This IS awfully reminiscent of some of the WTC demolition pictures.









Q: If there had been any radioactivity in the area, we certainly would have heard about it. So, it the towers were taken down with mini-nukes, I imagine that would have to be mini-hydrogen nukes, which I believe would generate considerably less radioactivity (perhaps none except for the fission trigger?) Do you know anything about radioactive byproducts of hydrogen bombs?


OTOH, the strange case of the collapsing spire which survived the initial demolition suggests that, even if mini-nukes were used, (with the cutter charges to snip columns into 30 ft. pieces), that is not the end of the story.

I heard a couple of years back from a second hand source that the US military already has some kind of beam type weapon which can take out missiles. That would explain these strange failed tests of ABM systems where the target had a homing device. There is no reason to deploy an inferior system....


The following is my post on the Randi Rhodes forum. At the time I wrote it, I didn't know that at least some of the dust was indeed hot:





Except for cutter charges, I don't believe that explosives were used in the WTC 1 & 2 demolition. Explosive don't make steel vaporize, slowly (AFAIK).

The Strange Collapse of the Spire

This is about a steel spire, about which survived the main demolition, at first. It's an invaluable clue as to what really happened, as our view of the amazing demolition of this spire is not obstructed by concrete or a dust cloud. The author's description is:

QUOTE
In this view the spire can be seen in the wake of the debris cloud just as it reaches the ground.  (And incidentally at that moment the scene to the left of the dust cloud gets much brighter, a brightness visible in many images.  Its possible source is beyond the scope of this discussion.)  This remnant of the core remains standing for a little less than 20 seconds, swaying a bit from side to side but showing remarkably little inclination to topple over.  It then abruptly begins to drop straight down on itself in an apparent free fall, but after falling for about a quarter of its height it suddenly turns to dust.  It is heavy dust that continues to drop straight down in place with very little dispersion or wind drift, suggesting that the particles were dense, more or less what one would expect to see if the steel of the columns had turned all at once into a coarse powder.


(This last sentence is not what I see, but take a look and you be the judge.)

Scroll down to "Video Clips of the Disintegration", and click on the link http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/spire/spire_1.mpg

(You may have to install the Divx codec)

Observe:

at 13.4 sec. the spire is still vertical, but begins to bend
at 16.9 sec. it begins to collapse into it's footprint
by 17.8 it's clear that the steel is "vaporizing", i.e, the steel beam is becoming "particularized" (I imagine into a fine powder, just like the concrete) and by 20.1 sec., it appears that it has been completely "particularized", as the rate of descent slows down and the steel-beam-mist appears to act more like gas diffusing and not at all like a liquid or solid falling at free-fall speed
by 23.8 sec., it's clear that the spire-turned-to-mist is still there, still diffusing, and still falling SLOWLY. (The entire collapse took about 11 seconds. Subtract 23.8 seconds from 17.8 seconds, and you get 6 seconds. It's obviously not a solid or liquid falling at free fall speed.)


When you combine these observations with the observation of the strange glow, plus other observations that I made here, it's pretty clear to me that these phenomena were not due to "explosives". I have to admit, I don't know much at all about explosives, including exotic ones. Anybody care to inform us about a reasonable candidate?

However, even if there was a chemical agent that could turn solids like steel and concrete into fine powder (and do so without a significant shock wave, so that the very term "explosive" becomes problematical) , how would you apply it evenly along all the length of steel beams?

This spire seems to be vaporizing globally (unfortunately, these pictures lack sufficient detail to say that with much confidence.). The vaporization doesn't seem to start at the top, or at the bottom. It seems to be global. Wouldn't you have to ignite this "explosive", somehow? (Presumably from the bottom, since there's nothing above the top to do the job, and it seems unlikely that there was some type of ignition device right at the top that would have survived the initial demolition.)

I am not aware of anybody claiming that the dust was hot, just like I am not aware of anybody claiming to have found residues of any explosive.

Jim Hoffman, of wtc7.net, has speculated that perhaps a maser was used. Would not a maser create an enormous amount of heat? Enough to make the dust hot? Enough to turn the steel red hot before it vaporized?

I believe some type of exotic, directed energy weapon was used. I believe our military has such weapons operational already, and the reason why ABM tests often mysteriously fail, even when they give the target a homing signal, is because they want an excuse not to deploy an inferior system, and simultaneously have an excuse for requesting money for development, which they can use for other purposes.

The details of such an exotic weapon, you'll have to ask DOD. I'm not in that loop. I do vaguely recall, though, that DOD has sponsored research into chemical powered lasers strong enough to take out ICBMs. Did such a chemical source of energy provide the power for the WTC collapses? If so, was the explosion in the basement due to some malfunction of this chemical power source? Or, perhaps, if these are "one and done" types of weapon power sources, they are expected to explode, and this has no deleterious effect on their function?

To anybody even roughly familiar with the physics involved, the collapse of WTC 1 or 2 due to a single jetliner is energetically impossible. That tells you immediately that it was an inside job, since whether you use explosives, a maser, or some other type of exotic weapon, you need an absolutely ENORMOUS source of energy, which OBL could not have supplied. Thus, we have known enough for quite a while to deduce that this was an inside job.

What this analysis tells us is that the real culprits were not only elements inside the US government, but that these elements included as principle players employees of the DOD.

I now posit a 911 Conspiracy Theory which takes the above into account. The reason that a) Commander-In-Chief Bush was allowed to appear like a total fool by being videotaped sitting on his posterior while Americans were jumping out of WTC 1 & 2 and it was allowed to become public knowledge that Cheney was directing fighter traffic on 911, is because DOD players in the 911 treason wanted to make sure that civilians (Bush and Cheney) would be the fall guys if the conspiracy unravelled. That may have been the price of their cooperation.

I hope that all the 911 aware Bush/Cheney haters keep this analysis in mind when they fulminate about the great 911 treason. It is simply not a rational point of view to consider this a Republican dirty trick writ large, IMHO.

For an understanding of deep politics, start your reading with Peter Dale Scott at globalreseach.ca.


Being somewhat of a student of the Kennedy assassination, I think it's downright silly to take partisan politics as sole explanation for how power really works in the US government. Fletcher Prouty, who knew the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and was the real life analog of "X" in Oliver Stone's JFK, offered to name high level conspirators in court, if only a proper trial would be undertaken. Of course, people asked him who these people were. Did they include the Joint Chiefs of Staff? He invariably refused to answer these questions. (Possibly due to being friends with some of these individuals)


Towards the end of his life, though, he did answer the question of who in the Joint Chiefs of Staff knew about the Kennedy assassination conspiracy - out of court. Prouty is supposed to have said "All of them (knew)." If that seems unlikely to you, you obviously don't know about Operation Northwoods.

Think of that next time you want to blame Bush and Cheney as top guys in the 911 plot.



=========================================================================

N.B. I'd like to make an intuitive argument (which may be partly goofy) about why explosives don't explain the WTC being turned into dust. If you take a hammer, you can very easily smash a pecan in the shell into little pieces. You do that by putting it on a hard surface and start banging away.

Now, if you drop the pecan from a height and swing the hammer as fast as you can as the pecan gets to your level, relying only on the inertia of the pecan to create enough 'resistance' to your swing, you will never be able to swing fast enough to break the pecan even into two pieces.

Now, if you happen to have a concrete basement, go downstairs and smack that basement as hard as you can with a hammer. Thus, you can get an intuitive idea of how much energy would be needed to pulverize concrete against a fixed resistance.

If you're blowing up a piece of concrete, as the concrete begins to disintegrate, there is no longer any "fixed resistance". You need to hit the concrete with a shock wave strong enough that it's inertial resistance is sufficient to allow pulverisation. It's not simply enough to figure out how much energy you need to pulverize concrete if you put it in a grinder. You also have to figure out how much additional energy you need for the strong-enough shock wave, much of which (most, I believe) will go into expanding air.

IMHO, explosives strong enough to pulverize concrete into 60 micron powder would have blown up all of Manhattan. That is just a guess - I have not calculated it any way. But this is my guess, and I'm sticking to it.