Joined: 25 Oct 2006 Posts: 216 Location: Somewhere safe
It's evidence of an explosion but not neccessarily micro-nukes. Such nukes would cause radiation to be spread over a large area and a lot more people to be suffering from radiation poisoning as a result of merely visiting the area (as opposed to suffering from breathing in toxic dust - which can be removed slightly more easily and is not neccessarily radioactive).
Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:24 pm
Sponsor
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8249 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Quote:
Anti-terrorism officials conducted a helicopter survey of New York City's radiation sources in preparation for a so-called ``dirty bomb'' attack -- and discovered a Staten Island park with dangerously high levels of radium, a new report found.
Federal authorities found 80 unexpected ``hot spots'' around New York City, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
Which describes how micro nukes leave virtually zero detectable radiation also note similarities in the following pics
But personally I believe the WTC was brought down by a combination of Thermite and RDX cutting charges.
Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:39 pm
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8249 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Well people,
This is the theory that Debus put forth that Daryl Bradford Smith insulted. I have yet to see it debunked. Why doesn't Daryl want his listeners here again?
*If you came to this thread via DBS's website, read the links at the bottom of this post.*
I don't think thermate did this.
I think thermate was used as cutting charges (to cut the steel beams) but the main explosives used to detonate the twin towers were micro-nukes.
Only micro-nukes have such power to create such a spectacular explosion and vaporize people and whole buildings into clouds of dust particles - particles which are less than 100 microns in size.
I think the reason why Prof Jones was not able to detect radioactivity was he didn't test for it earlier enough - I think he did the testing only last year or two years ago. That could have been why the radioactivity levels he detected with his Geiger counter wasn't much higher than the natural background radioactivity.
And radiation hotspots have been found in various parts of NYC, one was around the Israeli Embassy.
He dismissed the nuclear bomb theory too quickly. I'm not an expert in this field by any means but I've read that they can make micro-nuclear devices that do not leave much residual radiation. I think the Israelis favored nukes because it meant they didn't have to put 100 tons of explosives or whatever had to be put in the buildings to completely demolish them, although I think the anti sites exaggerate by a lot the quantity of explosives required.
Apparently, they've used them in other places - in Iraq it has been claimed and in the Bali Bombing of 2003. Also in the assassination of Hariri.
This is a link about the US's use of atomic bombs doemstically but I think it would be more correct to discuss the Israelis' use of atomic bombs in the context of 9/11:
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm
Steven Jones' theory that thermate was the primary explosive used in the WTC has been debunked by a PhD in Material Sciences here (Morgan and Reynolds article):
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/why_indeed.html
WTC rubble, Staten Island and radiation hot spots.
Here's something interesting I spotted, I don't know if anyone else has before now.
In this report, there was a radiation hotspot detected in Staten Island Park. Staten Island was where the rubble from the WTC was removed to and kept for three months.
ISRAELI EMBASSY IN NYC "RADIATION HOT SPOT"
Feds surveyed NYC for radiation, found tainted park, Embassy
WASHINGTON -- Anti-terrorism officials conducted a helicopter survey of New York City's radiation sources in preparation for a so-called "dirty bomb" attack - and discovered a Staten Island park with dangerously high levels of radium, a new report found.
Federal authorities found 80 unexpected "hot spots" around New York City, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
The GAO report released Thursday details a previously undisclosed aerial anti-terrorism program in New York City, one which may be extended to other cities worried about the possible release of radioactive material by terrorists.
The report does not identify which city park had the contaminated soil, but NYPD officials said it was in Gateway National Park in Staten Island. The site was closed, and New York has requested federal money to do a citywide aerial survey every year to update the information.
<snip.>
Here is a map of Staten Island. It is SW of Manhattan.
10) RUBBLES CARRIED OUT BEFORE INVESTIGATION
After 911, wrecking companies immediately entered the sites and carried out the rubbles to Staten Island for 3 months. During such period, nobody else could have been allowed to enter the site to investigate the reason of the collapses.
Objects from 9/11 rubble on show
Exhibits at 9/11 show in New York
Workers sifted nearly two million tonnes of rubble
An exhibition of artefacts found in the wreckage of the World Trade Center has opened in New York.
The show documents the work of those who sifted debris from the Twin Towers, which was taken to a landfill site.
It features more than 50 objects and 65 photographs, including a building beam and parts of the planes that hit the buildings on 11 September 2001.
Fresh Kills landfill site played a key part in the search for remains and criminal evidence after the attack.
Nearly two million tonnes of rubble were brought to the landfill in Staten Island after the destruction of the towers.
The work at Fresh Kills, several miles from Ground Zero and closed to the general public, is an important part of the 11 September story that most people do not know, exhibition organisers said.
<snip>
More about the radiation hot spots (it looks like someone else has picked this up : )
Federal Security Survey Shows Fresh Kills Hot Spot Contaminated
Site of 911 Debris!
NEW YORK
Friday - September 22, 2006
On Thursday exposure of a top-secret anti-terrorism program was made public. Federal officials flew helicopters over the entire city of New York making a complete radiological map of the entire city. Covering all boroughs from Staten Island to the outer reaches of the Bronx. This was all in the guise to help the NYPD prepare for a "dirty bomb" attack or other radiological disaster.
The Federal Department of Energy made this survey last year and found over 80 unexpected hot spots throughout the city and provided in a Report from the Government Accountability Office. The biggest problem so far is a huge hot spot in the Great Kills Park, a Federal Park on the South Shore of Staten Island and the spot where the 3 Trade Center Towers debris is thought to be.
New York city is the only one in the nation to get this complete survey. It is reported that the NYPD had requested this for a map of pre-existing "radiological signatures" that could be later used to detect dirty bombs or other movements of radiological materials.
"I am concerned by the findings of this report and the potential health impacts on nearby residents," said Rep Vito Fossella (R-Staten Island). "We have only minimal information at this time ... based on a brief description in the GAO report. It is important for the public to remain calm while we work quickly to learn more details. It is essential for the government to act immediately to fully understand the extent of the contamination."
We would like to see release of the whole survey and know what the radioactives are. In particular the survey of the WTC 1, 2 and 7 as well as the finds at Fresh Kills, where the debris was taken for "examination".
The governance has sealed off the area and is investigating which means that little truth will emerge without a battle by the public.
Coroborating Sources
New York AM Article coroborating story
Other Sources Article coroborating story
NY Sun Elevated Levels of Radium Found in Area of Fresh Kills
Shoutwire Censors Report on Radioactive Hot Spots Related to 911 on NYCTV.com
Posted by: 911eyewitness on Saturday, September 23, 2006 - 06:22 AM
In an unusual move of censorship Shoutwire today removed an article warning of radioactive hot spots in Fresh Kill, NY. The article by the new NYC TV Internet and Cable network exposed a recent survey that found radioactive hot spots throughout the 5 boroughs of New York City.
The unusual action of taking down a verifiable story by Shoutwire is suspect as the information of the toxic effects is still not known and therefore dangerous. If these hotspots show up on a helicopter scan then the body should feel more.
Read here:
The Original Story
There are of course the other questions of why these hot spots exist. The Fresh Kills landfill was used to sift and harbor the debris from the three towers demolished on September 11, 2001. As no actual murder investigation has yet been initiated the evidence is still important. That the evidence might contain radioactive isotopes is very important.
Instead of opening up the report and investigating the governance has sealed the area from all public access and has made it now impossible to get the maps of hot spots and the reports on them. The same story as on September 11, 2001 when the government told the people the air was fine they are sealing off all information and feeding propaganda.
We applaud NYC TV in getting the story out and deplore the recent actions of Shoutwire to remove the popular link.
The Original Story
Note: Shoutwire has let the story ride now that the major media has picked it up. Perhaps they did not like NYCTV.com getting that story first?
Last edited by debus on Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:39 am; edited 1 time in total
12) MAGNITUDE 2.1 EARTHQUAKE JUST BEFORE WTC COLLAPSE
Seismic wave of Magnitude 2.1 was recorded by Columbia University just prior to the collapse of both WTC towers. Its remarkable characteristic was extremely high spike that is peculiar to those caused by nuclear bomb explosion. It can be attributed to H. bomb, but not to Thermite or the gravitational collapse. (This seismic wave was also recorded at the first WTC bombing in 1993. A typical phenomenon at the time of hydrogen bomb test.)
Seismic data shows explosive peaks and 3D seismic fingerprint
Power blackout, telephone line failure, GSM cellular phone failure at Manhattan area was reported on and after 9-11. Firemen's walky-talky did not work, therefore, Commander could not tell them to evacuate from WTC1 after South Tower was collapsed. Digital camera and video recorded strange afterglow. All these can be instantly attributed to the electro-magnetic pulse caused by H. bomb while nothing to do with Thermite. It's a pity David Knecht died of lung cancer at the age of 35 who worked for two months to re-establish communications at businesses near Ground Zero. 9-11 perpetrators killed him.
9. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton Effect.
S Jones: There are numerous causes for electrical outages; no need to require fusion devices for this; Occam's razor.
But Occam Razor's applies to a nuclear event as a cause of the outages when there are 22 good bits of OTHER evidence that show that a nuclear device was involved.
A nuclear event is more likely to produce a Compton Effect than say, an ordinary demolition using conventional (non-nuclear) explosives.
Quote:
23. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC.
Jones: Interesting, if supported by empirical data. Actually, I recall several video cameras which continued to record video after the collapses – this, of course, provides evidence contrary to the fusion bomb hypothesis since such a bomb would indeed produce a devastating EM pulse.
Here Jones is being disingenuous: he cites knowledge of several video cameras that still operated during this time but he doesn't specify what kind - fixed sec cams or portable battery powered ones?
Furthermore, his argument seems too simplistic - several video cameras being affected doesn't mean no other electrical devices were affected by the power outage. Nor does this fact rule out a Compton Effect.
What happened that day:
Quote:
Power blackout, telephone line failure, GSM cellular phone failure at Manhattan area was reported on and after 9-11. Firemen's walky-talky did not work, therefore, Commander could not tell them to evacuate from WTC1 after South Tower was collapsed. Digital camera and video recorded strange afterglow.
But Steven Jones says the fact that several video cameras working during that time means that none of the above events are significant and in all don't point to a Compton Effect. It seems as if he won't accept the Compton Effect theory unless ALL electrical devices in that area had been affected. His standard of proof is very high - as if he is deliberately raising the bar for proof for any theory that doesn't support the thermite one.
As we could see from the WTC7 detonation, it was an implosion. And an implosion has very different characteristics to an explosion. An implosion is less likely to show up as a seismic spike, or raise enormous clouds of dust and debris and is a bottom-up fall, as if the building is suddenly shortening. Surely, he's not thinking that's what happened with the Twin Towers. Unless Reynolds and Wood misinterpreted his statements, his assumption that the collapses of WTC7 and WTC 1&2 are similar events is a very odd one for him to make. With the WTC7 collapse, you would less likely to have an EM pulse, power failures and other evidence of the Compton effect.
He makes an interesting admission; he says:
" Interesting, if supported by empirical data ........ such a bomb would indeed produce a devastating EM pulse."
In other words, he states that evidence of the Compton Effect would be good evidence of a nuke. But he won't admit a Compton Effect occurred, despite all the evidence of power outages and cell phones not working (evidence of a devastating EM pulse) ... because a few video cameras did work ......
The fact that Jones gives very short answers to these questions suggests that Jones has got his mind made up - nuclear is out. He doesn't want to give proper attention to the 23 points that point to a nuclear bomb and dismisses them with one-liners that he shoots off glibly. His approach of how he has already closed his mind off, and his answers are not entirely satisfactory and show flaws in logic. He seems condescending in his approach and arrogant and curt. If he felt confident about his theory, he would be less likely to behave like that. He would spend the time explaining why he thought nukes had not been used in the attack to demonstrate that he had examined this theory carefully and had only ruled it out when the evidence was overwhelmingly against it.
But he doesn't do that, and then it seems he doesn't even want nukes discussed. He probably doesn't want ANY OTHER competing theory discussed. But if thermite was used to bring down WTC7, then no way were WTC 1&2 brought down using the same method. Those detonations have completely different characteristics and this should be obvious to everyone.
Here is an article about the B61-11, a bomb with a very low yield, as low as 0.3 ton. Not saying THIS was the bomb used in 911, but just to point out that the government has been researching low-yield nuclear bombs for some time. The B61-7, from which the B61-11 was made, was first put into service in 1985. And the original B61 came into being in 1968.
The B61-7, from which the B61-11 is made, has a selectable yield ranging from 0.3 to about 340 kilotons. It was first placed in service in 1985. (The original B61 entered the stockpile in 1968.)
According to Chuck Hansen, one of the nation's leading independent authorities on the U.S. nuclear stockpile, the B61-7 can be fuzed for air or surface bursts, and it has "a hardened ground-penetrator nose" with a retarded contact-burst fuzing option. It can be dropped with or without a parachute.
William M. Arkin and Robert S. Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council (and authors of the Bulletin's regular feature, the "NRDC Nuclear Notebook") estimate that there are about 750 B61-7s in the active stockpile, along with about 600 B61-3s,-4s, and-10s.
In recent years, some military strategists have advocated deployment and possible use of very small tactical nuclear weapons against Third World adversaries, especially in earth-penetrating roles. Some of this advocacy--perhaps most of it--has come from the weapons labs. In the Fall 1991 issue of Strategic Review, for instance, Los Alamos strategists Thomas Dowler and Joseph Howard wrote:
"Would policymakers employ nuclear weapons to protect U.S. contingency forces if conventional weapons proved inadequate, or would the nature of our present nuclear arsenal 'self-deter' policymakers from using those weapons? . . . One possible answer to these questions might be the development of nuclear weapons of very low yields. . . . The existence of such weapons--weapons whose power is effective but not abhorrent--might very well serve to deter a tyrant who believes that American emphasis on proportionality would prevent the employment of the current U.S. arsenal against him.
"We doubt that any president would authorize the use of the nuclear weapons in our present arsenal against Third World nations. It is precisely this doubt that leads us to argue for the development of subkiloton weapons."
And in July 1992, Los Alamos conducted a high-level briefing called "Potential Uses for Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons in the New World Order." One theme of the briefing was that in future showdowns with Third World states, "we need options besides defeat or use of inappropriately large [nuclear] weapons."
One option, suggested the briefing, was to develop and deploy "micronukes" with a yield of some 10 tons of high explosives; "mininukes" with a yield of 100 tons; and "tinynukes" with a yield of 1,000 tons.
An earth-penetrator with a yield of just 10 tons could, according to a Los Alamos viewgraph, "hold buried leadership and C3 at risk." And it could do that while keeping "collateral damage very localized."
And in July 1992, Los Alamos conducted a high-level briefing called "Potential Uses for Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons in the New World Order."
- Interesting. Must get Lucidthots onto this - this is more of a red flag than the PNAC project for a new America in my view.
An earth-penetrator with a yield of just 10 tons could, according to a Los Alamos viewgraph, "hold buried leadership and C3 at risk." And it could do that while keeping "collateral damage very localized."
- If a micro-nuke (yield of 10 tons of explosives or less - the least amount that the antis say would have had to be used on that day per building) WAS used in 911, it would account for the fact that collateral damage was 'very localized' in that event.
The DOD's operational base recently received delivery of the first shipment of B61-11s. The B61-11 is now part of the stockpile, and that means the B53 can soon be retired. This is an accomplishment of which the entire laboratory can be proud. We have succeeded in meeting an ongoing military requirement while simultaneously enhancing the safety of the stockpile.
- Maybe all the spying the Jews have done on America paid off and they were able to steal micro-nuclear technology from America and use it for their own purposes such as the 911 attack on America.
Quote:
Collateral damage
From an Energy Department perspective, the B61-11 is a "modification" to the B61-7 gravity bomb. And yet, these modifications provide significant new military capability. This new capability is clearly at odds with commitments made by the United States in the context of the NPT and in the Comprehensive Test Ban (CTB) Treaty.
Consider, for example, a January 1996 statement made in Geneva by John Holum, director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, as he pushed for completion of the CTB:
"Even the open literature points to a broad array of new weapons developments. . . . Many would involve directed energy weapons--ways to focus the release of energy with greater precision than is now possible, to enable military effects well beyond those available now. Without nuclear testing the nuclear weapon states will not be able to pursue confidently such technologies as the nuclear-explosion-pumped X-ray laser, the so-called nuclear shotgun, enhanced electromagnetic pulse weapons, microwave weapons, and enhanced radiation weapons. . . . And the true zero [yield] test ban will also place out of reach new 'mininuke' and 'micronuke' concepts--technologies designed to use nuclear explosive yields in small amounts. . . .
"So let there be no mistake--the CTB will help impede the spread of nuclear weapons. But its great practical impact will also be for arms control--to end development of advanced new weapons and keep new military applications from emerging."
The B61-11 may be a mere modification, a new shell for an older physics package. It may not be the kind of exotic new weapon that Holum listed. But it is a weapon with a new capability. Should the need arise, it will allow U.S. military forces--to borrow Holum's words--to "focus the release of energy with greater precision." In this case, against underground targets.
When all this is said, the B61-11 remains something of a mystery weapon. It offers a new capability at a time when there is no strategic requirement for such a capability, and it can be delivered by tactical aircraft at a time when--according to national policy--there is no tactical justification for it. Why was it developed and deployed now? That's a question the Clinton administration needs to address.
It seems like the new weapon, B61-11 was developed and deployed as long ago as the time of Clinton's administration. And if the US had problems testing it because of the CTB (nuclear testing ban treaty), Israel would have had no such problem testing it themselves. And if newer weapons had been developed they wouldn't have fallen under the CBT because the technology to make them is not new, just their capability is: "to focus the release of energy with greater precision".
I suspect there was thermite used or something similar, but not used to blow up the towers (except as perhaps cutter charges), but used to blow up the planes.
I think that's why there is evidence for thermite showing up at the WTC such as the photo (albeit a manipulated one) of molten metal pouring out of the windows.
And I think it's interesting that the molten metal is seen BEFORE the tower is blown up, not while it is blown up.
I think the molten metal dripped from the window as seen in the picture because thermite was used to destroy the plane.
It's not proven that thermite came from the WTC attack as it could have come from the clean-up operations around it, but if IS proven that the thermite was present as a result of the attack, then I think this was the way thermite was used.
(It might also have been used in the WTC7 demolition operation, but in this thread I am mainly discussing the demolition of WTC1 and 2.)
The other evidence that the planes exploded prior to impact is that the planes observed in the crashes all burst into huge fireballs before they enter the buildings.
Other evidence of pre-impact explosion:
1) "Small" holes made in the Pentagon building and the two WTC buildings as compared to the actual size of the planes
2) Bright white flash as the planes burst into a huge fireball. These look like fireballs created by ordnance.
3) Reports of explosions just as the planes crashed into the buildings.
4) Smell of cordite in the Pentagon when the explosion occurred
5) The fact that the government did not release the videos of the Pentagon until they were forced into doing so by legal action; and when the videos were released some frames seem to be cut out just before the moment of impact (I don't believe the feds wanted to hide it was a different plane that hit the Pentagon - there were too many witnesses who said it was a passenger plane and they have IDed the remains of most of the passengers on that plane, for that CT to be believed).
6) The fact that in all three crashes the planes seemed to have disappeared. (Hence leading to many CTs that there were no planes and so on.) They 'disappeared' because they got blown up, even before they had fully penetrated the buildings.
7) In one photo of the WTC you can see intact pillars just inside the windows that stand in the path of the plane. You would expect them to have been destroyed by the (intact) plane penetrating the buildings.
8) In one video, you can see a white flash in the center of a fireball that someone has identified as evidence of a "wire missile". I think this was the explosive on the plane detonating right before the plane struck the tower.
9) Ordnance smoke plume seen above the Shanksville plane crash site
It is too much of a coincidence that all three plane crashes (Pentagon and WTC1&2) resulted in huge fireballs right before the moment of impact or at the moment of impact (before the planes had fully penetrated the buildings) AND all caused holes in the buildings that seemed to be too small for the size of an (intact) plane crashing into them AND all resulted in planes seeming to evaporate into small pieces and in the case of Shanksville and Pentagon - all the people in the planes seemed to evaporate into tiny pieces, and that the biggest pieces that were left were something like a hand.
Motive: the attackers wanted to fully destroy evidence that was on all four planes. There was some things on the planes including the bodies that would reveal how the attack went down and who the attackers were.
If the real terrorists were Arab patsies, there would have been no determined effort to hide the bodies as they would want the bodies identified.
On the other hand if there had been no hijackers (which is disproven by the CTR of FL93 and the many phone calls made by passengers and crew that day) or hijackers who were not Arab and had left the plane before the planes were destroyed (and had held up the plane with smuggled items) and then had engineered the plane to be flown by remote control, then I think the planners would have wanted all evidence of those things destroyed.
Namely:
1) Evidence of bodies - if they were destroyed completely then no autopsies could be done on them to reveal use of anesthetic agents in the attack and so forth. Also other reasons for their destruction such as investigation of the 'hijackers' remains. I think hijackers' body parts were smuggled into the planes but that ruse could be discovered if their remains were the only remains which were scanty in size (only a hand, foot etc). So I think they had to make everybody's bodies look just as broken up.
2) Evidence of smuggled items such as knives, gas canisters, guns, respirators - of course these items could have been jettisoned from the planes - not a good idea as a stray hiker could have picked them up and they could have been connected to 911
3) Evidence that the planes had been electronically hijacked: the FANS and FMCS systems of the planes had been tampered with so the attackers would not want anyone looking too closely at the controls part of the plane
4) Evidence that the planes had been structurally modified: to conceal bombs, equipment needed to carry out the attack.
All evidence that would be found at the crime scene essentially. Crime scene = planes and the places the planes crashed into.
All in all I think some type of explosive was used on the planes prior to their just making contact with the structures they crashed into. Whether it was thermite or not, I am not sure, but if the evidence for thermite being used in the 911 attack is strong (which has yet to be determined - Jones's paper has never been peer-reviewed), then I think this was the way that thermite was used.
The explosions of the planes into fireballs look more like thermite-type explosions than the explosions of the twin towers which looked more like nuke-type explosions (huge debris clouds, pyroclastic flows, atomization of concrete and steel and people, high energy emitted, EM pulses that interfered with electric and electronic equipment, seismic waves that had the characteristics of a nuclear explosion, burnt out cars that faced the towers and so on ........)
The bright white flashes of the fireballs created as the planes exploded are more characteristic of a thermite or similar type ordnance explosion.
Note the white flash in the fireball. The flash of an ordnance explosion - high heat.
See the white flash here.
ORDNANCE SMOKE PLUME - SHANKSVILLE
Black smoke plume from a normal plane crash fire on the right.
PILLARS STILL STANDING IN THE PLANE'S PATH:
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/jpg/Plate39.JPG
Note that as predicted, the steel cladding of the building did indeed act like 'net' for the towers. That is why you can see that the facade is not as damaged as you would expect if a whole plane had gone into the building. The wings and body did leave an imprint but could not fully penetrate the building. So where is the rest of the plane. Did it bounce off the building and fall as a wreckage onto the ground below? Not if the Israelis had anything to do with it. They made sure there would be no relatively intact plane lying on the ground. They blew it up before it could do that. The Israelis had already calculated that the planes would not fully penetrate into the buildings. Hence why there is so little wreckage on the ground and little evidence of plane wreckage in the building.
VIDEO CAPTURE OF THE 'WIRE MISSILE' IN THE WTC CRASH:
White flash in the center.
Note the white flash of ordnance detonation (maybe thermite?)
MOLTEN METAL POURING OUT OF WTC TOWER (BEFORE BUILDINGS BLEW UP)
(Note that in the two pictures, the molten metal seems to have shifted from one window to another - Wood and Reynolds)
CARS DESTROYED IN THE EXPLOSIONS OF WTC
(Jones says the cars were destroyed by debris dropping down on them, but to me they look like cars destroyed by the pressure and heat wave from a nuke explosion; no other type of ordnance has such power to create such a devastating effect so widely)
http://911blimp.net/vid_WTC1explosions.shtml
" WTC1 Explosions + WTC2 Fireball
At 9:03, an NBC TV video camera was zoomed in on WTC 1 (the North tower) from the NorthEast, showing smoke coming from the two most damaged faces, from the assault 17 minutes earlier.
Suddenly, about 6.5 seconds into this clip, towards the left of the frame, by the SE corner, a row of windows are simultaneously pierced by violent puffs of dark smoke. But at the same instant, evidence of explosion(s?) can be seen towards the right of the frame, by the NW corner of the tower, more than 250 feet away .. "
COMPLETE ATOMIZATION OF PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS AND BUILDING CONTENTS:
(Not really related to the discussion of thermite being used on planes but I don't think thermite has this sort of effect - it might be good at destroying steel in a heat-induced way but nuclear energy is more effective in destroying the bonds between molecules of all sorts of substances including human bodies than thermite - eg. thermites might be good in causing 'fire attacks' eg the fire-bombing of Japan, but nukes are better at causing the complete and isntant evaporation of people and buildings into thin air without even any evidence of a prior fire and that is what happened in the WTC attack.)
This man could be covered in the dust of atomized humans. Is thermite poweful enough to do that? No. Only nuclear energy atomizes all matter in its path.
I doubt thermite did this:
or this:
or this:
or this:
See huge voluminous dust clouds only seen in events like volcanoes or nuclear explosions:
Compare with a volcanic explosion:
A high-energy (nuclear?) explosion (note no fireball):
*Thermite is not directly related to nukes in the towers subject, but since thermite is often touted by many to be the explosive used to bring the twin towers down, I am discussing thermite here.
I came across this diagram showing the area of the power outage. Jones dismisses the fact that there was a significant power outage that day saying that he noted their were 3 videocameras filming a tower's collapse.
(BTW, he doesn't say WHERE the videocameras that filmed a tower's collapse was located. Nor does he mention which tower collapsed while it was flimed. It could have been WTC 7 and that I don't believe was an explosion-collapse but an implosion-collapse. That collapse happened later that day when they might have been able to get videocameras working or got new ones. But still if it wasn't WTC 7 that collapsed or the videocameras were within the area where they would be affected it doesn't rule out a power outage. See point below.)
But does the fact that NOT ALL electronic or electrical equipment within a certain vicinity were knocked out rule out that a power outage occurred?
I don't think that does.
Note the phenomenon of a nuclear blast causing power failure in the surrounding area is called the Compton Effect.
Read what this Finnish military expert had to say about the Compton Effect:
23. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton scattering. See German engineers help the USA plate 5.
