Chad PeveyToday in the news airlines have began painting their planes blue and white. In other news... The
president is imtentionally nose diving our country to cause our economy
to collapse leading to a world wide panic leading to the ushering in of
the new world order. Back to you Dan...
Dan PlesseThe
sign says Flight 11 and this is a pile of Flight 11 discovered around
the North tower. The problem is Flight 11 was not Blue and White. Not
even close.
Doug Eisler 9/11 first plane witness said AA AirBus 737
Reply:
you should really confirm where the photo was taken at least.
Im not sure you can bitch anyone out for bad journalism when you
actually write "
The sign says Flight 11 and so this is a pile of Flight 11
discovered around the North tower."
because there's a peice of paper that means that's what it is, and
where it is? this is the problem with anomaly hunting. anything
that goes against the official story is accepted without
skepticism. i can tape a piece of paper to my balls that says
"the metropolitan museum of art"... your next headline could be
"MET museum really just a pair or balls!"
its not just the color, the font is wrong. and they never make type
that small on a large jet (not the company name anyway). see how
the "er" below takes up about 3 windows including spaces? in your
picture the "er" could fit in one window. the type is tiny. even
small jets dont make their name that small. it would have to be
some smaller type on the plane, maybe the word "emergency"? or some
small letters that were not the logo? see the tiny "352" on the
landing gear flaps below? thats about the size of the type in your
picture compared to the window.
well, since we have no idea that that is actually a picture of,
there's not much point. but if you wanted to search for a matching
plane you'd be looking for type that small somewhere on it.
its funny how 9-11 truth gets labelled as one thing. there are
hundreds of theories, all very different, but they all think they
are on the same team. as long as its not terrorists taking the
government by surprise. any theory besides that and we all consider
it one big happy family. its like saying religious v atheists, and
forgetting how many conflicting religions there are.
i just mean what kind of museum prints some text on an 8.5 x 11
sheet of paper and just tapes it right to the display item. usually
they make a nice little card on a stand, or put the text on the wall
nearby. i just mean it looks super ghetto. and the extendable
barriers that they use for bank lines? it looks like a temporary
display, not permanent.
Reply to Dr. Steven Jones Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used WTC Towers
Dr.
Steven Jones summary from "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that
Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers." It is greatly flawed.
"1. Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis."
This
"observation" came from a flawed report that was scope-limited into
attributing tritium to presumed building content. Out-of-scope was
considering tritium coming from a destructive mechanism. The report
re-defined "trace or background levels" in cases to be 55 times greater
than previously. Dates for samples (9/13, 9/21), aside from being
delayed, allow for tritium dissipation (from rain and firefighting
efforts) and imply that tritium levels from 9/21 would be the same as
from 9/11. They stopped taking additional samples when their testing of
them revealed tritium levels well below the EPA threshold of what
constitutes a health risk.
The
"Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" should not have
been used by Dr. Jones unchallenged and as the final authority of what
tritium levels were present.
The "mini-nuke" phrase plays on the public's perception of nukes and frames it improperly.
"4.
Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium, actinium
series and other radionuclides is at or near the background level for
WTC dust."
The Lioy et al. report was also a flawed.
- Limited its analysis to three (3) "representative" dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets).
-
Samples were only collected at "weather-protected" locations East of
the WTC; nothing from North, South, or West. The dominant wind direction
in summer months including September is to the North.
- Samples collected on 9/16 and 9/17, which is enough delay to allow for dissipation of certain radiation traces.
-
Whereas it lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, it
does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li),
Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). Its
discussion of results ignores most of the elements found in table 2. It
doesn't explain their presence in the dust.
The
delay in taking samples is important, because were Dr. Jones to have
discussed variations of neutron devices (which he blatantly omitted), it
would have been revealed that their claim to fame is dissipation of
alpha, beta, and gamma radiation in 24-48 hours.
The Lioy report states: "We
found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid
scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was
slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There
were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally
occurring potassium-40."
Neither
the actual measurement nor what technical definition of "background
level" were provided in the report. One is left with wondering if any
games of re-defining "background levels" was done as in the Tritium
Report. (Be that as it may, these measurements from a late date were
good news from the perspective of low-radiation devices.)
"5.
Nuclear activation or residual 'fall-out' radioactivity (above
background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on actual
WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131 measured
by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low radionuclide
counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling evidence against
the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis."
Nice
of "the author" (Dr. Jones) to test for radioactivity in his samples,
but from the perspective of low radiation neutron devices, his testing
was many days late and dollars short.
"6.
No fatalities due to radiation 'burning' were reported near ground
zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse."
True,
but it is being skewed into the realm of larger mini-nukes. When
neutron devices are considered, the vast majority of their energy is
released (upwards) as highly energetic neutrons. As such, the other
side-effects of the nuclear detonation from the blast wave, heat wave,
and EMP are vastly reduced to tactical levels. Short-lived alpha, beta,
and gamma radiation would be created in materials hit by the neutrons.
Humans close enough to get radiation "burning" would have been decimated
by the blast/heat waves or the structure falling down upon them.
These
devices were DEW (directed energy weapons) in the sense that the
neutrons were aimed, but not for the purpose of destruction but to get
them out of the way. That tactical nature of the other side-effects
therefore spared those who were farther away.
"7. No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers."
Again,
this is framing it large towards mini-nukes. For all we know, the
tactical heat did melt glass but then the blast way decimated it and
dispersed it with other content from the building over a wide radial
distance.
"8.
One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where
vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and
the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal was
observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.)"
Once
more, he frames it as mini-nuke when ERW or neutron nuclear DEW would
be more accurate. When of a tactical nature and within WTC-7, one
questions whether vertically-directed plumes of dust would leave the
structure.
In
fairness, I don't actively champion neutron DEW for WTC-7. Each
building -- including WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 -- needs to considered
individually. Assuming that one mechanism was responsible for all plays
right into the disinformation game and is easily discredited.
Dr. Jones' paper has other flaws including a logic error best summarized as:
"Nuclear
weapons of type X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures of A, B, and C.
Radiation signature D was measured. Thus, the cause of the WTC
destruction was not nuclear weapons of X, Y, or Z nor any other nuclear
device."
In
other words, he frames the discussion around certain types of nuclear
weapons and legitimately states that the radiation signature did not
match those. But rather than taking just those types off of the table,
he takes all nuclear devices out of consideration.
The blatant omission is neutron bombs.
What Is Red Mercury 2020?
Presumably red in color. Ballotechnics are substances which react very
energetically in response to high-pressure shock compression. Google's
Sci.Chem group has had a lively ongoing discussion about the possiblity
of a an explosive form of mercury antimony oxide. According to some
reports, red mercury is a cherry red semi-liquid which is produced by
irradiating elemental mercury with mercury antimony oxide in a Russian
nuclear reactor. Some people think that red mercury is so explosive that
it can be used to trigger a fusion reaction in tritium or
deuterium-tritium mixture. Pure fusion devices don't require fissionable
material, so it's easier to get the materials needed to make one and
easier to transport said materials from one place to another. Other
reports refer to a documentary in which is was possible to read a report
on Hg2Sb207, in which the compound had a density of 20.20 Kg/dm3
(!). Personally, I find it plausible that mercury antimony oxide, as a
low density (nonradioactive?) powder, may be of interest as a
ballotechnic material. The high-density material seems unlikely. It
would also seem unreasonably dangerous (to the maker) to use a
ballotechnic material in a fusion device. One intriguing source mentions
a liquid explosive, HgSbO, made by Du Pont laboratories and listed in
the international
chemical register as number 20720-76-7. Anyone care to look it up?
A Military Code Name for a New Nuclear Material
As I understand it, this definition originates from the extraordinarily
high prices commanded and paid for a substance called 'red mercury',
which was manufactured in Russia. The price ($200-300K per kilogram) and
trade restrictions were consistent with a nuclear material as opposed
to cinnabar.
everything on this subject has been covered. No more replies are necessary.
ALL
additional questions have been off topic. I never said that she said
the word "drone" . I never said that anyone used the word "drone".
therefore the concept was off topic.
It was a manufactured issued without any merit.
9/11
is NOT about word games. If your "members" enjoy 9/11 word games and
off topic concepts please open another thread without me in it. If
anyone would like to talk about NON WORD GAME Issues I will reply.
Word games is officially forbidden.
Your
other member refuse to do any research (review documents, videos, and
only make counter questions with reused concepts. If you say the same
concept more then once THAT COUNTS AS SPAM!
Reusing the same response to everything COUNTS AS SPAM. SPAM means reusing over and over the same ideas regardless of the topic.
Elizabeth TagueYet
in the end Dan all you habe really is "word games" . . . endless
semantics and all just to avoid simple hard facts like the woman CLEARLY
said plane and so ANY discussion to spin that into your beloved 'drone'
IS mere word games.
ALL
additional questions have been off topic. I never said that she said
the word "drone" . I never said that anyone used the word "drone".
therefore the concept was off topic.
Elizabeth TagueNor do we "refuse" to look at videos, etc . . . we have seen them all before.
Truthism
has produced NOTHING new since Loose Change and every truther blog or
video is just a rehash of the SAME stuff recycled again and again and
again and again . . . an endless roundabout spinning round and round but
going nowhere.
Dan PlesseI have no interest into WHY you don't do anything. I am happy that you confessed at least.
Can
I ask why you bother then? Why are you here ? "WE have seen them all
before." Is there some other activity that you enjoy? What are you
giving up in exchange to reply to me right now? Is it worth it? What is
your point? Is this your JOB?
Painting
everything over with same brush sounds bias and very anti Debate. This
should be a PRO debate page however that never seems to happen.
This does this page sound like the right fix for you? Are you burned out?
Elizabeth TagueGuaranteed Dan, I will and do know more REAL things about 9/11 than truthers do.
Ever
wonder why debunkers can oh! so easily correct false truther claims
like money missing at the Pentagon or that Marvin Bush was in "charge"
of WTC security.
