Wednesday, September 12, 2007

NUKES AT THE WTC?

An idea whose time has come?
Posted by at

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

A source of intense heat is triggered in the core column at the level of plane impacts (if there were plane impacts). It flash heats the steel and concrete out to the periphery of the building, causing instant pulverization of the concrete. The heat source melts away the structures supporting it and it descends towards the ground at near free fall, the heat pulverizing each floor as it falls. The levels above the initial collapse are subsumed as they fall into the fireball. The dust cloud hides the bright light of the fireball.
If this is the scenario being proposed it is no more bizarre than others. It is hard to reconcile the completeness and uniformity of the concrete pulverization with any explanation, including this one. Did close-up witnesses suffer flash burns on exposed skin in addition to the heat damage to vehicles and structures? Could a small nuclear fireball maintain its structure and integrity this well as it melts its way down through a building? How far into the earth would it descend? The way the towers came down is oddness upon oddness. The explanation is bound to be odd too.

September 12, 2007 10:24 PM
Anonymous said...

this Dwight guy is really smart

September 13, 2007 12:29 AM
Anonymous said...

Dwight's fantasy fairy tale is far too 'odd'; his 'explanation' is no less brown than the govt's impossible "pancake collapse" nonsense: it contains disinfo ("pulverization" can't account for all the nanodust), fails to account for the time lags (way too slow to be "instant" as dwight claims; way too early according to the UL fire rating of the WTC steel iff one believes the govt's impossible "burning jet fuel [sic] caused 'collapse'" legend), the rapidity of the unopposed 'collapse', or the nanoparticle (size) evidence (all that unprecedented unexplained nanodust).

Anyone who finds merit in trying to rule out the possibility of micro/tactical nuclear weapons at GZ through such illogic is probably either an empty barrel or some kind of misleader.

So while "this Dwight guy" may be really smart, that's not all all evident in his comment -- unless his motives are impure.

September 20, 2007 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...

I'm honored to be called a disinfo agent. Where do I pick up my check? This means I can consider myself an official member of the 911 truth movement. I'm expecting my decoder ring in the mail shortly.
I'm not trying to rule out micro/tactical nuclear weapons at gz, either directly or by my awful illogic. Are you reading what I actually wrote or just replaying some previous argument with someone else?
You see ominous signs because I said 'instant' instead of 'very quickly' or 'pulverization' instead of 'pulverization and nanoization'? Take a deep breath. Understand that the real disinfo agents succeed when they get people to react like you have.
Some lessons in civility and common sense for you:
I posted this preliminary scenario as a starting point for rational discussion. Maybe it needs to be discarded entirely or perhaps it can be refined to better fit with what was observed. If you find flaws in it, discuss the flaws and perhaps offer your own alternative explanation. Avoid name calling. Did you notice how I didn't call you a disinfo agent just because we disagree? See how that works? That's how decent people behave. Now that you know this I'm sure you'll do better next time.
Btw, the anonymous post praising my intellect was by a person I know very well. He's writing this now.

September 21, 2007 8:15 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)