Friday, February 11, 2011

Milli-Nukes, Let's Roll!

{The following is from early in  a discussion on Milli-Nukes on Let's Roll Forums just prior to my banishment in another thread for addressing the admin with a mister honorific.}

To fill every one in who might be joining this discussion late, nuclear devices have four adjustable design factors: yield of blast wave, yield of heat wave, electrical magnetic pulse (EMP), and radiation.

An EMP is emitted line-of-sight from the detonation point and induces high currents in certain metals. Those high currents can lead to high temperatures that then burn off things like paint and plastic door handles, if it doesn't start to soften the metal itself. Electronic devices are susceptible to its effects, whereby integrated circuit chips and whatnot can get zapped quickly.

Distance and shielding/shading are factors in mitigating EMP. An open-air detonation would have more EMP side-effects than an underground one, whereby the latter have almost no EMP effects outside the kill zone. In the case of the 9/11, the towers presented structure and content that would have limited any EMP, except for window slits or parts of the structure that were removed by other means. Other buildings and things also would have reduced wide-spread EMP side-effects.

Russian Agent's Nuclear Hypothesis

{The following is a snippet from a Let's Roll Forum where others were promoting Dimitri Khalezov and his contention that deep underground nukes brought down the twin towers.}

When links to interview with Dimitri Khalezov were posted before, I wrote:

[QUOTE] "All disinformation has one redeeming quality. In order for it to be believable, it has to be built on a sound foundation of truth. Our purpose as rational and intelligent beings is to sift through information in search of the nuggets of the truth, or the data points that make up trend lines. Recognizing the subtle bullshit will be hard. We have to learn to keep our human prejudices in check; and know that we're being played as well ourselves.

"I'll be passing Mr. Khalezov's data through the magnifying glass of disinformation, so that the truths aren't too quickly dismissed when an occasional patch of bullshit is laid. I'll be making up my own mind, and recommend others do the same." [/QUOTE]


[QUOTE] DK: Yes. Because it occurred deep underground. If it were on the surface level or above it, the 150 kiloton bomb would almost destroy New York City in its entirety, as well as making the rest of it uninhabitable. Just imagine that 150 kiloton is 8 times the size of the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. However, since the 150 kiloton bombs detonated deep under each of the WTC Twin Towers and under the WTC-7 they did not cause much damage - just only the damage you can see in the immediate aftermath of the actual WTC demolition on 9/11. [/QUOTE]

I take major issue with two points.

[1] "Deep underground"?!! There is absolutely no evidence of this, or Mr. Khalezov will have to be much more specific about what deep means. The "bathtub" on which the WTC complex was built went below grade only 75 feet or so. A notable anomaly of the event was that their demolition experts made sure that the bathtub was not damaged or only minimally so.

Moreover, the demolition of the towers themselves can be observed happening top-down, as if there were two (to six ) milli-nukes placed through out the structures to get the extreme pulverization of content. This isn't to say that milli-nukes weren't also in a basement level (as testified by Mr. W. Rodriquez). But Mr. Khalezov seems to imply that "deep underground" nukes accomplished the observed top-down destruction. The rational side of me does not agree with this.

[2] 150 kiloton bombs?!! Now maybe if Mr. Khalezov would remove the "kilo" and/or replace it with "milli" and recognize that it could be multiple per tower, he would be approaching the right magnitude both needed and observed.

He shoots his theories in the foot by repeatedly talking about 150kT nukes (here and in other interviews) particularly when he says that it is "8 times the size of the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima." This is obviously not what was observed.

Left Right

{The following is a snippet from a discussion on AlterNet with John regarding milli-nukes. This is John Wright (aka LeftWright) of 9/11 Blogger. That on-list discussion led to some off-list email exchanges. Those very cordial exchanges ended with the ball in John's court to see if some knowledgeable scientific co-workers would agree with my assessment. At the clip of about once I month, I pinged John to remind him respectfully that the ball was still in his court regarding getting the views of his scientific co-workers and convincing me/him that milli-nukes weren't used on 9/11. It should be pointed out that they won't let me into 9/11 Blogger because I champion both milli-nukes and elements of the "no-(commercial)-planes" theories.}

Let me start with your conclusion:

"I have shown that nothing you cite is exclusively explained by the use of nukes. Therefore, absent some other positive evidence, it is illogical and unreasonable to postulate that they were used on 9/11/01."

Not true. Whereas there is overlap between (a) nukes and (b) thermite/nanothermite & explosives/incendiaries and these mechanisms may have been used together for fail-safe redundancy (because they really really really wanted the WTC complex destroyed), the three main areas where your mechanisms cannot logically and reasonably explain what was observed are:

- the under-rubble fire duration

- the energy required for the totality of the destruction