Take a step back and view the identity issue as thus. No arabic names were on the flight manifests that I have seen, and no names aligned with the named suspects/patsies which was broadcast within a couple days of the event complete with pictures. And when some of the named suspects are alive and well in foreign countries and disputing their involvement, a rational person would think: "Ah, just a case of identity theft that we've learned to be fearful of because of those damn Mexican laborers stealing the manual labor jobs that no one wants and having to fake their identification and social security information to be paid."
A hallmark of the G.W.Bush and his administration was to never admit they were wrong. On anything. Ever. Not even doing cocaine or not fulfilling national guard service. Nothing.
The FBI and others could easily have said, "Oops! My bad. Yes, indeed, identity theft occurred." The reason they didn't was that it opened up a can of worms for which they didn't have a full explanation worked out, and lying on the fly is bad form and is easily caught. No Arabic named passenger A on the manifest? Arabic named person alive and well? Then what passenger name X was used instead? How did the hijacker get that fake identification? Are there conflicts with the name X and a real person X already accounted for on the flight?
So, just like the initial NIST documents on the WTC destruction ignored WTC-7, just like the 9/11 Commission ignored and omitted things like Able Danger, Sibel Edmunds, Mr. Rodriquez, Mr. Jennings & Mr. Hesh, ... just like the NIST/FEMA assumed it was commercial aircraft and office fires so didn't test for accelerants or plutonium, the FBI on this hijacker front had to ignore this incongruity.
It was important for the 9/11 cheerleaders to be in lock-step on all points, however stupid or debunked. Keep repeating the lie. National Security was indeed at stake even if the cheerleaders suspected they were giving lip service to lies. If any of the lies are exposed, the whole house of cards could come down and the fallout will be our nation, certainly our govt, and most definitely the job security of those in govt at all levels.
Yes, they may have given their oath to the Constitution, but by golly their family still needs to be fed, and the consequence to wanna-be whistle-blowers was made clear. When did the Anthrax attacks occur, who was targeted, and who did they blame?
The issue with the DNA is an issue with the aircraft. You see, in all four cases, the crash and fires were supposedly so intense that they vaporized the aircraft, which supposedly explains the lack of wreckage, luggage, aircraft debris, bodies, and body parts. But if the aircraft were vaporized, kindly calculate the intense heat required and what would happy to bodies and body parts subjected to such aircraft-vaporizing heat.
If DNA was found, why not more of the aircraft? Conversely, because more of the aircraft wasn't found, how were they able to find DNA?
Hey, the lies on this could go either way and both ways at the same time just to keep it suppressed, and keep the FUD going.
Here's another point. Human remains were found in tiny pieces on the roof tops of adjacent buildings. Kindly calculate the energy required to sever a body into tiny pieces and eject it those distances. How do we know that the remains on those distant building roof tops was from WTC office workers or fire fighters and not those of the hijackers?
What temperature does jet fuel reach in open air? 287.5 °C (549.5 °F).
"(1) modern office contents, including furniture, computers, floor and wall coverings and curtains are not a rich source of fuel and generally incorporate fire-retardant materials and (2) modern office contents are spread out through a large volume of space as well, creating a diffuse, lower-intensity fire."
What temperature does steel lose strength? The properties of steel vary widely, depending on its alloying elements. At about 550° C (1,000° F) Steel is at 50% strength and at about 800° C (1472° F) structural steel loses 90% of its strength.
The problem, Herr Haupstadter, is that neither jet fuel nor office furnishings can reach the high localized & sustained-over-time temperatures needed to weaken steel. The WTC tower fires in question were billowing black, sooty smoke, which is an indication of being oxygen starved. Firefighters who made it to the impact scene of the 2nd tower said words to the effect: "two isolated pockets of fires; two lines to knock them down. The 2nd tower was imploded at about 56 minutes after its impact.
Herr Hauptstadter hat mal geschrieben:
The smallest nuclear warhead in the US arsenal is the Davy Crockett device, It was based on the W-54 design of which the yield was tunable from 10 tons TNT to 1000 tons TNT,
I think we should correct this statement and preface it with: "The public thinks that..." Or, "the public has been told that ...", because the exact up-to-date state of our nuclear arsenals falls under National Security and wouldn't be public knowledge.
Doesn't the Davy Crockett device go back to 1962 or so? Seems reasonable to assume with the run-away military industrial complex budget that on September 10, 2001 the Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld couldn't account for $2.3 trillion would have made some mighty fine developments in that area. Do you think there might have been some in the military just dying to try them?
Herr Hauptstadter schrieb weiter:
Even with 10 tons of TNT equivalent you don’t demolish a building *controlled*; you blow it up. With a kiloton you vaporize it. And then we are not even talking about the radiation. You get the radiation of the fission products and you get Plutonium pollution: low yield nuclear weapons are inefficient, they fission only a small percentage of their nuclear fuel.
You are probably absolutely correct regarding the damage that we could expect to see with those particular payloads. Allow me to point out the obvious in the prefix milli that I would regularly append to nukes. It isn't that I think that milli is the exact order of magnitude, but it is to get readers thinking small, or certainly smaller than the kilo or mega prefixes.
Other obvious things are that they'd try to direct the energy, probably in a tightly narrow cone downward. Because the top-most milli-nukes would have been below the crash site and would have many floors of structure above them, they did blow up. In one case, the top floors gained angular momentum off to the side and should have toppled over, until that angular momentum was arrested through the process of being turned to dust.
Vaporization did happen, but on a much smaller scale. Where are the desks, computers, chairs, office partitions, people? Oh, the latter have been found in small charred fragments on the roof tops of neighboring buildings.
Radiation? Yes, one of the factors in designing a nuke that can be played with. The evidence of nuclear weapons does not live or die with govt reports that state "there wasn't radiation" or "it was below some govt specified threshold", particularly when the govt agencies have a track record of being less than forthrightness regarding 9/11. Aside from the toxic mix of other (nuclear) pulverized building content that first responders inhaled and contributes to their ill health, don't you think radiation poisoning could contribute too?
Again, you are correct with your statement regarding the inefficiency of low yield nuclear weapons and only fissioning a small percentage of their nuclear fuel. Follow that thought and contemplate what would happen to the larger percentage of their nuclear fuel that was unspent. Do you think that it would be fizzling in very hot, foundry-level fires under the rubble for months as we observed?
Herr Hauptstadter schrieb:
*Snicker* Proposing *nuclear weapons* as a means for *controlled* demolition. ... Controlled demolition with nukes.. Utterly nuts,.
Not really so utterly nuts when you consider what was learned from the 1993 WTC attacks. That core columns were much tougher than they thought. The logistics of wiring the core (as opposed to the outer walls) for conventional controlled demolition could be reduced by many orders of magnitude if low yield redundant milli-nukes were employed.
Dear Agent Hauptstadter,
I suggest you do some research into "Davey Crocket" from the early 1960's and a forerunner of milli-nukes. You should also look into depleted uranium weapons. And wasn't President Bush scraping all sorts of test ban treaties so he could deploy bunker-busting bombs? How many of them were in reality milli-nukes? I personally don't know, because I don't have access to national secrets.
Milli-nukes exist for the same reasons the US arsenal has all sorts of weaponized poisons, gases, bio-terrors, etc. They had the black budget, the scientists, and the itch to find new ways to destroy things. Of course, none of it has anything to do with benefits to mankind or life forms on this planet. Obsessions of overgrown teenagers who did it just because (or to prove that) they could.
Agent Hauptstadter wrote:
Me: Even the lowest yeld 10 tons TNT eq. nuclear weapon would get noticed. Noone noticed.
I agree with the first sentence and disagree with the second. No one noticed? What crock! Everyone noticed. It is glaring when from the initial seconds of demolition when the content is pulverized and ejected horizontally at great force.
Even before the dust had settled, the pysops team was explaining to the public what they did not notice.
Newscaster: "It has some appearance of a controlled demolition." (Only mentioned on 9/11; never again.)
Govt Spin Meister to Newscaster: "No, I think that the damage from the jet impacts together with the blazing hot jet fuel fires caused the steel to weaken and initiate the collapse that the rest of the structure just could not withstand so it pancaked into itself... Such a tragic loss of life today, and of those true heroes, those patriotic firemen who went into harms way into the burning towering infernos to rescue the innocent trapped victims and didn't make it out... This has all the earmarks of Osama bin Laden."
Please go and view some September Clues.
I loved your statement:
Me: Apparently these “milli-nukes” are so small that noone notices when they go off. Consequently you need many to have an effect. Why not use cheap conventional stuff?
Agent Hauptstadter, here's an analogy about how you keep twisting the discussion by orders of magnitude. A restaurant tab is placed on the table, it's over $300 dollars, and gracious Uncle Sam who has very deep pockets is to pay.
Because you subsist on vending machine junk food, you insist: "It should be paid like I always do, one $1 or $5 bill into the change machine at a time to get quarters to feed into the candy machine."
I say: "Uncle Sam has nuclear payment options."
You skew one direction: "We can't pay the tab with $10,000 bills!"
I counter: "Milli-nukes."
You skew another direction: "We can't pay with over 30,000 pennies when conventional quarters or dollars would stack up to the tab."
I persist: "Milli-nukes are the $100 bills that we know Uncle Sam has in his wallet. We'd only need a few, and as a redundant backup, we can get conventional $20's from the pocket-tellers."
You end: "Paying with stacks of nickels converted from $1 bills would still be easier than your milli-nuclear $100 bills that I've never seen and am not even sure exist."
So, Agent Hauptstadter, did you get a chance to view the Coast Guard's aerial footage to the WTC destruction? Your non-commentary on that specific subject speaks volumes. Yep, it's just over 5 minutes long, so maybe you should view it again. Tell this forum again that the white smoke is from smoldering office content and not from fizzling unspent nuclear material. Tell us again the coincidences in the absolute thoroughness of the towers and WTC-7's collapse. What was your explanation for the multiple craters in WTC-6 and the circular holes in WTC-5? I want to know how that wasn't a conspiracy. And on your way, please don't forget to tell us abou the gold that was stored in the WTC complex. How do you explain that some of it was recovered... not from the vault, but from a truck that was abandoned in the tunnels? No conspiracy there, right?
Señor El Once
No comments:
Post a Comment