and carried out the attack (usually along with the Mossad).  These folks don’t think there were ever any Arab hijackers at all.

            What is so disturbing is that their arguments are quite convincing.  If an enormous cloud of suspicion is not to be permanently over the head of our government, the Bush Administration must “come clean,” releasing information thus far withheld from the American people.

            Clearing themselves of actively planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks ought to be fairly easy.  All they have to do is give the American people the answers to a few key questions:

            (1) Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists provided by the airlines?

            (2) What exactly is the status of the remote control system which conspiracy theorists say was used to hijack the airliners — a system designed to thwart hijackers by moving control from the cockpit to ground controllers.

            (3) Why is there no evidence of flight 77 which supposedly flew into the Pentagon?  Why was there such a small hole in the Pentagon?  Why were no wings or engines found?  Why are there no eyewitnesses that saw the plane?  Give us the evidence that it happened the way you say and that the Pentagon was not hit by a U.S. missile and flight 77 shot down over the ocean.

            There are lots more questions, but you get the idea.  Answer just a few of the questions, and the most virulent of the conspiracy theories goes away.

            Dealing with the other major theory, however, (that Osama bin Laden really did it, but Bush et al let it happen) will require more answers.  Various web sites have literally hundreds of unanswered questions.  A group of New Jersey widows of men who died in the World Trade Center collapse have compiled quite a few.  If this government is to have any credibility and avoid being seen as responsible for allowing thousands of Americans to die, it must answer these questions promptly and honestly.  Here are just a few:

            (4) What was in the CIA daily brief presented to the president on August 6, 2001, and why has it been withheld for so long?  The Congressional committee and the independent commission have both requested copies and been refused.  Why?

            (5) Why did John Ashcroft and top Pentagon officials cancel plans to fly commercial airlines the morning of 9/11?  If they knew what was about to happen, why wasn’t it stopped?

            (6) Who made all the millions of dollars selling short United and American Airlines just before 9/11?  The hijackers obviously had no use for the money.  Who besides them knew that those two particular airlines were going to suffer devastating losses on 9/11?  Our intelligence agencies have Promis software that detects unusual stock trades.  These trades were 25 times as great as usual.  If, as has been reported, alarm bells were going off at our intelligence agencies on 9/10, why didn’t they beef up security on United and American flights?  Why didn’t they react promptly to the hijackings?

            (7) Why weren’t the hijacked airliners intercepted by jet fighters and shot down before they could fly into the WTC and Pentagon?  Standard procedures call for any airliner that loses radio contact or goes off course to be intercepted.  Four airliners were hijacked almost simultaneously, and it was obvious to air traffic controllers immediately.  The transponders on the airliners were turned off.  The hijackers were heard on the radio.  And the four deviated drastically from their assigned courses.  Was NORAD told?  If not, why not?  What did the air traffic controllers say, and to whom?  Why did the FBI impound the tapes of those conversations?  Why has the public never been told what was on them?  Why weren’t the congressional investigators told?  The independent commission?  Who is hiding what, and why?  If it was just a matter of incompetence or somebody not doing their job, why hasn’t anyone been fired or reprimanded?  If someone ordered the standdown, who? and why? and why haven’t they been charged with treason?

            (8)  What was President Bush doing sitting in a classroom for half an hour after he was told that the country was under attack?  Why didn’t the Secret Service rush him away from where everyone knew he was, unless they knew he wasn’t a target?  If they knew that, how?

            There are many more unanswered questions.  If the PNAC oil mafia didn’t purposely let 9/11 happen so they could have their new Pearl Harbor and pursue their imperialist wars, then why don’t they answer some of these questions???
http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/Secrecy.htm


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

What Really Happened on 9/11; Why All the Secrecy?

by Dr. Robert M. Bowman

 
      There are conspiracy theories flying around the internet like seagulls around a landfill.  Many people are convinced that George W. Bush knew what was going to happen and purposely allowed it to happen so he and his neo-conservative buddies could have the “new Pearl Harbor” they needed to justify their wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.  Others go further.  They are absolutely sure Cheney and company actually planned and carried out the attack (usually along with the Mossad).  These folks don’t think there were ever any Arab hijackers at all.

            What is so disturbing is that their arguments are quite convincing.  If an enormous cloud of suspicion is not to be permanently over the head of our government, the Bush Administration must “come clean,” releasing information thus far withheld from the American people.

            Clearing themselves of actively planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks ought to be fairly easy.  All they have to do is give the American people the answers to a few key questions:

            (1) Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists provided by the airlines?

            (2) What exactly is the status of the remote control system which conspiracy theorists say was used to hijack the airliners — a system designed to thwart hijackers by moving control from the cockpit to ground controllers.

            (3) Why is there no evidence of flight 77 which supposedly flew into the Pentagon?  Why was there such a small hole in the Pentagon?  Why were no wings or engines found?  Why are there no eyewitnesses that saw the plane?  Give us the evidence that it happened the way you say and that the Pentagon was not hit by a U.S. missile and flight 77 shot down over the ocean.

            There are lots more questions, but you get the idea.  Answer just a few of the questions, and the most virulent of the conspiracy theories goes away.

            Dealing with the other major theory, however, (that Osama bin Laden really did it, but Bush et al let it happen) will require more answers.  Various web sites have literally hundreds of unanswered questions.  A group of New Jersey widows of men who died in the World Trade Center collapse have compiled quite a few.  If this government is to have any credibility and avoid being seen as responsible for allowing thousands of Americans to die, it must answer these questions promptly and honestly.  Here are just a few:

            (4) What was in the CIA daily brief presented to the president on August 6, 2001, and why has it been withheld for so long?  The Congressional committee and the independent commission have both requested copies and been refused.  Why?

            (5) Why did John Ashcroft and top Pentagon officials cancel plans to fly commercial airlines the morning of 9/11?  If they knew what was about to happen, why wasn’t it stopped?

            (6) Who made all the millions of dollars selling short United and American Airlines just before 9/11?  The hijackers obviously had no use for the money.  Who besides them knew that those two particular airlines were going to suffer devastating losses on 9/11?  Our intelligence agencies have Promis software that detects unusual stock trades.  These trades were 25 times as great as usual.  If, as has been reported, alarm bells were going off at our intelligence agencies on 9/10, why didn’t they beef up security on United and American flights?  Why didn’t they react promptly to the hijackings?

            (7) Why weren’t the hijacked airliners intercepted by jet fighters and shot down before they could fly into the WTC and Pentagon?  Standard procedures call for any airliner that loses radio contact or goes off course to be intercepted.  Four airliners were hijacked almost simultaneously, and it was obvious to air traffic controllers immediately.  The transponders on the airliners were turned off.  The hijackers were heard on the radio.  And the four deviated drastically from their assigned courses.  Was NORAD told?  If not, why not?  What did the air traffic controllers say, and to whom?  Why did the FBI impound the tapes of those conversations?  Why has the public never been told what was on them?  Why weren’t the congressional investigators told?  The independent commission?  Who is hiding what, and why?  If it was just a matter of incompetence or somebody not doing their job, why hasn’t anyone been fired or reprimanded?  If someone ordered the standdown, who? and why? and why haven’t they been charged with treason?

            (8)  What was President Bush doing sitting in a classroom for half an hour after he was told that the country was under attack?  Why didn’t the Secret Service rush him away from where everyone knew he was, unless they knew he wasn’t a target?  If they knew that, how?

            There are many more unanswered questions.  If the PNAC oil mafia didn’t purposely let 9/11 happen so they could have their new Pearl Harbor and pursue their imperialist wars, then why don’t they answer some of these questions???
http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/Secrecy.htm



Background

In 1977, Dr. Robert M. Bowman, head of advanced space programs for the Department of Defense [DOD], authored a report describing a new missile-defense shield system called the “Star Wars Defense.” Lt. Col. Robert Bowman (Ret.), a combat pilot who flew 101 missions in the Vietnam War...ran for president in 2000.


I'm just approaching it from an angle that cannot be debated...
MMC
15th January 2006 - 10:49 AM
Do you have any idea of the amount of energy in 1,000,000 KWH or to produce 30 micron dust particles???

Let me give you a rough comparison:

QUOTE

The first year of operation of the Goodyear Lake small-scale hydro plant near Oneonta, NY is reported with monthly data for August 1980 through July 1981 on power generated, operating costs, income generated, and maintenance requirements.^Due to the dryest year in living memory in the area with an average flow of 60% of the mean flow for the past 20 years, the plant produced on 3,886,050 kWh versus an estimated 7,500,000 kWh.^Actual operating costs were $89,011 as compared with an estimate of $99,840.^(LCL)


http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/produc...osti_id=6676571


It's about 2-4 months worth of energy from a power station...when operating under normal conditions. That's simply fact. Try to deny that and your lying through your teeth...

Once again I will ask this question, however, I will rephrase it...

Can anyone speculate how to generate 2-4 months worth of energy, from a power station, in the time it takes for a building to collapse?

...remember 30 micron dust was not produced in a single area, but throughout the structure, in parts that were not on fire and the compression generated by the force of a gravitional collapse, comes NOWHERE near the energies required to achieve this...

Again, fact. Unless you expect us to believe the laws of physics were suspended solely for the 9/11 attack.
MMC
15th January 2006 - 10:58 AM
So, this is the important question, every analysis, beyond some form of explosive device fails to answer this question on the 9/11 WTC collapse...

Can anyone speculate how to generate 2-4 months worth of energy, from a power station, in the time it takes for a building to collapse?

...with supporting physics please...
amrit
15th January 2006 - 11:54 AM
hi MMC

Recently I receive the message from you: do not spam.
You can relax. I do not read your messages at all.

best wishes, amrit
MMC
15th January 2006 - 12:03 PM
I try to avoid yours as well, since they are directly opposed to modern science.

That's why I call your posts spam...
frater plecticus
15th January 2006 - 12:21 PM
Maybe it would be a good idea to see how the number of cancer deaths in NYC has changed since 9-11.
MMC
15th January 2006 - 12:28 PM
Firstly, I must explain this...I'm not going to get to in-depth, its a pity, but, the security situation does not permit it.

There are different forms of weapons, fission, fusion and fission-fusion hybrids.

With a pure fusion weapon, a minimal amount of radiation can be generated, not much above background radition levels. Substances up to the atomic weight of Iron can be fused and they will release more energy than it takes to generate the fusion. When spread over a wide area, that can be masked as background radiation, as it is not evenly distributed.

In addition, weapons can be "seeded", with other elements or compounds, that will turn the additional sources of radiation into stable compounds.

So, the type of fall-out that you would expect from nuclear devices, that you have read about in books, on the Internet, or even seen on TV, can be avoided.

It all depends on the type of weapon used.
MMC
15th January 2006 - 01:09 PM
I have been discussing the reason for an explosion, many have asked if terrorist's flew a plane into the buildings, why use explosives afterwards and with such a delay...

The answer then became clear...

It was an attack on the Emergency services...firemen, police, rescue workers and federal agents...as well as ensuring the collapse of the structure.
MMC
15th January 2006 - 02:09 PM
Right back to the topic...

Every analysis, beyond some form of explosive device fails to answer this question on the 9/11 WTC collapse...

Can anyone speculate how to generate 2-4 months worth of energy(1,000,000 MWH+), from a power station, in the time it takes for a building to collapse?

...with supporting physics please...

Only when this question is answered, could this be put to rest.
MMC
15th January 2006 - 04:40 PM
QUOTE

What fits together? I do not understand the acetone.


I suppose the article outlines the basic principle, so I will explain this a little better. Acetone is used in many forms of plastic, upon heating a plastic can become liquid like:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

What fits together? I do not understand the acetone.


I suppose the article outlines the basic principle, so I will explain this a little better. Acetone is used in many forms of plastic, upon heating a plastic can become liquid like:


The experiments performed by the Science researchers suggest that nuclear fusion might occur in bubbles created by “acoustic cavitation,” a phenomenon studied for nearly a century.  In acoustic cavitation, the pressure of a sound wave creates and collapses bubbles in a liquid.  The first part of the wave is a tension wave, which stretches the liquid and pulls apart a space for bubbles to form when the liquid is bombarded by energetic particles like neutrons. A second compression wave follows close behind, squeezing and bursting the bubbles, which then emit a brilliant but extremely brief flash of light called sonoluminescence


Basically, with a neutron source, timed sound waves can create temperatures of 5000-7000 degrees Kelvin, up to 10 million degrees Kelvin...the result is that deuterium is fused into tritium.

QUOTE

Using a pulse of neutrons to first “seed” the tiny bubbles, each no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence, the Science authors then used a sound wave to grow the bubbles rapidly just before their implosion. The process produced stable bubbles that could expand to nearly a millimeter in radius before collapsing, a key part of producing very high pressures and temperatures


Acoustic cavitation produces a similar effect to a resonance chamber, increasing the frequency from sound...to light. In other words, stimulated emission of photons, standing waves, resonance and containment.

Not only does it provide an inexpensive way to produce large quantities of tritium, but it would super-heat the surrounding area. If it came into contact with water, then it would result in a steam explosion.

In the case of the WTC, vast amounts and various types of plastics were used, during a fire, such as that produced by the impact of the planes, a large amount of plastic would be turned to liquid, shockwaves would then produce ascoustic cavities and that would result in temperatures of of 5000-7000 degrees Kelvin.

That's hot enough to melt steel, explode concrete and hot enough to result in a steam explosion.

The problem is that this would require precise timing of sound-waves, a consistant acetone source, a neutron source, sound waves (shockwaves -such as timed explosions) and deuterium.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Using a pulse of neutrons to first “seed” the tiny bubbles, each no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence, the Science authors then used a sound wave to grow the bubbles rapidly just before their implosion. The process produced stable bubbles that could expand to nearly a millimeter in radius before collapsing, a key part of producing very high pressures and temperatures


Acoustic cavitation produces a similar effect to a resonance chamber, increasing the frequency from sound...to light. In other words, stimulated emission of photons, standing waves, resonance and containment.

Not only does it provide an inexpensive way to produce large quantities of tritium, but it would super-heat the surrounding area. If it came into contact with water, then it would result in a steam explosion.

In the case of the WTC, vast amounts and various types of plastics were used, during a fire, such as that produced by the impact of the planes, a large amount of plastic would be turned to liquid, shockwaves would then produce ascoustic cavities and that would result in temperatures of of 5000-7000 degrees Kelvin.

That's hot enough to melt steel, explode concrete and hot enough to result in a steam explosion.

The problem is that this would require precise timing of sound-waves, a consistant acetone source, a neutron source, sound waves (shockwaves -such as timed explosions) and deuterium.


Using very sensitive detectors, Taleyarkhan and colleagues detected higher levels of tritium in samples with extensive bubble implosion. The researchers also observed the emission of neutrons with energy close to 2.5 million electron volts, which is the characteristic neutron energy associated with deuterium-deuterium fusion.


So, what you have is a short-lived burst of neutrons and extremely high temperatures.

Upon writing this down, one thing becomes clear, isolated instances this could occur naturally, however, for this to be a factor in the WTC attack, it would have required a man-made device...

Unless there was a tanker of acetone, I don't think this is likely...
reasonwhy
15th January 2006 - 08:23 PM
MMC

Is it possible to direct the nuclear blast?
RealityCheck
15th January 2006 - 08:43 PM
MMC

You obviously don't know anything about the amount and size ranges and distribution of the chunks and grit and dust, because you are clearly working from assumptions based on incomplete measurements and data. Only SOME particulate samples, the finer particles blown further away from the actual site in collapse-pressure clouds/airflows formed by ANY such large collapsing buildings, were measured because of health concerns...and NOT to determine the OVERALL particulate profile as YOU imply incorrectly.

MMC, you're obviously also ignorant of the GREAT vibrational and frictional energies involved in the chaotic collapse/fracturing as well as the energy flows and effects from sudden/extreme impacts-compressions and fuel-air mixture explosions. The ignorance and misrepresentation you display in this instance is beyond belief. All the things you postulate and assume have been debunked IN DETAIL in that other thread...yet you REFUSE to peruse ALL that information, and persist with this seemingly mono maniacal pursuit of your favourite hypothesis.

Even if what you say about any fusion system is true, why are you IGNORING the CONVENTIONAL FACTORS/ENERGIES involved in 9/11 that are AMPLE to produce ALL that is seen. Why do you ignore all that info? Is it because the info runs counter to your monomania about bombs and conspiracies? If so, go to that other thread and read "Schneibster's" posts about the energy available; and "adoucette's" and "Common Sense's" and "yesitdid's" posts about the structural/particulate and 'conspiracy' aspects etc. These posters and others should dispel your monomaniacal blindness about the PHYSICS in 9/11 events.

As far as energy figures are concerned, how about calculating the energies that WERE AVAILABLE in conventional FORMS and FLOWS (mechanical, gravitational and other forms of energy don't just "DISAPPEAR" once they 'do their stuff', you know...that energy THEN becomes ALSO available for MORE EFFECT in other forms). Calculate IN TOTO the energy forms/flows in the 9/11 events from plane impact, fire, explosion, collapse and post-collapse rubble-fire. You will be surprised, I assure you! But if you aren't up to it, Schneibster and others have done it for you. Why don't you check it out, as a true scientist should?

Oh, and before you go on the attack and imply I am ignorant of fusion technology research, let me update you. I am CURRENTLY and for some twelve years involved in my own fusion process/power system research and development...and am ready to patent certain aspects that have not been covered by the existing/prior art/literature. You may also be interested to look up YET ANOTHER 'unconventional' system for fusion-power/X-ray-source, being worked on by the people at: WWW.FOCUSFUSION.ORG

That's all the time I have to waste on this thread of yours, MMC. Good luck and good thinking.

RC.
brian
15th January 2006 - 11:35 PM
From Reality Check -

"Even if what you say about any fusion system is true...."

"...Oh, and before you go on the attack and imply I am ignorant of fusion technology research ..yada yada yada"

Is it true then? Or ARE you ignorant?

Reality Check, MMC is dealing with this REALITY below - you ramblings are unlikely to change it are they not, in reality like?

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53881

MMC
16th January 2006 - 12:13 AM
QUOTE

Is it possible to direct the nuclear blast?


Technically, yes, the principle is slightly different, in that, its about offsetting the energy at the time of detonation...normally, it is achieved by placing it in a cone hollowed out of solid rock and shaping the device so that the reaction spreads faster in a single direction. You will lose a lot of the energy of the device, however, for most purposes it will suffice...there would still be substantial damage to the surrounding area.

Unlike convential devices...you could not place a side facing the enemy and survive on the other.




QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Is it possible to direct the nuclear blast?


Technically, yes, the principle is slightly different, in that, its about offsetting the energy at the time of detonation...normally, it is achieved by placing it in a cone hollowed out of solid rock and shaping the device so that the reaction spreads faster in a single direction. You will lose a lot of the energy of the device, however, for most purposes it will suffice...there would still be substantial damage to the surrounding area.

Unlike convential devices...you could not place a side facing the enemy and survive on the other.





You obviously don't know anything about the amount and size ranges and distribution of the chunks and grit and dust, because you are clearly working from assumptions based on incomplete measurements and data.


I'm sorry Reality Check, but I have analysed every source of energy, the fact remains that to produce particle sizes of 30 micron, it would take the equivilent of 2-4 months worth of of KWH produced by a power station in the time it took the buildings to collapse.

It doesn't really matter how much, or how little, that peak energy still had to be achieved.

The potential energy involved in the collapse of the twin towers, the collision, the burning fuel and all materials, come nowhere near producing that amount of energy.

That would break the known laws of physics...

You may be saying to yourself, but what about uneven distribution of mass during the collapse?

Well, the "entire" available energy of the collapse is well over 1,000,000 KWH BELOW what it would take to produce 30 micron dust particles. That means at NO point could a 30 micron dust particle be created.

Isolated areas CANNOT exceed the maximum energy of the entire collapse.

I don't even think you would claim that a jet full of fuel could provide 1,000,000 KWH of energy...

We are therefore looking for another major energy source...without question.

That's just the facts.
DaBigEd
16th January 2006 - 02:09 AM
QUOTE (MMC+Jan 15 2006, 10:14 AM)
QUOTE

Hey man i know I'm not a registered member or nothing, but can you explain how the many millions of degrees necessary for a nuclear fusion explosion was created without the use of a fission device.


Just you keep reading Wikipedia and watching TV...it doesn't work that way. The details are to thwart any would be developer, that's why you don't get many countries with weapons...

I'm sorry, I'm being vague because I support the practice, when it comes to those details, I'm writing for those who would already understand the process.

Before you just go off and start flaming people people maybe you should realize that I teach electrodynamic theory at a university level.

I am currently doing research into various aspects of charge dynamics across quantum logic gates with the expectation that the research will lead to a basic quantum computer. While I realize that this is not exactly the field in question, I have done numerous projects on nuclear fusion and have taken several courses in stellar astrophysics which involved considerable detail on the topic in question.

SO TELL ME MMC WHAT TERTIARY QUALIFICATIONS IN PHYSICS DO YOU HAVE, THAT MAKE YOU SUCH AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD?????

It also interests me that you skirt so carefully around the question that poke obvious holes in your theory stating that you don't elaborate because the lack of "details are to thwart any would be developer". What a load of horse-***. If you go to and 1st world university library there are ~50 - 60 books on the engineering of nuclear weapons and the design problems associated with them.

So stop bullshitting and answer my original question.

While your at it riddle me this, where did the acetone come from?

YOU said:
Small quantities of acetone added to fuel may improve economy and engine performance, though this is only anecdotal and refuted by most automotive engineers.

So the onus is on you to prove conclusively that the acetone was there in the first place. It is only once this is proved that you can start talking about sonofusion events.

And on the topic of where did the extra XXXXXXXXX KWH Come from, I think there is more likely a chance that the two building were hit by meteors than had nukes detonate in them.
reasonwhy
16th January 2006 - 02:30 AM
QUOTE (DaBigEd+Jan 15 2006, 06:09 PM)

And on the topic of where did the extra XXXXXXXXX KWH Come from, I think there is more likely a chance that the two building were hit by meteors than had nukes detonate in them.

Do you agree with the NIST report?
reasonwhy
16th January 2006 - 02:35 AM
QUOTE (MMC+Jan 15 2006, 04:13 PM)
QUOTE

Is it possible to direct the nuclear blast?


Technically, yes, the principle is slightly different, in that, its about offsetting the energy at the time of detonation...normally, it is achieved by placing it in a cone hollowed out of solid rock and shaping the device so that the reaction spreads faster in a single direction. You will lose a lot of the energy of the device, however, for most purposes it will suffice...there would still be substantial damage to the surrounding area.

Unlike convential devices...you could not place a side facing the enemy and survive on the other.





What if you used the cement foundation of the core instead of rock?
RealityCheck
16th January 2006 - 03:15 AM
QUOTE (brian+Jan 15 2006, 11:35 PM)
From Reality Check -

"Even if what you say about any fusion system is true...."

"...Oh, and before you go on the attack and imply I am ignorant of fusion technology research ..yada yada yada"

Is it true then? Or ARE you ignorant?

Reality Check, MMC is dealing with this REALITY below - you ramblings are unlikely to change it are they not, in reality like?

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53881


BRIAN,

You are as mistaken and careless here as you are elsewhere. You apparently missed that part about my being currently involved in PATENTING certain fusion fuel/systems innvovations. Anyone so doing would hardly be acting wisely if he were to be too specific about what is/is not 'correct' about these aspects in an open forum. On the other hand, MMC is NOT SO BOUND/RESTRICTED, and since it is HE doing the asserting, he is at liberty to PROVE anything he can, if he can. Have you yourself any original/relevant PHYSICS/KNOWLEDGE to add to the discussion?

QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 16 2006, 02:35 AM)
QUOTE (MMC+Jan 15 2006, 04:13 PM)
QUOTE

Is it possible to direct the nuclear blast?

Technically, yes, the principle is slightly different, in that, its about offsetting the energy at the time of detonation...normally, it is achieved by placing it in a cone hollowed out of solid rock and shaping the device so that the reaction spreads faster in a single direction. You will lose a lot of the energy of the device, however, for most purposes it will suffice...there would still be substantial damage to the surrounding area.

Unlike convential devices...you could not place a side facing the enemy and survive on the other.


What if you used the cement foundation of the core instead of rock?


If you READ the Basic Physics thread on 9/11 you will find out that the 'central' steel 'structure' for some stories high STOOD TEMPORARILY AFTER the rest of the building had collapsed around it...but quickly itself succumbing to damage/vibrations/oscillations and weight on a NOW obviously weakened 'interconnected' (not 'integral mass' structure/configuration. A 'bottom explosion' of the posited 'energy/power'..would have demolished this part FIRST, not LAST.

RC.
.
DaBigEd
16th January 2006 - 09:44 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 16 2006, 02:30 AM)
QUOTE (DaBigEd+Jan 15 2006, 06:09 PM)

And on the topic of where did the extra XXXXXXXXX KWH Come from, I think there is more likely a chance that the two building were hit by meteors than had nukes detonate in them.

Do you agree with the NIST report?

Firstly I am not a structural engineer nor a building specialist, and as such I must trust the judgment of those who are experts in this field.

While I wish to sit on the fence as much as possible here, I will say this:

I choose to believe the best minds the United states have produced in the last 30 years over the ramblings of a bunch of crackpots who have no experience in the field.

That said however, I do think some funky stuff happened that day.

Not that my opinion counts for anything at all but yes i do agree with the NIST Report.
MMC
16th January 2006 - 02:09 PM
QUOTE

What if you used the cement foundation of the core instead of rock?


Yes, its pretty much the same, it would work, in the basement of such a building, most of the energy would be reflected up through the building as it has nowhere else to go.


What a load of cr*p guys...

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

What if you used the cement foundation of the core instead of rock?


Yes, its pretty much the same, it would work, in the basement of such a building, most of the energy would be reflected up through the building as it has nowhere else to go.


What a load of cr*p guys...


It also interests me that you skirt so carefully around the question that poke obvious holes in your theory stating that you don't elaborate because the lack of "details are to thwart any would be developer". What a load of horse-***. If you go to and 1st world university library there are ~50 - 60 books on the engineering of nuclear weapons and the design problems associated with them.


Not one of those books has accurate material, as if any government would allow that material in public hands...

You are full of it...or every rogue nation would have nuclear weapons by now...

It also shows that your basic knowledge of physics, is completely useless...

You were mouthing off about fission devices, a pure hydrogen bomb has NOTHING to do with fission, nor is fission required...

Go back and watch some more TV or play with your encyclopedia...

Somehow, you seem to think a gravity collapse can produce 2-4 months of output by a power station...pull your head out man...
MMC
16th January 2006 - 03:04 PM
DaBigEd,

Have you ever heard of the principle of cause and effect?

Let me show you something, here are two statements on fusion:

1. It takes millions of degrees kelvin to achieve fusion...
2. Fusion produces millions of degrees kelvin and this can be used to generate power.

hmmmm...the cause and the effect are the same.

Somethings missing...these statements are looking at the process from a single perspective, there is another way to achieve fusion without heat...which is infra-red, by the way...
MMC
16th January 2006 - 03:08 PM
Despite all the waffling and distraction from our "guests", the fact remains that to produce particle sizes of 30 micron, it would take the equivilent of 2-4 months worth of of KWH produced by a power station in the time it took the buildings to collapse.

It doesn't really matter how much, or how little, that peak energy still had to be achieved.

The potential energy involved in the collapse of the twin towers, the collision, the burning fuel and all materials, come nowhere near producing that amount of energy.

What about uneven distribution of mass during the collapse?

Well, the "entire" available energy of the collapse is well over 1,000,000 KWH BELOW what it would take to produce 30 micron dust particles. That means at NO point could a 30 micron dust particle be created.

Isolated areas CANNOT exceed the maximum energy of the entire collapse.

A jet full of fuel could not provide 1,000,000 KWH of energy...

We are therefore looking for another major energy source...without question.

That's just the facts, or else you are trying to break the known laws of physics...
MMC
16th January 2006 - 03:59 PM
Some may laugh at the thought of the US government or military attacking its own population to support a war.

As you are about to find out, the Pentagon has planned, during the 1960s, to fake an attack and murder its own people to support a war...this time, with Cuba.

Welcome to "Operation Northwoods"...

QUOTE

Do these "rogue states" and terrorist organizations have the budget and sophistication to produce a devastating electromagnetic attack which could disable the entire United States? Remember that most of us have never ever heard of an EMP attack. When we consider the abundant evidence of complicity in the 9/11 cover-up, could it be that rogue elements within the shadow government are the ones actually planning a sophisticated electromagnetic attack to then blame on others in order to manipulate the public into supporting a war?

There are certainly precedents for this. Consider Operation Northwoods, the Pentagon plan to foment terrorism on US soil in the early 1960s in order to provoke the US public into supporting a war against Cuba. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war. Details of these highly deceptive plans are reported by ABC, and the declassified Operation Northwoods documents are available for free viewing on the official website of the US National Archives and Records Administration.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/050509electromagneticattack



Before you read the "official" material on "Operation Northwoods" and how the US government planned to murder its own people in a series of terrorist attacks to support a war in Cuba, read the report on it by ABC...


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Do these "rogue states" and terrorist organizations have the budget and sophistication to produce a devastating electromagnetic attack which could disable the entire United States? Remember that most of us have never ever heard of an EMP attack. When we consider the abundant evidence of complicity in the 9/11 cover-up, could it be that rogue elements within the shadow government are the ones actually planning a sophisticated electromagnetic attack to then blame on others in order to manipulate the public into supporting a war?

There are certainly precedents for this. Consider Operation Northwoods, the Pentagon plan to foment terrorism on US soil in the early 1960s in order to provoke the US public into supporting a war against Cuba. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war. Details of these highly deceptive plans are reported by ABC, and the declassified Operation Northwoods documents are available for free viewing on the official website of the US National Archives and Records Administration.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/050509electromagneticattack



Before you read the "official" material on "Operation Northwoods" and how the US government planned to murder its own people in a series of terrorist attacks to support a war in Cuba, read the report on it by ABC...



U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
By David Ruppe
N E W  Y O R K, May 1, 2001 - In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War

The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."

The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.

"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.

Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military — not democratic — control over the island nation after the invasion.

"That's what we're supposed to be freeing them from," Bamford says. "The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing."

'Over the Edge'

The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.

Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.

The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds.

There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.

And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a "considerable danger" in the "education and propaganda activities of military personnel" had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn't get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford.

"Although no one in Congress could have known at the time," he writes, "Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge."

Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan "pretext" operations at least through 1963.

One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base — an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.

"There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn't for lack of trying," he says.

After 40 Years

Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK's release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public's access to government records related to the assassination.

The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.

Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.

"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=92662



Here is the first document on the Pentagon plan to murder US citizens to support a war in cuba, codenamed "Operation Northwoods" this was discovered after the 1992 film on the assassination of JFK and the surrounding conspiracy...

15 pages of declassified Joint Chiefs of Staff documents on Operation Northwoods as posted on the National Security Archive of George Washington University:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf



QUOTE

Operations Northwoods Documents On the Website of the US National Archives and Records Administration

According to ABC News and government documents on Operation Northwoods, America’s top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war.

A summary of key quotes from the Operation Northwoods documents is given below these instructions. To access the Operation Northwoods documents in the National Archives, first go to the Archival Research Catalog (ARC) on the website of NARA (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration) at:

http://www.archives.gov/research_room/arc/index.html

Click on the “Search” button there. Then, in the top box of the page that appears, type “Northwoods” and click on the “Go” button to the right of the box. You will see the following item:

ARC Identifier: 305036  Digital Copy Available
Title:  Northwoods, U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba, 1962

Click on the “Digital Copy Available” link of this item. You will then see the first six pages of 181 pages available on Operation Northwoods. This link expires after 30 minutes (along with the URLs of individual Operation Northwoods pages), which is why we cannot provide a direct link for you.

For the most pertinent documents regarding Operation Northwoods, find the “Jump to Page” in the upper left part of this webpage. Click on the arrow to the right side of the box and select the number 22. Then click on the “go” button just to the right of the box. The most revealing 15 pages of Operations Northwoods documents begin on page 129 and continue to 143. To view any of these pages, simple click on the “Larger image” link directly beneath the page you would like to view. You will find the most shocking information on pages 138 to 141.

Thanks for caring enough to investigate Operation Northwoods. These documents demonstrate clearly that our military has no moral or ethical difficulty in developing plans which not only sacrifice the lives of innocent American citizens, but clearly trick and manipulate the American people in order to forward the war agenda. For more powerful information on this by a highly decorated American General, see www.WantToKnow.info/warisaracket.

By each of us spreading this information far and wide, we can build a critical mass of people who join in calling for a return to open government and stronger democracy in order that we might build a brighter future together.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Key quotes from Operation Northwoods documents:

The Operation Northwoods documents were approved in writing by the Joint Chiefs of Staff—the top generals of each branch of the US armed forces—and submitted to the Secretary of Defense McNamara, though never acted upon. The documents only came to light because of a Freedom of Information Act request in the late 1990s. Page numbers are listed to assist in finding the quotes on the original documents. Could similar tactics to those listed below have been used in regards to 9/11?

Page 129 of file  (Memorandum)


13 March 1962

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE     

Subject:  Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the attached Memorandum for the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, which responds to a request of that office for brief but precise description of pretexts which could provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba.

It is assumed that a single agency will be given the primary responsibility for developing military and para-military aspects of the basic plan. It is recommended that this responsibility for both overt and covert military operations be assigned the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Page 133 of file (page 2 of actual Joint Chiefs report)

The suggested courses of action….are based on the premise that US military intervention will result from a period of heightened US-Cuban tensions which place the United States in the position of suffering justifiable grievances. World opinion, and the United Nations forum should be favorably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere.

Page 136 of file (page 5 of actual Joint Chiefs report)

This plan….should be developed to focus all efforts on a specific ultimate objective which would provide adequate justification for US military intervention. Such a plan would enable a logical build-up of incidents to be combined with other seemingly unrelated events to camouflage the ultimate objective.

Page 138-139 of file (page 7-8 of actual Joint Chiefs report)

A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.

A. Incidents to establish a credible attack:

  (1)    Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio
  (2)    Land friendly Cubans in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on base.
  (3)    Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
  (4)    Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
  (5)    Blow up ammunition inside the base: start fires.
  (6)    Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
  (7)    Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base.
  (8)    Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
  (9)    Capture militia group which storms base.
(10)    Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires – naphthalene.
(11)    Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims.

A “Remember the Maine” incident could be arranged: We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.

Page 140 of file (page 9 of actual Joint Chiefs report)

Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. Reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.

Page 141 of file (page 10 of actual Joint Chiefs report)

Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba.

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday.

An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At the designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual aircraft would be converted to a drone.

The drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.

Note from WantToKnow.info:

As you explore some of the other strange facts you find on our website, we invite you to remember how the top US military leaders planned to manipulate public opinion to support their objectives in Operation Northwoods. Considering the above, is it beyond comprehension that similar tactics might have been used in relation to the 9/11 attacks to create a pretext for war in Afghanistan and Iraq?
http://www.wanttoknow.info/operationnorthwoods


Here is a list of articles and reports that all point to 9/11 being similar to "Operation Northwoods", in that, certain portions of the US government used the attacks to launch their own secondary operation, that would be confused with the main attacks:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Operations Northwoods Documents On the Website of the US National Archives and Records Administration

According to ABC News and government documents on Operation Northwoods, America’s top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war.

A summary of key quotes from the Operation Northwoods documents is given below these instructions. To access the Operation Northwoods documents in the National Archives, first go to the Archival Research Catalog (ARC) on the website of NARA (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration) at:

http://www.archives.gov/research_room/arc/index.html

Click on the “Search” button there. Then, in the top box of the page that appears, type “Northwoods” and click on the “Go” button to the right of the box. You will see the following item:

ARC Identifier: 305036  Digital Copy Available
Title:  Northwoods, U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba, 1962

Click on the “Digital Copy Available” link of this item. You will then see the first six pages of 181 pages available on Operation Northwoods. This link expires after 30 minutes (along with the URLs of individual Operation Northwoods pages), which is why we cannot provide a direct link for you.

For the most pertinent documents regarding Operation Northwoods, find the “Jump to Page” in the upper left part of this webpage. Click on the arrow to the right side of the box and select the number 22. Then click on the “go” button just to the right of the box. The most revealing 15 pages of Operations Northwoods documents begin on page 129 and continue to 143. To view any of these pages, simple click on the “Larger image” link directly beneath the page you would like to view. You will find the most shocking information on pages 138 to 141.

Thanks for caring enough to investigate Operation Northwoods. These documents demonstrate clearly that our military has no moral or ethical difficulty in developing plans which not only sacrifice the lives of innocent American citizens, but clearly trick and manipulate the American people in order to forward the war agenda. For more powerful information on this by a highly decorated American General, see www.WantToKnow.info/warisaracket.

By each of us spreading this information far and wide, we can build a critical mass of people who join in calling for a return to open government and stronger democracy in order that we might build a brighter future together.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Key quotes from Operation Northwoods documents:

The Operation Northwoods documents were approved in writing by the Joint Chiefs of Staff—the top generals of each branch of the US armed forces—and submitted to the Secretary of Defense McNamara, though never acted upon. The documents only came to light because of a Freedom of Information Act request in the late 1990s. Page numbers are listed to assist in finding the quotes on the original documents. Could similar tactics to those listed below have been used in regards to 9/11?

Page 129 of file  (Memorandum)


13 March 1962

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE     

Subject:  Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the attached Memorandum for the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, which responds to a request of that office for brief but precise description of pretexts which could provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba.

It is assumed that a single agency will be given the primary responsibility for developing military and para-military aspects of the basic plan. It is recommended that this responsibility for both overt and covert military operations be assigned the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Page 133 of file (page 2 of actual Joint Chiefs report)

The suggested courses of action….are based on the premise that US military intervention will result from a period of heightened US-Cuban tensions which place the United States in the position of suffering justifiable grievances. World opinion, and the United Nations forum should be favorably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere.

Page 136 of file (page 5 of actual Joint Chiefs report)

This plan….should be developed to focus all efforts on a specific ultimate objective which would provide adequate justification for US military intervention. Such a plan would enable a logical build-up of incidents to be combined with other seemingly unrelated events to camouflage the ultimate objective.

Page 138-139 of file (page 7-8 of actual Joint Chiefs report)

A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.

A. Incidents to establish a credible attack:

  (1)    Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio
  (2)    Land friendly Cubans in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on base.
  (3)    Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
  (4)    Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
  (5)    Blow up ammunition inside the base: start fires.
  (6)    Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
  (7)    Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base.
  (8)    Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
  (9)    Capture militia group which storms base.
(10)    Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires – naphthalene.
(11)    Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims.

A “Remember the Maine” incident could be arranged: We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.

Page 140 of file (page 9 of actual Joint Chiefs report)

Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. Reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.

Page 141 of file (page 10 of actual Joint Chiefs report)

Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba.

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday.

An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At the designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual aircraft would be converted to a drone.

The drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.

Note from WantToKnow.info:

As you explore some of the other strange facts you find on our website, we invite you to remember how the top US military leaders planned to manipulate public opinion to support their objectives in Operation Northwoods. Considering the above, is it beyond comprehension that similar tactics might have been used in relation to the 9/11 attacks to create a pretext for war in Afghanistan and Iraq?
http://www.wanttoknow.info/operationnorthwoods


Here is a list of articles and reports that all point to 9/11 being similar to "Operation Northwoods", in that, certain portions of the US government used the attacks to launch their own secondary operation, that would be confused with the main attacks:


911 - An Inside Job

Morgan Reynolds, Former Chief Economist under President Bush
June 13, 2005, Washington Times/ UPI
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20...02755-6408r.htm

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/27302.htm  - More on Reynolds

"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team. Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it's "next to impossible" that 19 Arab terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11. Reynolds...claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11. In a detailed analysis just released supporting the controlled demolition theory, Reynolds presents a compelling case.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Sect. of Treasury under Pres. Reagan

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/roberts.html  - Website of Stanford's Hoover Institute describes Roberts

The Honorable Paul Craig Roberts is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. During 1981–82, he served as assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy. He was awarded the Treasury Department's Meritorious Service Award for "his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy." A former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week...the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of its top seven journalists. He has testified before committees of Congress on 30 occasions.


http://www.lasvegastribune.com/20050729/headline3.html  - Las Vegas Tribune's July 29, 2005 article on Roberts

Roberts said he hasn’t changed his political ideology or jumped from the Republican-conservative ship but "just can’t respect a party leadership who doesn’t respect the truth." "I guess the real story about 9/11 is about what the people are actually saying. I’ve gotten hundreds of emails in response to my columns and many of them talk about not getting the truth from the government or the media about what really happened at the World Trade Center. I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


U.S. Senator Mark Dayton
July 31, 2004, The Star-Tribune (Minneapolis - St. Paul)
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/4904237.html
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.ph...cle&sid=369

Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., charged...that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) have covered up "catastrophic failures" that left the nation vulnerable during the Sept. 11 hijackings. "For almost three years now, NORAD officials and FAA officials have been able to hide their critical failures that left this country defenseless during two of the worst hours in our history," Dayton declared during a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearing. Dayton said NORAD officials "lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
July 23, 2005, Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Atlanta's leading newspaper)
http://www.ajc.com/hp/content/auto/epaper/...66d13800b4.html
http://www.WantToKnow.info/050723ajc.mckinney  - Copy on WantToKnow.info if above link fails

Rep. Cynthia McKinney led a Capitol Hill hearing Friday [July 22, 2005] on whether the Bush administration was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "What we are doing is asking the unanswered questions of the 9/11 families," McKinney...said during the proceedings. The eight-hour hearing, timed to mark the first anniversary of the release of the Sept. 11 commission's report on the attacks, drew dozens of contrarians and conspiracy theorists who suggest President Bush purposely ignored warnings or may even have had a hand in the attack — claims participants said the commission ignored. "Congresswoman McKinney is viewed as a contrarian," panelist Melvin Goodman, a former CIA official, said. "And I hope someday her views will be considered conventional wisdom."

Note: Though the mainstream press largely failed to report on this important hearing, C-SPAN did air all eight hours of testimony given on August 31st and Sept. 2nd (because of Hurricane Katrina, part two was aired on C-SPAN 2), both at 8 PM.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Professor David Ray Griffin, Renowned Theologian in LA Times
August 28, 2005, Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/features/printediti...1,3835884.story 
http://www.WantToKnow.info/050828latimes911conspiracy  - Copy on WantToKnow.info if above link fails

A professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, 66-year-old David Ray Griffin...compiled a summary of material arguing against the accepted story that 19 hijackers sent by Osama bin Laden took the aviation system and the U.S. military by surprise that awful day in his 2004 book "The New Pearl Harbor." He recently followed up with the book "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," a critique of the Kean commission document. "For the first year and a half I just accepted the conventional view. When a colleague suggested to me about a year after 9/11 that he was convinced our own government or forces within our own government had arranged it, I didn't accept that. Then several months later another colleague sent me [a link to] a website that had a timeline. Once I started reading that and saw all those stories drawn from mainstream sources that contradicted the official account, I decided I needed to look into it more carefully, and the more I looked, the worse it got. The fact that Building 7 [a 47-story skyscraper in the WTC complex] collapsed when it had not been hit by an airplane, and collapsed in seven or eight seconds, that's a smoking gun. The fact that standard operating procedures were not followed that morning, and we've gotten three different stories now by the U.S. military as to why they did not intercept the planes, that's a smoking gun. There was a Zogby poll in New York. The question asked was, do you believe the government had advance knowledge of the attacks and consciously let them happen? Forty-nine percent in New York City said yes.

Note: On May 7, 2005, Dr. Griffin, who has authored or edited over two dozen scholarly books, was featured on C-SPAN 2 giving an excellent lecture on the 9/11 cover-up at the University of Wisconsin. To view this revealing lecture free online, click here. The prestigious National Press Club also hosted him for an excellent talk on July 22, 2005. To read a transcript of this speech, click here. For more on Dr. Giffin, click here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Robert M. Bowman, Head of Advanced Space Programs for DOD

http://www.illinoistimes.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A4282  - Illinois Times on Bowman

In 1977, Dr. Robert M. Bowman, head of advanced space programs for the Department of Defense [DOD], authored a report describing a new missile-defense shield system called the “Star Wars Defense.” Lt. Col. Robert Bowman (Ret.), a combat pilot who flew 101 missions in the Vietnam War...ran for president in 2000.

http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/Secrecy.htm  - Article on Dr. Bowman's website discussing 9/11

Many people are convinced that George W. Bush knew what was going to happen and purposely allowed it to happen so he and his neo-conservative buddies could have the “new Pearl Harbor” they needed to justify their wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. Others go further. They are absolutely sure Cheney and company actually planned and carried out the attack. What is so disturbing is that their arguments are quite convincing. If an enormous cloud of suspicion is not to be permanently over the head of our government, the Bush Administration must “come clean,” releasing information thus far withheld from the American people. Why did John Ashcroft and top Pentagon officials cancel plans to fly commercial airlines the morning of 9/11? If they knew what was about to happen, why wasn’t it stopped? Who made all the millions of dollars selling short United and American Airlines [stock] just before 9/11? Why weren’t the hijacked airliners intercepted by jet fighters and shot down before they could fly into the WTC and Pentagon? What did the air traffic controllers say, and to whom? Why did the FBI impound the tapes of those conversations? Why has the public never been told what was on them? Why weren’t the congressional investigators told? If it was just a matter of incompetence or somebody not doing their job, why hasn’t anyone been fired or reprimanded?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Michael Meacher, UK Minister of Environment (1997 - 2003)
September 6, 2003, The Guardian (one of the UK's leading newspapers)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1036571,00.html

A blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for *** Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence. Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001) The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Catherine Austin Fitts, ***. Sect. of Housing For President Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Austin_Fitts  - Wikipedia article describing Fitts

Catherine Austin Fitts has been a Wall Street executive, a government official, and President of her own investment bank. She is currently the director of Solari. Fitts served as Managing Director and Member of the Board of Directors of the Wall Street investment bank, Dillon, Read & Co., Inc. and also as Assistant Secretary of Housing/Federal Housing Commissioner at HUD in the first Bush Administration.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041101130426916
Article jointly written by Catherine Austin Fitts and Congresswoman McKinney on excellent 9/11 website

From the first, the Bush Administration resisted investigation and disclosure. Families of September 11 victims were forced to lobby the administration and Congress for a full and independent inquiry. They fought for 14 months, blocked every step of the way by the White House. The families demanded a full investigation, posing nearly 400 questions to the Kean Commission. The commissioners said they welcomed these queries. But their final report ignored most of the unanswered questions. Still posted on the website of the September 11 Family Steering Committee, these questions are a stark reminder of the Kean Commission's failures. Until the unanswered questions about 9/11 are laid to rest, by a truly independent investigation that does not declare legitimate avenues of inquiry off-limits, they will continue to haunt our country.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Respected Leaders and Families 9/11 Truth Statement
October 26, 2004, 911truth.org
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement's list of signatories includes notables spanning the political spectrum, from Presidential candidates Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, and David Cobb to Catherine Austin Fitts, a member of the first Bush administration, as well as Washington veterans like Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. Other signers range from peace activists like Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans and Global Exchange's Kevin Danaher to former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, Edward L. Peck; from environmentalists like Randy Hayes and John Robbins to business leaders such as Paul Hawken and Karl Schwarz, CEO of Patmos Nanotechnologies; from populist journalist Ronnie Dugger to renowned investigative reporter Kelly Patricia O'Meara. The Statement also includes 43 noted authors, including New York Times #1 bestseller John Gray, as well as 18 eminent professors, historians, and theologians. Other notables include five-term Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, singers Michelle Shocked and Michael Franti, and actors Ed Asner and Mimi Kennedy.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911#dayton
adoucette
16th January 2006 - 04:31 PM
QUOTE (mmc+)
As you are about to find out, the Pentagon has planned, during the 1960s, to fake an attack and murder its own people to support a war...this time, with Cuba.


There was NO PLAN to MURDER ANYONE.

But even so, in the height of the cold war, the plan was not approved.

Arthur
MMC
16th January 2006 - 04:41 PM
You are a liar...the records are available at the US government's website...

QUOTE

A summary of key quotes from the Operation Northwoods documents is given below these instructions. To access the Operation Northwoods documents in the National Archives, first go to the Archival Research Catalog (ARC) on the website of NARA (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration) at:

http://www.archives.gov/research_room/arc/index.html

Click on the “Search” button there. Then, in the top box of the page that appears, type “Northwoods” and click on the “Go” button to the right of the box. You will see the following item:

ARC Identifier: 305036  Digital Copy Available
Title:  Northwoods, U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba, 1962

Click on the “Digital Copy Available” link of this item. You will then see the first six pages of 181 pages available on Operation Northwoods. This link expires after 30 minutes (along with the URLs of individual Operation Northwoods pages), which is why we cannot provide a direct link for you.

For the most pertinent documents regarding Operation Northwoods, find the “Jump to Page” in the upper left part of this webpage. Click on the arrow to the right side of the box and select the number 22. Then click on the “go” button just to the right of the box. The most revealing 15 pages of Operations Northwoods documents begin on page 129 and continue to 143. To view any of these pages, simple click on the “Larger image” link directly beneath the page you would like to view. You will find the most shocking information on pages 138 to 141.

Thanks for caring enough to investigate Operation Northwoods.


http://www.wanttoknow.info/operationnorthwoods
DaBigEd
16th January 2006 - 04:44 PM
SO TELL ME MMC WHAT TERTIARY QUALIFICATIONS IN PHYSICS DO YOU HAVE, THAT MAKE YOU SUCH AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD?????
MMC
16th January 2006 - 04:59 PM
DaBigEd,

When I was 20, I was a member of an advisory board along with people such as this:

QUOTE

Joe Parr, J.D. - CA -  Joe is an electronics  engineer with over 40 years experience,  inventor of the gamma ray transducer, and holds a law degree.  He has wintered in Antarctica twice, once at the South Pole during DF75 and once at Palmer Station during DF78. In October of 1978,  while Joe was at Palmer Station, he discovered the Gamma Ray Transducer.  He has also wintered once at Thule Greenland and has been involved in 8 major projects throughout the world.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Joe Parr, J.D. - CA -  Joe is an electronics  engineer with over 40 years experience,  inventor of the gamma ray transducer, and holds a law degree.  He has wintered in Antarctica twice, once at the South Pole during DF75 and once at Palmer Station during DF78. In October of 1978,  while Joe was at Palmer Station, he discovered the Gamma Ray Transducer.  He has also wintered once at Thule Greenland and has been involved in 8 major projects throughout the world.



Volodymyr Krasnoholovets, Ph.D. - UKRAINE - Theoretical Physicist (Condensed Matter Physics) and Senior Scientist for over 20 years at the Institute of Physics in Ukraine.  This institute was the premier military research institution of the former Soviet Union and Dr. Krasnoholvets helped develop instrumentation and new research technology.


QUOTE

Joseph Turbeville - NC - Retired Physicist from the University of South Florida.  He was a Federal Sea Grant recipient,  project Director on an oil spill recovery project, and served with SINTEF at the University of Trondheim in Norway.  His most recent environmental publication was in an IUPAC Journal (on oil spill issues).


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Joseph Turbeville - NC - Retired Physicist from the University of South Florida.  He was a Federal Sea Grant recipient,  project Director on an oil spill recovery project, and served with SINTEF at the University of Trondheim in Norway.  His most recent environmental publication was in an IUPAC Journal (on oil spill issues).



Edward Hyman, Ph.D. - CA - Dr. Hyman is an Optical Physicist and was a research scientist with the TRW Defense and Space Systems Group.  His expertise is in Electromagnetic field theory and has published in Applied Optics, Journal of the American Optical Society.


QUOTE

Petros Petrosyan - Armenia - Nuclear Engineer


I specialise in mathematical models and communications, only a few weeks ago I was speculating on the non-linear acceleration of climate change and predicting that it could result in the loss of the condition necessary for life, something which one of the world's leading experts confirmed in the press, independently, at the weekend:

Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338878.ece

I know my stuff...the real question is, who the hell are you?
adoucette
16th January 2006 - 05:00 PM
QUOTE (MMC+Jan 16 2006, 04:41 PM)
You are a liar...the records are available at the US government's website...

QUOTE

A summary of key quotes from the Operation Northwoods documents is given below these instructions. To access the Operation Northwoods documents in the National Archives, first go to the Archival Research Catalog (ARC) on the website of NARA (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration) at:

http://www.archives.gov/research_room/arc/index.html

Click on the “Search” button there. Then, in the top box of the page that appears, type “Northwoods” and click on the “Go” button to the right of the box. You will see the following item:

ARC Identifier: 305036  Digital Copy Available
Title:  Northwoods, U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba, 1962

Click on the “Digital Copy Available” link of this item. You will then see the first six pages of 181 pages available on Operation Northwoods. This link expires after 30 minutes (along with the URLs of individual Operation Northwoods pages), which is why we cannot provide a direct link for you.

For the most pertinent documents regarding Operation Northwoods, find the “Jump to Page” in the upper left part of this webpage. Click on the arrow to the right side of the box and select the number 22. Then click on the “go” button just to the right of the box. The most revealing 15 pages of Operations Northwoods documents begin on page 129 and continue to 143. To view any of these pages, simple click on the “Larger image” link directly beneath the page you would like to view. You will find the most shocking information on pages 138 to 141.

Thanks for caring enough to investigate Operation Northwoods.


http://www.wanttoknow.info/operationnorthwoods

You are wrong MMC, the document talks quite a bit about how they were going to SIMULATE carnage, thus the reference to the MOCK FUNERALS and the rendevouz with the drone, etc. etc.

And like I said, even though this was at the height of the cold war and no one was going to be killed, the plan was rejected.

Arthur

MMC
16th January 2006 - 05:04 PM
There is more to it, a large amount of documents were destroyed, discussions with those who had access to the material, confirmed independently, that they related to large scale murder of members of the public and US military.

There is substantial eye-witness accounts...who cares if the civilian government refused?

The fact remains...the military planned this...
adoucette
16th January 2006 - 05:06 PM
Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338878.ece

The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to James Lovelock, the scientist and green guru who conceived the idea of Gaia - the Earth which keeps itself fit for life.

In a profoundly pessimistic new assessment, published in today's Independent, Professor Lovelock suggests that efforts to counter global warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late.

If you really believed this BS, then why would you care about 9/11????

MMC (Michael McCarthy I take it) you are in the SCARE the SHIIT out of people business and are looking to MAKE mountains out of molehills.

Truth isn't something you appear to be interested in.

Arthur
MMC
16th January 2006 - 05:08 PM
No, I'm not Michael McCarthy...
adoucette
16th January 2006 - 05:10 PM
QUOTE (MMC+Jan 16 2006, 05:04 PM)
There is more to it, a large amount of documents were destroyed, discussions with those who had access to the material, confirmed independently, that they related to large scale murder of members of the public and US military.

There is substantial eye-witness accounts...who cares if the civilian government refused?

The fact remains...the military planned this...

Oh, so the documents you can SHOW don't support your position, its the documents YOU DON'T HAVE that do.

Convenient.

The military DIDN'T plan this, a HIGH LEVEL proposal of a POSSIBLE PLAN was submitted that DID NOT INVOLVE ANYONE BEING KILLED.

It was rejected.

Nothing got planned.

Nothing got done.

Arthur
MMC
16th January 2006 - 05:10 PM
As I said before to DaBigEd...

When I was 20, I was a member of an advisory board along with people such as this:

QUOTE

Joe Parr, J.D. - CA -  Joe is an electronics  engineer with over 40 years experience,  inventor of the gamma ray transducer, and holds a law degree.  He has wintered in Antarctica twice, once at the South Pole during DF75 and once at Palmer Station during DF78. In October of 1978,  while Joe was at Palmer Station, he discovered the Gamma Ray Transducer.  He has also wintered once at Thule Greenland and has been involved in 8 major projects throughout the world.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Joe Parr, J.D. - CA -  Joe is an electronics  engineer with over 40 years experience,  inventor of the gamma ray transducer, and holds a law degree.  He has wintered in Antarctica twice, once at the South Pole during DF75 and once at Palmer Station during DF78. In October of 1978,  while Joe was at Palmer Station, he discovered the Gamma Ray Transducer.  He has also wintered once at Thule Greenland and has been involved in 8 major projects throughout the world.



Volodymyr Krasnoholovets, Ph.D. - UKRAINE - Theoretical Physicist (Condensed Matter Physics) and Senior Scientist for over 20 years at the Institute of Physics in Ukraine.  This institute was the premier military research institution of the former Soviet Union and Dr. Krasnoholvets helped develop instrumentation and new research technology.


QUOTE

Joseph Turbeville - NC - Retired Physicist from the University of South Florida.  He was a Federal Sea Grant recipient,  project Director on an oil spill recovery project, and served with SINTEF at the University of Trondheim in Norway.  His most recent environmental publication was in an IUPAC Journal (on oil spill issues).


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Joseph Turbeville - NC - Retired Physicist from the University of South Florida.  He was a Federal Sea Grant recipient,  project Director on an oil spill recovery project, and served with SINTEF at the University of Trondheim in Norway.  His most recent environmental publication was in an IUPAC Journal (on oil spill issues).



Edward Hyman, Ph.D. - CA - Dr. Hyman is an Optical Physicist and was a research scientist with the TRW Defense and Space Systems Group.  His expertise is in Electromagnetic field theory and has published in Applied Optics, Journal of the American Optical Society.


QUOTE

Petros Petrosyan - Armenia - Nuclear Engineer


I specialise in mathematical models and communications, only a few weeks ago I was speculating on the non-linear acceleration of climate change and predicting that it could result in the loss of the condition necessary for life, something which one of the world's leading experts confirmed in the press, independently, at the weekend:

Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338878.ece

I know my stuff...the real question is, who the hell are you?
adoucette
16th January 2006 - 05:13 PM
Repeat yourself much?

So you KNEW some smart people.

Once.

WOW.

What impressive credentials.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Arthur

MMC
16th January 2006 - 05:15 PM
Laughable...who the hell are you?

All I see is someone who lacks basic understanding of physics...a mouth on a forum...
MMC
16th January 2006 - 05:35 PM
Once again, we will atempt to get back to the study at hand...

The fact remains that to produce particle sizes of 30 micron, it would take the equivilent of 2-4 months worth of of KWH produced by a power station in the time it took the buildings to collapse.

It doesn't really matter how much, or how little, that peak energy still had to be achieved.

The potential energy involved in the collapse of the twin towers, the collision, the burning fuel and all materials, come nowhere near producing that amount of energy.

What about uneven distribution of mass during the collapse?

Well, the "entire" available energy of the collapse is well over 1,000,000 KWH BELOW what it would take to produce 30 micron dust particles. That means at NO point could a 30 micron dust particle be created.

Isolated areas CANNOT exceed the maximum energy of the entire collapse.

A jet full of fuel could not provide 1,000,000 KWH of energy...

We are therefore looking for another major energy source...without question.

That's just the facts, or else you are trying to break the known laws of physics...


The fact that no-one has come forward with a logical arguement, other than trying to re-hash old WILD CLAIMS, for which no evidence exists, speaks for itself...

Another source of energy is required...
adoucette
16th January 2006 - 05:42 PM
QUOTE (MMC+)
Once again, we will atempt to get back to the study at hand...

The fact remains that to produce particle sizes of 30 micron,


STUDY????

You call this a STUDY.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Ok. Your first statement is UNPROVEN. What is your SCIENTIFIC basis for using an average 30 micron particle size for the majority of the concrete in the WTC towers?

Since the rest of your diatribe is based on this you better have some pretty good research to back up this key number.

Arthur
MMC
16th January 2006 - 05:45 PM
QUOTE

What is your SCIENTIFIC basis for using an average 30 micron particle size for the majority of the concrete in the WTC towers?


The fact that 30 micron particle sizes were found indicate energies level in excess of 1,400,000 KWH...it doesn't matter how much was found, you still need to achieve that energy to create them...

Provide evidence that this could be achieved...
MMC
16th January 2006 - 06:50 PM
QUOTE

The energy required to crush rock is roughly proportional to 1/sqrt(powder diameter), so the exact amount of energy required is critically dependent on the fineness of the powder. The energy required to reduce solid rock to 60 micron powder is about 20 kwh/ton:
http://www.elorantaassoc.com/eob97.htm

However, concrete is softer than rock, and a round number for the energy required to crush concrete is around 1.5 kwh/ton:
http://www.b-i-m.de/public/ibac/mueller.htm

With roughly 600,000 tons of concrete in each WTC tower, the available energy from gravitational potential energy was only about 0.7 kwh per ton of concrete.


http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm


So, to produce 30 micron powder/particle sizes, even when I assume a linear relationship, will still be greater than 3 Kwh/ton...so that's about 4-5 times the amount of energy than available from the collapse of the WTC.

Here is an electron microscope view of a particle of concrete from the WTC collapse:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics...TE-05-IMAGE.jpg

Now comes the most damning evidence, demonstrating energy levels at least 10 times what I have considered above:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

The energy required to crush rock is roughly proportional to 1/sqrt(powder diameter), so the exact amount of energy required is critically dependent on the fineness of the powder. The energy required to reduce solid rock to 60 micron powder is about 20 kwh/ton:
http://www.elorantaassoc.com/eob97.htm

However, concrete is softer than rock, and a round number for the energy required to crush concrete is around 1.5 kwh/ton:
http://www.b-i-m.de/public/ibac/mueller.htm

With roughly 600,000 tons of concrete in each WTC tower, the available energy from gravitational potential energy was only about 0.7 kwh per ton of concrete.


http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm


So, to produce 30 micron powder/particle sizes, even when I assume a linear relationship, will still be greater than 3 Kwh/ton...so that's about 4-5 times the amount of energy than available from the collapse of the WTC.

Here is an electron microscope view of a particle of concrete from the WTC collapse:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics...TE-05-IMAGE.jpg

Now comes the most damning evidence, demonstrating energy levels at least 10 times what I have considered above:


By far, the most abundant nonfibrous particles in all samples are gypsum and concrete.  Particle size distributions for these components (Figs. 8 and 9) suggest relationships to distance and elevation. Percent frequency is compared to area and maximum diameter, as measured on the SEM. The majority of these nonfibrous particles in each sample have similar particle area distributions with the majority of particles in the range from 0.3 to 3 µm (micron). Sample L18-2, collected adjacent to the WTC site, is characterized by a somewhat higher concentration of particles in the 3 to 300 µm2size range. Particles in samples USGS 4 and 6 fall at slightly higher values of total area, between 1 and 300 µm2, than in the other outdoor samples.


Determination of a Diagnostic Signature for World
Trade Center Dust using Scanning Electron
Microscopy Point Counting Techniques

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/meeker-2...20concrete'


The majority of particles of concrete were 3 microns...that's from the EPA.
MMC
16th January 2006 - 07:28 PM
Further reading on the USGS 4 and 6 samples reveals the following:

Figure 9, of the report shows that almost all outdoors samples peaked with sizes of 3 microns...

The indoor samples peak with 2 micron and 10 microns...

The report indicates a "relationship to distance and elevation"...

So, closest to the center of the building L-18-2 peaked at 10 microns (250m) and USGS-36 (400m) particle sizes peaked at 2 microns...

So, if we first have an implosion (the first stages of a bomb) larger particle sizes would be created (10 microns), then comes the blast wave delivering the most energy as effect of the device expands, reducing particle sizes to 2 microns...

As it expands further, it will reach an average force, which is reflected in the rest of the particle sizes peaking at 3 microns, which is mostly concrete...and spreading that over a 1Km area...

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/meeker-2...20concrete'

No doubt about it, the hallmarks of an explosion, the only question is this, what form of device can pulverise concrete to 2 and 3 microns?
adoucette
16th January 2006 - 10:11 PM
QUOTE (MMC+Jan 16 2006, 05:45 PM)
The fact that 30 micron particle sizes were found indicate energies level in excess of 1,400,000 KWH...it doesn't matter how much was found, you still need to achieve that energy to create them...

Provide evidence that this could be achieved...




Sure, as soon as you provide evidence that the existence of ANY 30 micron particles indicates the expenditure of 1.4 million KWH of energy.

This should be good.

I'll wait for your reply

Arthur
frater plecticus
16th January 2006 - 10:14 PM
QUOTE (Common sense+)
I said there is no evidence of a controlled demolition


There is no evidence of a controlled demolition? Can you honestly say to yourself that there is no evidence whatsoever? Ok, then, where is your "evidence" that says that the 9/11 official government story is authentic and that the government is being honest with the public. Show me your proof.

Oh wait, the only proof you have is the official story itself. That's the basis of your proof, and just as long as the government says it, it is true in your book. But wait, you don't actually believe the official story, because you know it's false. You only support the official story because your primary intention is to help cover-up for governmental lies.

How can you say that there is no evidence of a controlled demolition when all you rely on is the official story itself as the basis of your standpoints? There is more than enough strong evidence that indicates that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition. It's so clear, yet you continue to clearly deny the overwhelming body of evidence (which has been compiled for over 4 + years).
RealityCheck
16th January 2006 - 10:20 PM
Hi adoucette, everyone!

Have you noticed that this fella, who once knew some smart people, didn't have any 'smarts' rub off on him?

He makes the classic mistake of a 'Mathematics person', he fails to distinguish between GLOBAL energy AVAILABILITY and PEAK LOCAL energy DENSITY per unit volume wherever that local energy is active for whatever time is involved in that local process [pyrolytic (calcining/dissociating), mechanical (compression/grinding/crunching/vibrating etc).

That is the danger for 'incompetent' strictly-mathematics 'persons', they tend to become 'dissociated' from the actual PHYSICAL reality and so disappear into the land of misleading/meaningless numbers and calculations.

Obviously he does not know/understand that even ONE STAR going supernova can LOCALLY and MOMENTARILY output energy DENSITY (power) in excess of the ENTIRE host GALAXY's power output for that SAME PERIOD. Or that the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters can for the brief ascent period generate the LOCAL/MOMENTARY energy DENSITY of a hydroelectric dam's peak POWER capacity. Or that in a 'ball mill' (where ores are crushed to fine particles before smelting etc) the peak ENERGY DENSITY LOCALLY between the 'STEEL balls' (at impact surfaces) are tremendous, and for that moment at that location EXCEEDS the energy density of the mill overall at that moment.

What's even more IRONIC here is that even in the well understood sono-luminescence and newly-hypothesised sono-fusion processes that he alludes to, it is the INSTANTANEOUS ENERGY DENSITY in that MINUSCULE 'collapsed bubble' highly-LOCALISED VOLUME that produces PEAK energy density that MOMENTARILY produces EXTREME TEMPERATURES, and in so doing has NOTHING TO DO WITH TOTAL ENERGY AVAILABLE IN THE VAT OF ACETONE-laced liquid 'fuel' as a whole! Oh the Irony!

The upshot? Even if ANY of his 'calculations' are 'accurate', he is using the results INCORRECTLY and MISLEADINGLY. It is a perfect example of the DIFFERENCE between a 'mathematician' and a 'true physicist'. The former is worse than useless without the wit to apply what he 'knows' to the real world.

Anyone can now see that the 'light concrete' of the floors, and 'gypsum' of the office dividers/wall-cladding, were FIRST compression/friction heated/fractured by initial plane impact and jet fuel explosion, and THEN further heated by OFFICE furniture/equipment etc 'fuel' fire/explosions, and THEN WHILE STILL VERY HOT (full of energy) they were FURTHER suddenly compressed/ground by chaotic impact/vibration and 'ball mill'-like violent tumbling during the collapse of the HEAVY, gravitational-energy-laden TOP, HAT TRUSS AND REST OF THE BUILDING.

And here is a person who once 'knew' some smart people, wondering how on Earth the various particulates could have formed during 9/11 events...and postulating UNNECESSARY mechanisms to 'explain' it. Where is OCCAM'S RAZOR when you need it. Obviously someone has 'conveniently' misplaced that razor, or they would not be wasting their or everyone else's time with this OBVIOUSLY AGENDA-DRIVEN DRIVEL masquerading as a supposedly scientific 'study'.

EVERYONE: I MOVE THAT THIS OBVIOUS POLITICAL/MERCENARY/NON-SCIENTIFIC THREAD BE MOVED TO WHERE IT BELONGS, UNDER THE PHYSICS GENERAL FORUM WITH THE OTHER POLITICAL/MERCENARY '9/11-CONSPIRACY' THREADS.

Anyhow, adoucette, how's your cold, mate? I hope that at its 'momentary/localised peak' it doesn't eclipse your 'total available energy' to fight it off, heh? Ciao!

RC.
.
adoucette
16th January 2006 - 10:31 PM
Hi RC.

Feeling better, thanks.
Fever's gone, now just waiting for the symptoms to subside (hack, hack, cough, cough....)

First laugh in days when I read this:

QUOTE
What's even more IRONIC here is that even in the well understood sono-luminescence and newly-hypothesised sono-fusion processes that he alludes to, it is the INSTANTANEOUS ENERGY DENSITY in that MINUSCULE 'collapsed bubble' highly-LOCALISED VOLUME that produces PEAK energy density that MOMENTARILY produces EXTREME TEMPERATURES! Oh the Irony!


Thanks ever so much.

Arthur

PS, I agree, move this thread.
RealityCheck
16th January 2006 - 10:38 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 16 2006, 10:31 PM)
Hi RC.

Feeling better, thanks.
Fever's gone, now just waiting for the symptoms to subside (hack, hack, cough, cough....)

First laugh in days when I read this:

QUOTE
What's even more IRONIC here is that even in the well understood sono-luminescence and newly-hypothesised sono-fusion processes that he alludes to, it is the INSTANTANEOUS ENERGY DENSITY in that MINUSCULE 'collapsed bubble' highly-LOCALISED VOLUME that produces PEAK energy density that MOMENTARILY produces EXTREME TEMPERATURES! Oh the Irony!


Thanks ever so much.

Arthur

PS, I agree, move this thread.


I live to serve, mate. And, at any time, a good laugh is good service indeed, I find! Glad I could help in distracting you from the miseries. Ciao.

RC.
.
Guest_John
16th January 2006 - 10:45 PM
I didn't read all of this thread..Just the last bits. From what I read, you're arguing that the jets which hit the WTC wasn't the cause of its doom? I heard someone mention bombs?

Those theories are all nice and stuff..but from what the videos show, they're all wrong. The speed of the plane(s), how much fuel each had, and the force/heat caused by such an impact has to be taken into consideration.

There weren't any bomb explosions, and the government didn't plan this. Bush heard about this possibility long before it happened..but simply brushed it off as something that probably wouldn't happen.

At the last 7 - 8 minutes before impact, bush could have ordered jet fighters to take the jets out, instead he chose to wait around and let it happen, why? because it gives a perfect reason for us to go to war with who he wants, it has more benefits to him as well, which I will leave you all to ponder.
brian
16th January 2006 - 11:47 PM
From Reality Check -

"Anyone can now see that the 'light concrete' of the floors, and 'gypsum' of the office dividers/wall-cladding, were FIRST compression/friction heated/fractured by initial plane impact and jet fuel explosion, and THEN further heated by OFFICE furniture/equipment etc 'fuel' fire/explosions, and THEN WHILE STILL VERY HOT (full of energy) they were FURTHER suddenly compressed/ground by chaotic impact/vibration and 'ball mill'-like violent tumbling during the collapse of the HEAVY, gravitational-energy-laden TOP, HAT TRUSS AND REST OF THE BUILDING."


NAH - I still see this below, and so can anyone else.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53881

MMC
16th January 2006 - 11:50 PM
QUOTE

Sure, as soon as you provide evidence that the existence of ANY 30 micron particles indicates the expenditure of 1.4 million KWH of energy.


Arthur, perhaps you have difficulty reading, or perhaps that it is just that you know nothing about physics...

Did the following escape your small attention span???

Or are you just posting cr*p to confuse people?


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Sure, as soon as you provide evidence that the existence of ANY 30 micron particles indicates the expenditure of 1.4 million KWH of energy.


Arthur, perhaps you have difficulty reading, or perhaps that it is just that you know nothing about physics...

Did the following escape your small attention span???

Or are you just posting cr*p to confuse people?



By far, the most abundant nonfibrous particles in all samples are gypsum and concrete.  Particle size distributions for these components (Figs. 8 and 9) suggest relationships to distance and elevation. Percent frequency is compared to area and maximum diameter, as measured on the SEM. The majority of these nonfibrous particles in each sample have similar particle area distributions with the majority of particles in the range from 0.3 to 3 µm (micron). Sample L18-2, collected adjacent to the WTC site, is characterized by a somewhat higher concentration of particles in the 3 to 300 µm2size range. Particles in samples USGS 4 and 6 fall at slightly higher values of total area, between 1 and 300 µm2, than in the other outdoor samples.


Determination of a Diagnostic Signature for World
Trade Center Dust using Scanning Electron
Microscopy Point Counting Techniques

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/meeker-2...20concrete'


QUOTE

Further reading on the USGS 4 and 6 samples reveals the following:

Figure 9, of the report shows that almost all outdoors samples peaked with sizes of 3 microns...

The indoor samples peak with 2 micron and 10 microns...

The report indicates a "relationship to distance and elevation"...a hallmark of a bomb.

So, closest to the center of the building L-18-2 peaked at 10 microns (250m) and USGS-36 (400m) particle sizes peaked at 2 microns...

So, if we first have an implosion (the first stages of a bomb) larger particle sizes would be created (10 microns), then comes the blast wave delivering the most energy as effect of the device expands, reducing particle sizes to 2 microns...

As it expands further, it will reach an average force, which is reflected in the rest of the particle sizes peaking at 3 microns, which is mostly concrete...and spreading that over a 1Km area...

No doubt about it, the hallmarks of an explosion, the only question is this, what form of device can pulverise concrete to 2 and 3 microns?


Arthur...you are an idiot, the report says the particle sizes were between 0.3 and 3 microns and that concrete accounted for the majority of those particles.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Further reading on the USGS 4 and 6 samples reveals the following:

Figure 9, of the report shows that almost all outdoors samples peaked with sizes of 3 microns...

The indoor samples peak with 2 micron and 10 microns...

The report indicates a "relationship to distance and elevation"...a hallmark of a bomb.

So, closest to the center of the building L-18-2 peaked at 10 microns (250m) and USGS-36 (400m) particle sizes peaked at 2 microns...

So, if we first have an implosion (the first stages of a bomb) larger particle sizes would be created (10 microns), then comes the blast wave delivering the most energy as effect of the device expands, reducing particle sizes to 2 microns...

As it expands further, it will reach an average force, which is reflected in the rest of the particle sizes peaking at 3 microns, which is mostly concrete...and spreading that over a 1Km area...

No doubt about it, the hallmarks of an explosion, the only question is this, what form of device can pulverise concrete to 2 and 3 microns?


Arthur...you are an idiot, the report says the particle sizes were between 0.3 and 3 microns and that concrete accounted for the majority of those particles.



he fails to distinguish between GLOBAL energy AVAILABILITY and PEAK LOCAL energy DENSITY per unit volume


I know that peak energy, cannot exceed the global energy...especially not in the manner you describe...again, I see no evidence of your WILD crackpot claims...



QUOTE

What's even more IRONIC here is that even in the well understood sono-luminescence and newly-hypothesised sono-fusion processes that he alludes to, it is the INSTANTANEOUS ENERGY DENSITY in that MINUSCULE 'collapsed bubble' highly-LOCALISED VOLUME that produces PEAK energy density that MOMENTARILY produces EXTREME TEMPERATURES! Oh the Irony!


In a gravity collapse, that would be a HIGHLY LOCALISED affair, typically less than 1cm throughout the entire structure.

Nice try guys...but your efforts are laughable...your physics is pathetic and if you think for one second anyone, with a shred of knowlege in this subject, would believe a bunch of sockpuppets...you are sadly mistaken.

The fact is the report states that the majority of the particles, which the majority were of concrete, were between 0.3 and 3 microns...

If we now give you a comparison:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

What's even more IRONIC here is that even in the well understood sono-luminescence and newly-hypothesised sono-fusion processes that he alludes to, it is the INSTANTANEOUS ENERGY DENSITY in that MINUSCULE 'collapsed bubble' highly-LOCALISED VOLUME that produces PEAK energy density that MOMENTARILY produces EXTREME TEMPERATURES! Oh the Irony!


In a gravity collapse, that would be a HIGHLY LOCALISED affair, typically less than 1cm throughout the entire structure.

Nice try guys...but your efforts are laughable...your physics is pathetic and if you think for one second anyone, with a shred of knowlege in this subject, would believe a bunch of sockpuppets...you are sadly mistaken.

The fact is the report states that the majority of the particles, which the majority were of concrete, were between 0.3 and 3 microns...

If we now give you a comparison:


The first year of operation of the Goodyear Lake small-scale hydro plant near Oneonta, NY is reported with monthly data for August 1980 through July 1981 on power generated, operating costs, income generated, and maintenance requirements.^Due to the dryest year in living memory in the area with an average flow of 60% of the mean flow for the past 20 years, the plant produced on 3,886,050 kWh versus an estimated 7,500,000 kWh.^Actual operating costs were $89,011 as compared with an estimate of $99,840.^(LCL)


http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/produc...osti_id=6676571


To achieve particle sizes of 30 micron, it would take about 2-4 months worth of energy from a power station (1,000,000 KWH)...when operating under normal conditions.

That means...

1. 20-40 months for 3 micron particles (10,000,000 KWH).
2. 200-400 months for 0.3 micron particles (100,000,000 KWH).

That's assuming a linear relationship...which of course it is not, so the power requirements are EVEN HIGHER again...

So, it would take between 2-4 YEARS worth of power to produce 3 micron particles and 16-33 YEARS worth of power to produce 0.3 micron particles and all this supposed to be from the potentional energy of a collapse of the WTC...

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! 16-33 YEARS WORTH OF POWER....FROM PEAK ENERGY NO LESS...PULL YOUR HEADS OUT...GET A GRIP...COME BACK TO PLANET EARTH...WISE UP...THE PLANET IS THIS WAY...--->>>

You guys are the funniest thing I have come across all week...
RealityCheck
17th January 2006 - 12:02 AM
Hi adoucette, everyone!

Have you noticed that this fella, who once knew some smart people, didn't have any 'smarts' rub off on him?

He makes the classic mistake of a 'Mathematics person', he fails to distinguish between GLOBAL energy AVAILABILITY and PEAK LOCAL energy DENSITY per unit volume wherever that local energy is active for whatever time is involved in that local process [pyrolytic (calcining/dissociating), mechanical (compression/grinding/crunching/vibrating etc).

That is the danger for 'incompetent' strictly-mathematics 'persons', they tend to become 'dissociated' from the actual PHYSICAL reality and so disappear into the land of misleading/meaningless numbers and calculations.

Obviously he does not know/understand that even ONE STAR going supernova can LOCALLY and MOMENTARILY output energy DENSITY (power) in excess of the ENTIRE host GALAXY's power output for that SAME PERIOD. Or that the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters can for the brief ascent period generate the LOCAL/MOMENTARY energy DENSITY of a hydroelectric dam's peak POWER capacity. Or that in a 'ball mill' (where ores are crushed to fine particles before smelting etc) the peak ENERGY DENSITY LOCALLY between the 'STEEL balls' (at impact surfaces) are tremendous, and for that moment at that location EXCEEDS the energy density of the mill overall at that moment.

What's even more IRONIC here is that even in the well understood sono-luminescence and newly-hypothesised sono-fusion processes that he alludes to, it is the INSTANTANEOUS ENERGY DENSITY in that MINUSCULE 'collapsed bubble' highly-LOCALISED VOLUME that produces PEAK energy density that MOMENTARILY produces EXTREME TEMPERATURES, and in so doing has NOTHING TO DO WITH TOTAL ENERGY AVAILABLE IN THE VAT OF ACETONE-laced liquid 'fuel' as a whole! Oh the Irony!

The upshot? Even if ANY of his 'calculations' are 'accurate', he is using the results INCORRECTLY and MISLEADINGLY. It is a perfect example of the DIFFERENCE between a 'mathematician' and a 'true physicist'. The former is worse than useless without the wit to apply what he 'knows' to the real world.

Anyone can now see that the 'light concrete' of the floors, and 'gypsum' of the office dividers/wall-cladding, were FIRST compression/friction heated/fractured by initial plane impact and jet fuel explosion, and THEN further heated by OFFICE furniture/equipment etc 'fuel' fire/explosions, and THEN WHILE STILL VERY HOT (full of energy) they were FURTHER suddenly compressed/ground by chaotic impact/vibration and 'ball mill'-like violent tumbling during the collapse of the HEAVY, gravitational-energy-laden TOP, HAT TRUSS AND REST OF THE BUILDING.

And here is a person who once 'knew' some smart people, wondering how on Earth the various particulates could have formed during 9/11 events...and postulating UNNECESSARY mechanisms to 'explain' it. Where is OCCAM'S RAZOR when you need it. Obviously someone has 'conveniently' misplaced that razor, or they would not be wasting their or everyone else's time with this OBVIOUSLY AGENDA-DRIVEN DRIVEL masquerading as a supposedly scientific 'study'.

EVERYONE: I MOVE THAT THIS OBVIOUS POLITICAL/MERCENARY/NON-SCIENTIFIC THREAD BE MOVED TO WHERE IT BELONGS, UNDER THE PHYSICS GENERAL FORUM WITH THE OTHER POLITICAL/MERCENARY '9/11-CONSPIRACY' THREADS.

Anyhow, adoucette, how's your cold, mate? I hope that at its 'momentary/localised peak' it doesn't eclipse your 'total available energy' to fight it off, heh? Ciao!

RC.
.
MMC
17th January 2006 - 12:06 AM
Reality Check,

QUOTE

To achieve particle sizes of 30 micron, it would take about 2-4 months worth of energy from a power station (1,000,000 KWH)...when operating under normal conditions.

That means...

1. 20-40 months for 3 micron particles (10,000,000 KWH).
2. 200-400 months for 0.3 micron particles (100,000,000 KWH).

That's assuming a linear relationship...which of course it is not, so the power requirements are EVEN HIGHER again...

So, it would take between 2-4 YEARS worth of power to produce 3 micron particles and 16-33 YEARS worth of power to produce 0.3 micron particles and all this supposed to be from the potentional energy of a collapse of the WTC...

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! 16-33 YEARS WORTH OF POWER....FROM PEAK ENERGY NO LESS...PULL YOUR HEADS OUT...GET A GRIP...COME BACK TO PLANET EARTH...WISE UP...THE PLANET IS THIS WAY...--->>>



Perhaps you would like to enlighten us all as to how "peak energy" produces 16-33 years worth of power, from a power station, in the time it takes for a building to collapse...

With supporting physics...

I'd love to hear this...an entirely new form of energy...
RealityCheck
17th January 2006 - 12:09 AM
QUOTE (brian+Jan 16 2006, 11:47 PM)
From Reality Check -

"Anyone can now see that the 'light concrete' of the floors, and 'gypsum' of the office dividers/wall-cladding, were FIRST compression/friction heated/fractured by initial plane impact and jet fuel explosion, and THEN further heated by OFFICE furniture/equipment etc 'fuel' fire/explosions, and THEN WHILE STILL VERY HOT (full of energy) they were FURTHER suddenly compressed/ground by chaotic impact/vibration and 'ball mill'-like violent tumbling during the collapse of the HEAVY, gravitational-energy-laden TOP, HAT TRUSS AND REST OF THE BUILDING."


NAH - I still see this below, and so can anyone else.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53881


Brian the mistaken, Brian the careless, Brian the irrelevant, Brian the frightened, Brian the DISHONEST has 'conveniently' left out the REST of that post he quotes me from.......

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 16 2006, 10:20 PM)
Hi adoucette, everyone!

Have you noticed that this fella, who once knew some smart people, didn't have any 'smarts' rub off on him?

He makes the classic mistake of a 'Mathematics person', he fails to distinguish between GLOBAL energy AVAILABILITY and PEAK LOCAL energy DENSITY per unit volume wherever that local energy is active for whatever time is involved in that local process [pyrolytic (calcining/dissociating), mechanical (compression/grinding/crunching/vibrating etc).

That is the danger for 'incompetent' strictly-mathematics 'persons', they tend to become 'dissociated' from the actual PHYSICAL reality and so disappear into the land of misleading/meaningless numbers and calculations.

Obviously he does not know/understand that even ONE STAR going supernova can LOCALLY and MOMENTARILY output energy DENSITY (power) in excess of the ENTIRE host GALAXY's power output for that SAME PERIOD. Or that the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters can for the brief ascent period generate the LOCAL/MOMENTARY energy DENSITY of a hydroelectric dam's peak POWER capacity. Or that in a 'ball mill' (where ores are crushed to fine particles before smelting etc) the peak ENERGY DENSITY LOCALLY between the 'STEEL balls' (at impact surfaces) are tremendous, and for that moment at that location EXCEEDS the energy density of the mill overall at that moment.

What's even more IRONIC here is that even in the well understood sono-luminescence and newly-hypothesised sono-fusion processes that he alludes to, it is the INSTANTANEOUS ENERGY DENSITY in that MINUSCULE 'collapsed bubble' highly-LOCALISED VOLUME that produces PEAK energy density that MOMENTARILY produces EXTREME TEMPERATURES, and in so doing has NOTHING TO DO WITH TOTAL ENERGY AVAILABLE IN THE VAT OF ACETONE-laced liquid 'fuel' as a whole! Oh the Irony!

The upshot? Even if ANY of his 'calculations' are 'accurate', he is using the results INCORRECTLY and MISLEADINGLY. It is a perfect example of the DIFFERENCE between a 'mathematician' and a 'true physicist'. The former is worse than useless without the wit to apply what he 'knows' to the real world.

Anyone can now see that the 'light concrete' of the floors, and 'gypsum' of the office dividers/wall-cladding, were FIRST compression/friction heated/fractured by initial plane impact and jet fuel explosion, and THEN further heated by OFFICE furniture/equipment etc 'fuel' fire/explosions, and THEN WHILE STILL VERY HOT (full of energy) they were FURTHER suddenly compressed/ground by chaotic impact/vibration and 'ball mill'-like violent tumbling during the collapse of the HEAVY, gravitational-energy-laden TOP, HAT TRUSS AND REST OF THE BUILDING.

And here is a person who once 'knew' some smart people, wondering how on Earth the various particulates could have formed during 9/11 events...and postulating UNNECESSARY mechanisms to 'explain' it. Where is OCCAM'S RAZOR when you need it. Obviously someone has 'conveniently' misplaced that razor, or they would not be wasting their or everyone else's time with this OBVIOUSLY AGENDA-DRIVEN DRIVEL masquerading as a supposedly scientific 'study'.

EVERYONE: I MOVE THAT THIS OBVIOUS POLITICAL/MERCENARY/NON-SCIENTIFIC THREAD BE MOVED TO WHERE IT BELONGS, UNDER THE PHYSICS GENERAL FORUM WITH THE OTHER POLITICAL/MERCENARY '9/11-CONSPIRACY' THREADS.

Anyhow, adoucette, how's your cold, mate? I hope that at its 'momentary/localised peak' it doesn't eclipse your 'total available energy' to fight it off, heh? Ciao!

RC.
.

Typical of useless deceitful Brian...who wants you to know ONLY what pathetic Brian WANTS you to know...he wants your ignorance NOT your enlightenment. Poor Brian.....nobody buys your 'twisting'....this is an open forum where people can see ALL the post you cut from.

RC.
.
MMC
17th January 2006 - 12:11 AM
Reality Check, where is your answer....


Come on...you were telling us all that you were working on a new fusion patent...so I am sure you can answer this...


What's wrong...full of sh*t????


QUOTE

To achieve particle sizes of 30 micron, it would take about 2-4 months worth of energy from a power station (1,000,000 KWH)...when operating under normal conditions.

That means...

1. 20-40 months for 3 micron particles (10,000,000 KWH).
2. 200-400 months for 0.3 micron particles (100,000,000 KWH).

That's assuming a linear relationship...which of course it is not, so the power requirements are EVEN HIGHER again...

So, it would take between 2-4 YEARS worth of power to produce 3 micron particles and 16-33 YEARS worth of power to produce 0.3 micron particles and all this supposed to be from the potentional energy of a collapse of the WTC...

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! 16-33 YEARS WORTH OF POWER....FROM PEAK ENERGY NO LESS...PULL YOUR HEADS OUT...GET A GRIP...COME BACK TO PLANET EARTH...WISE UP...THE PLANET IS THIS WAY...--->>>



Perhaps you would like to enlighten us all as to how "peak energy" produces 16-33 years worth of power, from a power station, in the time it takes for a building to collapse...

With supporting physics...

I'd love to hear this...an entirely new form of energy...
Mike001
17th January 2006 - 12:24 AM
Hi all, coming on this thread late and not having read all, but was wondering if its possible the 30 micron particle's were part of the twin towers buildings to begin with. (Sheet rock, cement, paint, dust etc.)? So when the building collapsed, this dust spread out naturally as a result.....Mike001.
MMC
17th January 2006 - 12:29 AM
The majority of the particles recovered were actually 0.3-3 microns, not 30 microns. Of those samples, the majority were composed of concrete and gypsum...

The majority of the dust, was from the collapse itself...

As you can clearly see in this photo...

user posted image

Which has all the hallmarks of this photo, of the Sorax 104KT shallow underground explosion:

User posted image
RealityCheck
17th January 2006 - 12:30 AM
QUOTE (MMC+Jan 16 2006, 11:50 PM)
QUOTE

Sure, as soon as you provide evidence that the existence of ANY 30 micron particles indicates the expenditure of 1.4 million KWH of energy.


Arthur, perhaps you have difficulty reading, or perhaps that it is just that you know nothing about physics...

Did the following escape your small attention span???

Or are you just posting cr*p to confuse people?


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Sure, as soon as you provide evidence that the existence of ANY 30 micron particles indicates the expenditure of 1.4 million KWH of energy.


Arthur, perhaps you have difficulty reading, or perhaps that it is just that you know nothing about physics...

Did the following escape your small attention span???

Or are you just posting cr*p to confuse people?



By far, the most abundant nonfibrous particles in all samples are gypsum and concrete.   Particle size distributions for these components (Figs. 8 and 9) suggest relationships to distance and elevation. Percent frequency is compared to area and maximum diameter, as measured on the SEM. The majority of these nonfibrous particles in each sample have similar particle area distributions with the majority of particles in the range from 0.3 to 3 µm (micron). Sample L18-2, collected adjacent to the WTC site, is characterized by a somewhat higher concentration of particles in the 3 to 300 µm2size range. Particles in samples USGS 4 and 6 fall at slightly higher values of total area, between 1 and 300 µm2, than in the other outdoor samples.


Determination of a Diagnostic Signature for World
Trade Center Dust using Scanning Electron
Microscopy Point Counting Techniques

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/meeker-2...20concrete'


QUOTE

Further reading on the USGS 4 and 6 samples reveals the following:

Figure 9, of the report shows that almost all outdoors samples peaked with sizes of 3 microns...

The indoor samples peak with 2 micron and 10 microns...

The report indicates a "relationship to distance and elevation"...a hallmark of a bomb.

So, closest to the center of the building L-18-2 peaked at 10 microns (250m) and USGS-36 (400m) particle sizes peaked at 2 microns...

So, if we first have an implosion (the first stages of a bomb) larger particle sizes would be created (10 microns), then comes the blast wave delivering the most energy as effect of the device expands, reducing particle sizes to 2 microns...

As it expands further, it will reach an average force, which is reflected in the rest of the particle sizes peaking at 3 microns, which is mostly concrete...and spreading that over a 1Km area...

No doubt about it, the hallmarks of an explosion, the only question is this, what form of device can pulverise concrete to 2 and 3 microns?


Arthur...you are an idiot, the report says the particle sizes were between 0.3 and 3 microns and that concrete accounted for the majority of those particles.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Further reading on the USGS 4 and 6 samples reveals the following:

Figure 9, of the report shows that almost all outdoors samples peaked with sizes of 3 microns...

The indoor samples peak with 2 micron and 10 microns...

The report indicates a "relationship to distance and elevation"...a hallmark of a bomb.

So, closest to the center of the building L-18-2 peaked at 10 microns (250m) and USGS-36 (400m) particle sizes peaked at 2 microns...

So, if we first have an implosion (the first stages of a bomb) larger particle sizes would be created (10 microns), then comes the blast wave delivering the most energy as effect of the device expands, reducing particle sizes to 2 microns...

As it expands further, it will reach an average force, which is reflected in the rest of the particle sizes peaking at 3 microns, which is mostly concrete...and spreading that over a 1Km area...

No doubt about it, the hallmarks of an explosion, the only question is this, what form of device can pulverise concrete to 2 and 3 microns?


Arthur...you are an idiot, the report says the particle sizes were between 0.3 and 3 microns and that concrete accounted for the majority of those particles.



he fails to distinguish between GLOBAL energy AVAILABILITY and PEAK LOCAL energy DENSITY per unit volume


I know that peak energy, cannot exceed the global energy...especially not in the manner you describe...again, I see no evidence of your WILD crackpot claims...



QUOTE

What's even more IRONIC here is that even in the well understood sono-luminescence and newly-hypothesised sono-fusion processes that he alludes to, it is the INSTANTANEOUS ENERGY DENSITY in that MINUSCULE 'collapsed bubble' highly-LOCALISED VOLUME that produces PEAK energy density that MOMENTARILY produces EXTREME TEMPERATURES! Oh the Irony!


In a gravity collapse, that would be a HIGHLY LOCALISED affair, typically less than 1cm throughout the entire structure.

Nice try guys...but your efforts are laughable...your physics is pathetic and if you think for one second anyone, with a shred of knowlege in this subject, would believe a bunch of sockpuppets...you are sadly mistaken.

The fact is the report states that the majority of the particles, which the majority were of concrete, were between 0.3 and 3 microns...

If we now give you a comparison:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

What's even more IRONIC here is that even in the well understood sono-luminescence and newly-hypothesised sono-fusion processes that he alludes to, it is the INSTANTANEOUS ENERGY DENSITY in that MINUSCULE 'collapsed bubble' highly-LOCALISED VOLUME that produces PEAK energy density that MOMENTARILY produces EXTREME TEMPERATURES! Oh the Irony!


In a gravity collapse, that would be a HIGHLY LOCALISED affair, typically less than 1cm throughout the entire structure.

Nice try guys...but your efforts are laughable...your physics is pathetic and if you think for one second anyone, with a shred of knowlege in this subject, would believe a bunch of sockpuppets...you are sadly mistaken.

The fact is the report states that the majority of the particles, which the majority were of concrete, were between 0.3 and 3 microns...

If we now give you a comparison:


The first year of operation of the Goodyear Lake small-scale hydro plant near Oneonta, NY is reported with monthly data for August 1980 through July 1981 on power generated, operating costs, income generated, and maintenance requirements.^Due to the dryest year in living memory in the area with an average flow of 60% of the mean flow for the past 20 years, the plant produced on 3,886,050 kWh versus an estimated 7,500,000 kWh.^Actual operating costs were $89,011 as compared with an estimate of $99,840.^(LCL)


http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/produc...osti_id=6676571


To achieve particle sizes of 30 micron, it would take about 2-4 months worth of energy from a power station (1,000,000 KWH)...when operating under normal conditions.

That means...

1. 20-40 months for 3 micron particles (10,000,000 KWH).
2. 200-400 months for 0.3 micron particles (100,000,000 KWH).

That's assuming a linear relationship...which of course it is not, so the power requirements are EVEN HIGHER again...

So, it would take between 2-4 YEARS worth of power to produce 3 micron particles and 16-33 YEARS worth of power to produce 0.3 micron particles and all this supposed to be from the potentional energy of a collapse of the WTC...

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! 16-33 YEARS WORTH OF POWER....FROM PEAK ENERGY NO LESS...PULL YOUR HEADS OUT...GET A GRIP...COME BACK TO PLANET EARTH...WISE UP...THE PLANET IS THIS WAY...--->>>

You guys are the funniest thing I have come across all week...


MMC.

The ball mill has nowhere near that energy you mentioned, yet it pulverises those ores quite finely, thankyou.

And AS YOU YOURSELF HAVE ALSO AGREED in your posts, the collapsing bubble in a liquid CAN produce the necessary EXTREME temps for FUSION.

And the energies YOU TALK OF AS BEING NECESSARY for the particulate profiles of 9/11 events are YOUR CALCULATIONS and YOUR ASSERTIONS ALONE....so IT IS INCUMBENT UPON YOU to prove their necessity in the events.

As for arguments against, the above two examples of CONVENTIONALLY PRODUCIBLE 'mechanisms/effects' for the required peak energy densities and processes, renders RIDICULOUS and UNNECESSARY all of YOUR OWN ASSERTIONS (the LATTER example FROM YOUR OWN INFORMATION)! So go on, prove your assertions, or be branded a Conspiracy Theorist pure and simple.

And it case it slipped your mind, those WTC towers' central structure STILL standing naked for many moments AFTER the rest of the building has turned to rubble, puts a lie to your nuclear bomb garbage.

Let's face it, your conspiracy-theorist blinkers and rhetoric about defying the laws of physics and requiring unprecedented energies are mere PARROTING of what can be found on any one of many 9/11-Conspiracy Theorist sites....PRACTICALLY ALL OF THEM BEING POLITICALLY AND/OR MERCENARILY MOTIVATED...and all there for gullible people like you to "come right in, sucker".

Pull the other one, MMC...and get a grip, willya?

RC.
MMC
17th January 2006 - 12:32 AM
Where's the physics???

All I see is WILD CLAIMS....
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.