Adventures with AE911truth

[gumboot]

I've never understood what about the collapses in any way suggested a nuclear device to anyone. We have the likes of Ace Baker rambling about mushroom clouds, of course, but even among the Idiot Movement such people are rare and very special.

Well Dylan Avery once claimed that a flickering Burger King sign captured on a digital camera was evidence of an EMP from a nuke. Seriously.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

And pyroclastic flows. Grrrr...

Hah that reminds me of something I just wrote in my paper:

Jeff King is a Conspiracy Theorist who thinks the tower collapses produced “pyroclastic flows”. Pyroclastic flows are clouds of super-heated gases as hot as 1000^o C travelling as fast as 700km/h, and are only produced by volcanic eruptions.

I love offhandedly and quietly pointing out that Dr Griffin's sources are totally detached from reality.

-Gumboot

 

[ComsatAngel2017]

Mini-nukes?
I'm not familiar with the "Plowshares" programme, except to say that with spelling like that it must be American.
However. From what I recall, the Atomic Demolition Munition and Special Atomic Demolition Munition were what could be termed "mini-nukes". The SADAM in particular could be adjusted to give a tactically effective yield of between 0.15 to 0.05 kilotons, or 150 tons/50 tons of TNT if you want to be more mundane. They were to be utilised by SF teams who would target installations like airports, dams, major highway intersections, vehicle parks, etc.
What is the relevance of this? Prior to the detonation of Trinity, the US atomic weapons programme wanted to see what a truly large explosion looked like, how it behaved and what could be construed from it. So they built a 0.01 kiloton test site (i.e. 10 tons of TNT) and filmed the resultant explosion from a safe distance. The resultant fireball was enormous when filmed from literally miles away, and was one-fifth of the smallest yield of the smallest weapon able to be used in such a scenario.
Do the buffoons postulating "Mini-Nukes" really believe that a fission/fusion weapon was used on the Twin Towers? Or do they just want a Magic Big Bang Device that smashes buildings? because if the latter, they'd be better off touting Godzilla as being responsible for 9/11

 

[DGM]

Mini-nukes?
I'm not familiar with the "Plowshares" programme, except to say that with spelling like that it must be American.
However. From what I recall, the Atomic Demolition Munition and Special Atomic Demolition Munition were what could be termed "mini-nukes". The SADAM in particular could be adjusted to give a tactically effective yield of between 0.15 to 0.05 kilotons, or 150 tons/50 tons of TNT if you want to be more mundane. They were to be utilised by SF teams who would target installations like airports, dams, major highway intersections, vehicle parks, etc.
What is the relevance of this? Prior to the detonation of Trinity, the US atomic weapons programme wanted to see what a truly large explosion looked like, how it behaved and what could be construed from it. So they built a 0.01 kiloton test site (i.e. 10 tons of TNT) and filmed the resultant explosion from a safe distance. The resultant fireball was enormous when filmed from literally miles away, and was one-fifth of the smallest yield of the smallest weapon able to be used in such a scenario.
Do the buffoons postulating "Mini-Nukes" really believe that a fission/fusion weapon was used on the Twin Towers? Or do they just want a Magic Big Bang Device that smashes buildings? because if the latter, they'd be better off touting Godzilla as being responsible for 9/11

The hardware they use doesn't actually have to exist. It just has to sound cool.

 

[ComsatAngel2017]

Actually for Twoofers it has to be "Kewl", as I understand it.
Ah what the heck. I've got shirts to iron, which have more relevance to 9/11 than any CT fantasist.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Sorry, what I meant was:

Wouldn't an sane EE realize the utter improbability of WIRING up the two WTC towers for a controlled demolition without detection?

Edited to add: Actually three towers, since 7 is a keystone to the demolition scenario.

I thought of that, but it's remotely possible that his expertise is in computers and electronics, and he's basically clueless about anything that happens outside of an electronic device.

 

[Civilized Worm]

No, I believe his writing is merely careless. We can see several examples of carelessness in the quoted emails. I think by "you" he means "skeptics and debunkers."

I know, I just thought I'd treat it as an accidental confession in the way that twoofers do.

 

[Brainster]

Well that about sums up AE911truth!

How are these jokers being recieved in twoofer land? There was a lot of hype leading up to the site opening. "Finally we got some experts." Alas it was not to be.

It is my impression that Gage is rapidly becoming one of the superstars of the 9-11 Denial Movement. He's certainly popping up virtually on every list of speakers at "Truthercons". That's not to say he won't be history in six months; these guys have a shelf life about equal to the cover boys of teen magazines.

 

[AZCat]

Mini-nukes?
I'm not familiar with the "Plowshares" programme, except to say that with spelling like that it must be American.

You are correct - it was an American program, named after the biblical injunction to turn swords into plowshares. The Nevada Department of Energy site has a nice pdf FAQ on the Plowshare Program, available here (it is the one titled "Plowshare Program").

The program was designed as a research and development activity to explore the technical and economic feasibility of using nuclear explosives for industrial applications. President Dwight D. Eisenhower introducted the concept in his "Atoms for Peace" speech before the United Nations on December 8, 1953. Eisenhower attempted to transform the atom fro a perceived tool of destruction into a benefit for mankind. The relatively inexpensive energy available from nuclear explosions could prove useful for a wide variety of peaceful purposes, such as: canals, harbors, highway and railroad cuts through mountains, open pit mining, dam construction, and other quarry and construction related projects. Underground nuclear explosions included stimulation of natural gas production, and formation of underground natural gas and petroleum storage reservoirs.

Guess why they didn't end up pursuing the program beyond 1975? The stimulation of natural gas production held promise, but all the other proposed civilian uses for nuclear weapons ran into the same problem: radiation. Nuclear weapons will never be "clean" in the sense that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists mean.

"Clean" is a misnomer anyway, since it really has to do with the amount of radioactive material used in the fission reaction compared to the amount used in the fusion reaction. Since multi-stage thermonuclear devices use most of the radioactive material in the fusion reaction, they are comparatively "clean" even though the initial fission trigger doesn't use all the material in the reaction - the mass of the material used in fusion is far greater than the mass of the material used in fission.

The "cleanest" nuclear weapon ever tested also happens to have been the largest - the "Tsar Bomba" ("King of Bombs") tested in 1961 by the Soviet Union. About 97% of the yield came from fusion, with a total yield of approximately 50 Megatons and a fission yield of about 1-1/2 Megatons. While it is a "clean" weapon in this sense, there was still a great deal of fallout.

 

[ref]

I've never understood what about the collapses in any way suggested a nuclear device to anyone. We have the likes of Ace Baker rambling about mushroom clouds, of course, but even among the Idiot Movement such people are rare and very special.

Here is why some people think it was a mini-nuke. It's a long article and full of sheit, but some people actually believe even this.

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm

Declassified August 1958: "Mere fact that the U. S. has developed atomic munitions suitable for use in demolition work." Declassified January 1967, "The fact that we are interested in and are continuing studies on a weapon for minimizing the emerging flux of neutrons and internal induced activity." Declassified March 1976, "The fact of weapon laboratory interest in Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) devices. The fact of successful development of MRR devices."

The factual evidence indicates that our government is using and has used 3rd or possibly 4th generation hydrogen bombs domestically and internationally. The evidence for international usage is not quite as strong as the domestic usage, but when domestic usage is considered, the international usage seems inescapable. The process of exclusion based on the known facts leaves only one viable option for the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings - a relatively pure hydrogen bomb.

Just some of the facts are: widespread cancer in the responders, molten steel, melted cars, steel beams hurled hundreds of feet, aerosolized metals, vaporized steel witnessed and video, aerosolized and pulverized concrete, elevated tritium levels, vanishing (vaporized) victims, only sliver fragments of victims on roof tops, EMP - Electro Magnetic Pulse effects on communications, hundreds of eyewitness testimony of ancillary explosions by heroic rescuers and victims, massive dispersal of debris, demolition expert states hydrogen bomb needed for this type of demolition, audio of a massive explosion prior to collapse, video of ancillary explosions, audio of ancillary explosions, significant reduction in debris pile, ancillary thermate found in wreckage, shockwave of a mini yield nuclear blast knocked people off their feet, vaporization of 200,000 gallons of water...

And so on..

I wonder which demolition expert has stated that hydrogen bomb statement they claim.

ETA: They also suggest mini-nukes being used on other incidents around the world.

 

[Anti-sophist]

I just checked their web site. This Doug Plumb character is a EE, so he has virtually no credentials to evaluate WTC collapse theories.

Damm! That rules me out!

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I just checked their web site. This Doug Plumb character is a EE, so he has virtually no credentials to evaluate WTC collapse theories.

[nitpick] I would argue that it merely limits his ability to make valid appeals to authority in his statements when using his background as the authority to which he is appealing. [/nitpick]

 

[SpitfireIX]

Damm! That rules me out!

Again, note that I said he lacks the credentials. I didn't say that that implies that he lacks the skills. It does mean that the burden of proof is on him (and you, and me for that matter, as I'm only a sophomore in mechanical engineering, with a two-year degree in mechanical design as of next month), to demonstrate his (our) competence by other means.

 

[Lurker]

I spent most of my brief time at their forum debating with Doug Plumb.

He's clueless.

The fact that he thinks Judy Wood has a PhD in Structural Engineering says it all. I mean, that should be easy to verify for him by just going to her website. So why hasn't he?

Lurker

 

[slyjoe]

Damm! That rules me out!

Slacker - you're not trying hard enough.

I'll bet us stoopid EEs could discuss their EMP claims. But why bother?

 

[beachnut]

I just checked their web site. This Doug Plumb character is a EE, so he has virtually no credentials to evaluate WTC collapse theories.

What school did he go to. He went woo woo in that email exchange right off the bat. Those guys are nuts to the core. Extra nutty. That was a great exchange exposing pure idiots are running AEFT.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2678343&postcount=1 Refering to the first post.
NUTS

Dr. Bill Deagle thinks it was a mini nuke. The conventional explanation does not explain what Judy Woods has uncovered. She gives a talk with photos on her site Google "jane Doe Judy Wood". She is a Phd Structural Engineer and has other related degrees in material science. No one is more qualified than Judy Wood.

Oh, Judy Woods said it. Proof, extra nutty, with nuts on the side. That guy thinks these may be viable?

No one is more qulified than Judy Wood.

What? For what? To be committed by their family?

 

[Par]

There were pools of molten metal observed at the site after the collapses. Jet fuel will not do this.

No? What if it was mercury?

Anyway, this is something I’ve seen a few times from the “truthers”. It’s the fallacy of four terms:

• Whatever brought down the World Trade Center produced molten metal.
• But jet fuel and/or office fires cannot produce molten steel.
• Therefore jet fuel and/or office fires didn’t bring down the World Trade Center.

There’s another one in Loose Change as I remember. It goes something like this:

• The official explanation is that the fires softened or melted the steel.
• But those fire couldn’t have bruned hot enough to melt the steel.
• Therefore, if the steel did soften or melt, it wasn’t due to the fires.

 

[Sparky]

Peter,

There were pools of molten metal observed at the site after the collapses. Jet fuel will not do this.

That's ridiculous. We had an aluminum ladder rack melt off of one our trucks during a BRUSH FIRE. I still have a section of the cooled puddle of "molten metal" here at my shop as a souvenir.

 

[DGM]

Peter,

There were pools of molten metal observed at the site after the collapses. Jet fuel will not do this.

He's got a point! As long as you don't light it.

 

[peteweaver]

Peter,

There were pools of molten metal observed at the site after the collapses. Jet fuel will not do this.

That's ridiculous. We had an aluminum ladder rack melt off of one our trucks during a BRUSH FIRE. I still have a section of the cooled puddle of "molten metal" here at my shop as a souvenir.

I can well believe it. Shame a ct will think of it as disinfo.