The following
is a reply from The Finnish Military Expert
to criticism made by Antti Partanen at
http://www.kolumbus.fi/totuus/doc/wtcatom.html
Back to military experts main page
WTC hydrogen bomb theory refuted
All the commentary of the Finnish military expert is here with yellow background. I have marked bad mistakes, like swapping Hydrogen bombs with Atomic bombs, red-on-gray. The most disquieting thought to emerge from 9/11 truthseeking is that the succession of events that attained its highest point thus far on September 11 may yet lead to the use of an atomic bomb. If Iran is to be attacked, low-yield atomic weapons may be needed to accomplish the task. They will not be used unless terrorists commit an atomic explosion on Western soil. Meanwhile, however, it it has been proposed that k+1 nuclear bombs were detonated on 9/11 in the World Trade Center towers. But this is not my theory and mentioning it here only blurs the matters. This claim is preposterous for at least the following reasons: 1) Duration of explosion. At what point in time would these bombs have been set off? After all, each tower was destroyed remarkably evenly over a time span of over 10 seconds. Did the bomb radiate its destructive force all that time? Or were there ten bombs per tower (and maybe a couple in Building 7, too)? Set off seconds before the "collapse" commenced (how surprising, first comes the cause, then comes the effect). The bomb had initial effects, main blast, and after effects all within about 4 seconds. The heath dissipates with no well-defined time frame (gradually). 2) Ability to direct the explosion. Or could the force of the explosion perhaps have been directed to focus to a distance of hundred of meters? This has also been suggested, in this case there would be only one bomb, in the basement. Correct. One H-bomb, in focus to a distance of several hundred meters upwards. 3) Radio activation. These atomic bombs didn't seem to create much of a fallout... Mini-hydrogen bombs. Any idea what is the
difference of tritium and plutonium? 4) Electromagnetic pulse. The EMP would have been a lot stronger than just having an unknown number of cell phones go (temporarily?) dead - which in any case may have occurred during the destruction of the North Tower. You know, the tower on top of which there was a... telecomm mast. False. Many types of devices went dead at
the moment the first tower "collapsed". 5) Seismic shock. Seismic data directly contradicts claims of a massive explosion at the start of the destruction sequence: the shockwaves rise in amplitude and reach their maximum when the rubble hits the ground. A bomb described above (points 3 and 4)
does, in fact, not belong to the class "thought
experiment" Babbling. Pure mini-hydrogen bomb just
happens to fit best into the evidence. Whatever you call
it. Seismic shock was reduced, because the H-bomb was not
directly coupled with the bedrock. You 6) Availability. Where, exactly, would these pure H-bombs have been acquired? How many people would it introduce to the conspiracy? Is it reasonable to think that beyond-cutting-edge technology would be field tested for the first time in an operation this important, especially when there are easier options? They were cutting edge around 1990, not
2001. Surely they have been tested. 7) Need. If plastic explosives, thermite and maybe thermobarics get the job done, why mess around with the nuclear stuff? (Many do not even consider the claim that potential energy alone could explain the observed destruction to be surprising enough to protest it, so how likely is it that there were devices of even greater destructive power in the towers?) A single non-radioactive
smaller-than-pineapple device reduces the need of
explosives by more than 8) Risk. If the bomb emitted any radiation at all, it might have been detected. Unless the conspirators succeeded in manning these security positions as well, I suppose. These bombs have so far never been analysed
correctly. Using them in the US was practically riskless
because the cabal controls the key institutions and is
able to cause what looks like "stand down order" 9) Other observations. An atomic bomb is not required to
explain the fact that pieces of the To start with misleading elements here:
mini-hydrogen bombs, not atomic
bombs. The wall elements weight 22 tons each
and in upper parts of the towers they are 4 floors high.
They were bolted and welded into other exterior wall
elements and into the floors. Exactly such elements are
visible in the walls So what really happened was not a
controlled demolition using military explosives only.
What was observed was some unavoidable side effects
of a thermonuclear detonation. The first outer The surface of the steel elements begun
to boil and evaporated as a gray vapor The spire behauviour some coupled
core steel columns remained standing about The basic thermite cannot explain the
heath for more than a few days. But there is Though it's not impossible than an atomic device was in each
tower, I consider this Obviously you are overestimating your
knowledge in many other areas of expertise One more point against the claim of a nuclear bomb needs to mentioned: Truth strategy
Since the harm done by the "WTC
H-bomb" theory has, in contrast to the widespread
unfortunate With this in mind, it may be necessary to
examine how the theory has been advanced: And so the extreme theory has gone from a
dubious source via a Big Tent advocate to,
possibly, I have recently
engaged in an email discussion on the issue with the
alleged expert, with Hannu
Decide for yourself, but I think that the
"expert" displays an astoundingly poor command
of facts (conventional, nuclear and WTC-related), and was
unable to produce a coherent explanation This is misleading. I said the core is in the shape
of fairly long rectangle, and the stealth mini As the
abyss (20 meters) opens in the bottom of the central
core, above it there will be fairly heavy Of course,
the mini H-device is not mandatory. The Twin Towers can
be demolished using standard For the
first, there are hundreds of pictures and videos showing the
huge explosion like this one:
This is
an absolute certain explosion, not any type of collapse
or clean, It is not
possible to set conventional military explosives in a way
to achieve this Ejecting
those heavy steels, especially those 22-ton outer wall
steel elemenments It is
commonly believed you could simulate a thermonuclear
detonation (or actually Suppose we
set 200 tons of tnt onto those two floors
exploding in the picture. Then The
mechanismus behind the picture above was quite different.
The fireball of the H-device Quickly
behind the neutron volley arrived the heath wave and the
blast wave caused You simply
cannot frame a thernonuclear explosion like this and
claim that perhaps it I suppose
that part of the readers who already have some clue will
find out roughly One more
step ahead. Why no one has told these things in
the magazines, newspapers, So I hope I
have been able to clarify what problems are to be
expected when the current Thus we conclude the WTC hydrogen bomb,
the most significant 9/11 theory of Finnish Oh, you still hate to let the readers to
decide? In the civilized circles there is such a
principle, I suggest the reader starts looking those
atomic bomb mistakes or misleads. This young man An atomic bomb is built based on
very heavy elements, plutonium or uranium. The hydrogen bomb is very
different. It uses the lightest of the elements, like
various What will be difficult to cover up are
random radioactive changes caused by the energetic No one with any insight into various
nuclear weapons will blur these two, atomic bombs |
My translation of the H-bomb theorist's first message on 2006-05-19
(I had earlier posted an initial version of my debunking of his theory)
_____________________________________________________________________________
HIS FIRST MESSAGE
[>duration?]
1. The bomb was
detonated when the visible collapse started. Duration about
4 seconds. Altogether three bombs, WTC1, WTC2 and
WTC7.
[>directionability?]
2. The bomb is
build so that it is directed. Let's assume fusionable material
cast in the shape of a staff. It is lit from one end with
a hot ray pointing
towards the center of the staff. So in what direction does the
fusion front
progress from the end of the staff? The real structure is more
complicated,
though.
In each
building only one hydrogen bomb in the middle in the basement, by
the
3rd basement in the shaft of a freight or express elevator.
[>fallout?]
3. They tried
to explain [the fallout with tritium from emergency lighting].
Unfortunately all WTC emergency signs were based on the
electroluminesence
phenomenon. Thus they contained no tritium at all. A pure H-bomb
produces
one hundreth of the pollution of an atomic bomb of comparable
size. And they
are really not detectable with a Geiger counter (alpha particles
and tritium
particles). In addition they can mostly be washed away with the
help of spraying
water. The particles in question are very light, a kind of
hydrogen and helium.
When inhaled these particles are destructive.
[>EMP?]
4. Also the EMP
can be lessened by detonating the bomb underground. The
phenomenon
will not be admitted even in cases when there is no need to
conceal a small nuclear
explosion. [Because those enterprises hit by the EMP are
vulnerable]. See however http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate5.htm
Thus we judge
the WTC H-bomb theory, the most significant 9/11 theory of
Finnish
origin, to be dead.
You should not become a judge in your own issue, you should try to defend your position.
1. How do you
explain that 99% of the concrete was pulverized to hot particles
of
under [less than is English] 100 microns? Did
"moslems of al Qaida" hate floors in
particular? Isn't it fairly laborious to shatter 110 floors of
concrete plates how
was done in your opinion? Even with explosives?
2. Why were there pools of molten steel on the bottoms of the elevator shafts?
3. Why did it
take the fire department 100 days to cool the glowing steel, even
though they sprayed water on top of them continuously, night and
day? Is this
what happens in other "collapses" and "controlled
demolitions"? Tell me an example?
4. Why were no
survivors found in the rubble? Are there never in collapses?
Why were no bodies found, either (even clear body parts),
furniture or computer?
Tell me an example from somewhere else?
My first response (translated) of 2006-05-19
_____________________________________________________________________________
Answers to the
anonymous developer of the nuclear bomb theory, who can be
assumed
to be some kind of a) military member ['soldier'] or b) expert or
possibly
c) a military expert:
1. So a four second duration? From where to where? Did fusion occur all that time?
2. So the bomb
could be directed so well that its destructive effect was focused
hundreds of meters away, and during four seconds its direction
changed evenly? Or
did the bomb drop at the same speed as the towers regardless of
reactive forces?
3.+4. I admit
that this scifi bomb would then probably also be capable of a
minor
fallout and EMP. (And presumably configuring Windows 2000 and
filling tax returns,
as well.) Speaking of surprising elements, might the nuclear bomb
also have
contained sulfur? Or was that, too, the consequence of a nuclear
reaction?
Why on earth
did a nuclear bomb have to be wasted on WTC7 if C4 would get the
job
done?
"You should not become a judge in your own issue"
= don't criticize my grand theory
"you should try to defend your position"
My position is
this: WTC1 and 2 most likely were destroyed with a combination of
plastic explosives + thermite, the perpetrator was hardly
al-Qaeda.
"How do
you explain that 99% of the concrete was pulverized to hot
particles of
under 100 microns?"
Ooh, numeric
values. 99% probably isn't very far from the truth, but I can't
recall
ever seeing a basis from the presented values for the particle
size of the dust.
What is the basis for the claim regarding the heat?
The falling
mass of the buildings + probably explosives crushed the contents
of the
buildings.
"pools of molten steel"
How do you know
it was steel? There aren't many eyewitness statements of molten
metal, and some of them might have meant metal that was only
red-hot.
[See this map and the details http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/340774.shtml ]
"100 days to cool the glowing steel"
So do you claim
that the heat of the steel members persisted for 100 days solely
because of the heat originally embedded into them by the nuclear
bomb, without for
instance continuing chemical reactions caused by remaining
thermite? Or had a
(non-radiating?) mini-Chernobyl formed in the basements?
[You are not
particulary amusing inventing a mini-Chernobyl. The H-bomb is
very
different to A-reactor, but how could you have known. Google words
"Fission"
and "Fusion" or ask someone who has a little
understanding of physics]
"no survivors found"
Survivors were
not found because of the complete destruction of the buildings,
which in turn may be explained by the fact that explosives
severed the supporting
structures.
It is not
impossible that the perpetrators of the attacks might have gotten
their
hands on some brand new nuclear weapons and also decided to use
them for some reason,
but it is so unlikely that presenting the theory as equal or even
superior to other
destruction theories, with no warning of unconstrained
speculation, is not wise
in any way.
_____________________________________________________________________________
[I added the following in another message]
_____________________________________________________________________________
"alpha particles and tritium particles [...] a kind of hydrogen and helium."
Just say bravely 'isotope'.
"When inhaled these particles are destructive."
Well, so now we
get for even the health effects an extreme explanation that
simultaneously lets the health officials off the hook regarding
the lack of
a warning about asbestos. Just great.
----
My translation of the H-bomb theorist's second message on 2006-05-23
_____________________________________________________________________________
HIS SECOND MESSAGE
>Answers to
the anonymous developer of the nuclear bomb theory, who can
be
>assumed to be some kind of a) military member or b) expert or
possibly
>c) a military expert:
Destructive
work of this scale involves phenomena, that a typical civilian
does
not identify, and does not notice, even though they are all the
time in the image
material for all to see. Because this attack has already been
used as an excuse for
wars of conquest and the murder of hundreds of thousands of
people, I see that it
is my duty to explain to people of different professions, and
even to a large
section of professional soldiers, what really took place at the
WTC.
>1. So a four second duration? From where to where? Did fusion occur all that time?
The fusion
reaction advances to the chosen direction (upwards) extremely
fast.
A great amount of neutron radiation goes upwards. A sufficient
amount of X-ray and
neutron radiation goes also to all other directions. Neutrons
heat the steel
members to their cores and much over the boiling point of steel.
A fireball,
plasma, is formed around the bomb, when the surrounding air
cannot move away to
the extent required by its heating. All materia left inside the
fireball turns to
plasma or disintegrates. The fireball expands explosively,
causing heat radiation
and a pressure wave. The pressure wave breaks structures and
causes also a sharp
seismic spike.
The heat
radiation heats all surface material beyond boiling point. The
surface of
the steel begins to boil and evaporates as a gray vapor. The
steel has no time to
turn red-hot, the boiling captures heat and the steel ever deeper
turns directly
from solid to vapor. When the strongest pressure wave meets the
outer wall of the
tower somewhere around the 70th floor the pressure wave rips the
wall elements off
in massive chains. In one picture fifteen 22-ton elements,
that is 330 tons of
steel, is ripped off and outwards from the wall. A few of
these 22-ton elements
are thrown distances of even 200 meters sinking into other
buildings outside
the WTC-block (eg. the AMEX building at a height of about the
20th floor). The
aluminium cladding plays no role here, just aluminium wouldn't
even be thrown that
far, and wouldn't penetrate a skyscraper's wall.
The Compton
diffraction caused by free neutrons achieves its maximum volume,
and
after that electrical discharges that even out the imbalance are
formed in the
air (emp). The explosion of the small hydrogen bomb is over after
that. Inside
the building there is still an extremely hot dust cloud,
attempting to go up, which
upon contact with a concrete sheet, or a human, explodes it to
almost molecules
(liquids expand to thousand times volume, and not 24-times like I
previously
put forward). Every molecular bond in the concrete loses its
bound water and
is released explosively. Every cell in a human explodes losing
its liquid contents.
>2. So the
bomb could be directed so well that its destructive effect was
focused
>hundreds of meters away, and during four seconds its
direction changed evenly? Or
>did the bomb drop at the same speed as the towers regardless
of reactive forces?
The bomb does
not move, and its focus does not change. It's fairly small in
size,
smaller than a pineapple. A Finnish light directed antitank mine
is somewhat
similar in operation (but a million times weaker, and without
atomic-level
effects). And the Finnish mine is larger than a pineapple.
People, who can
describe it and its function, can probably be found near you.
>3.+4. I
admit that this scifi bomb would then probably also be capable of
a minor
>fallout and EMP. (And presumably configuring Windows2000 and
filling tax returns,
>as well.) Speaking of surprising elements, might the nuclear
bomb also have
>contained sulfur? Or was that, too, the consequence of a
nuclear reaction?
The neutron
radiation forms sulfuric acid in the air, which primarily causes
the
brown color of the air I mentioned. Because you probably mean the
sulfur found in
the steel, this hydrogen bomb did not cause that. It has to do
with demolition
charges used by the US military[/Army?], that can be called
thermite-based. But
ordinary thermite would not contain sulfur.
The miniature
hydrogen bomb was placed under the tower so that its effects that
could be detected outside would not ruin the whole operation. The
fireball did
not directly touch the bedrock, which would have damaged even the
neighbouring
blocks in the quake. Neutron radiation going to undesired
directions to the sides
weakened underground, and did not reach the people on the streets
with lethal
strength. What happened was, that is, also a controlled
demolition of old
buildings, insurance fraud and framing to be the victim of an
attack.
>Why on
earth did a nuclear bomb have to be wasted on WTC7 if C4
>would get the job done?
So much C4
would be required, that its installation could not go undetected.
And during the destruction phase the rumbling would resemble the
artillery
barrage of [a WW2 battle]. That is, the explosions would come in
such a dense
manner, that single explosions could not be discerned. At the WTC
there were
fairly many explosions, but according to the firemen it was
possible to tell
them apart.
The WTC towers
had a 6-times carrying capacity compared to the mass of the
building, the steel members of the outer walls about 3x and the
core columns
about 3x. A tower could not fall all the way to the ground,
unless all pillars
are cut near the bedrock. If those pillars were cut eg. at half
way, the tower
might collapse (with sufficient charges) up to that spot and then
it would
certainly fall over. 200 meters worth of tower would remain
standing, and
neighbouring buildings would probably be damaged.
The steel
pillars of the core, 47 pieces, were sturdier than the turrets of
the tanks of the Second World War. What was needed therefore was
47 cuts like
this, and more cuts up the pillar maybe 10 meters apart. The
implementation
would require tubes of C4 maybe 30cm in diameter, and couldn't be
done with
thermite, the pieces thermite woudln't remain in place for long
while burning.
On the other
hand the core is in the shape of rectangle, even just a hydrogen
bomb
either doesn't vaporize all the pillars or it does that so
visibly, that what
caused the destruction becomes clear (depending on the yield of
the bomb).
As a solution
to the problem the hydrogen bomb has been augmented with cutter
charges placed on the outermost pillars and the upper floors of
the core. These are
based on thermite, that has been spiced up with sulfur, nanotech
and a suitable
explosive. According to photos the cuts were made at an angle (so
the part on top
really does slide off, and the pillar is cut - one could also
weld with thermite).
When ignited a
charge like this forms a strong jets that can cut even through
steel.
The cutter charges must be triggered much before the hydrogen
bomb, so that all the
pillars of the core would get cut. When this is done, and the
hydrogen bomb has
been detonated, the strongest pillars of the tower make sure that
the "collapse"
progresses towards the center of the tower, into its own
"footprint". The hydrogen
bomb shakes loose also those pillars cut by thermite, that it
itself cannot reach
to vaporize.
>>>Thus
we judge the WTC H-bomb theory, the most significant 9/11 theory
of Finnish
origin, to be dead.
>>"You should not become a judge in your own issue"
>= don't criticize my grand theory
It would be
useful if all errors were found as quickly as possible from this
theory, that would seem to fit all the observations.
>Ooh,
numeric values. 99% probably isn't very far from the truth, but I
can't
>recall ever seeing a basis from the presented values for the
particle size of
>the dust. What is the basis for the claim regarding the heat?
When the WTC
towers (as well as WTC7) were destroyed a cloud was spred all
around
that rapidly grew into five times the volume, ie. a hot cloud.
The cloud moving
near the ground was determined to also be pyroclastic, like a
cloud caused by a
volcano - videos have been produced that compare them side by
side.
In the
demolitions[/explosions?] where I've been involved, as in
demolition videos
that can be watched on the Internet the explosion clouds are at
most warm, and they
remain in place. The phenomenon seen at the WTC is not to be
found at real
controlled demolitions (but this is hard to believe, if you've
never been there,
yourself). In the movies explosions are more showy than in
reality.
>The falling
mass of the buildings + probably explosives crushed the
>contents of the buildings.
Then thousands
of crushed bodies should have been found, as well as furniture
and
computers. But there were none, not even one. And if concrete
plates are dropped
to asphalt from different heights (500m - 40m), do you think that
they disintegrate
to molecular dust?
>>"pools of molten steel"
>How do you
know it was steel? There aren't many eyewitness statements of
molten
>metal, and some of them might have meant metal that was only
red-hot.
Molten
aluminium for instance is silvery, it never turn red. I have seen
molten
steel at a steel factory on many occasions. It is so hot, that
it's difficult to
make a mistake about it. Access near pools of steel was denied to
the workers
who did the dismantling, they were deadly.
>So do you
claim that the heat of the steel members persisted for 100 days
solely
>because of the heat originally embedded into them by the
nuclear bomb, without for
>instance continuing chemical reactions caused by remaining
thermite? Or had a
>(non-radiating?) mini-Chernobyl formed in the basements?
Yes, and in
addition chambers were produced. Water jets turned to vapor long
before
they reached the hottest steel deep in the foundations of the
towers. At first the
steel was only vaporized - this is what causes the highest
metallic dust levels in
the USA of all time at the rubble - then steel was melted, and in
the end they only
glowed hot there in the rubble. At the beginning there may have
been steel at
7000 degrees [C], that cooled by vaporizing at their surface.
Then when they don't
vaporize any more, the surface turns white, yellow, red, and so
on. The steel
furthest away from the bomb (at the top) are of course much
cooler.
>Survivors
were not found because of the complete destruction of the
buildings,
>which in turn may be explained by the fact that explosives
severed the supporting
>structures.
The pile caused
by the "collapse" was also fairly small; it should have
been on the
order of a third of the original height, but it was maybe 10%. I
can't think of
another collapse were survivors could not be found.
>Well, so
now we get for even the health effects an extreme explanation
that
>simultaneously lets the health officials off the hook
regarding the lack of a
>warning about asbestos. Just great.
To die of
asbestos is a long process, taking years. Five dogs that searched
in vain
for survivors expired in a few months. Some rescue workers also
expired. One must
not inhale alpha particles. The cause of death is easily left
undetermined (unless
precisely this sort of residue is looked for, they are not even
detectable with a
Geiger counter). Asbestos is a good mask for reality.
You still have
not properly answered even one of my questions, so I won't post
new ones. But you should find a sufficient explanations for all,
so that the
hydrogen bomb theory could be dropped. We are however along the
same lines. Al
Qaida can not do this, and charges were used to destroy the
towers.
-----------
My second response (translated) of 2006-05-31
_____________________________________________________________________________
It has been
said that one should not shoot those on one's side. Very well.
But
how do I recognize who is "on my side"? From the fact
that they claim to be
advancing the truth? I ask because it seems perfectly possible to
me that the
area of expertise of this mysterious soldier is information
warfare. Of course
it's much more likely that he is merely prone to fantasizing, and
9/11
truthseeking offered an opportunity to appear knowledgeable. He
is however a kind
of a disinformation operative, though I don't know if he realizes
it himself.
The most
significant open question in any case is the harm caused by his
poisonous claim. So far the destructive effect of the hydrogen
bomb claim, that
harms the credibility of the "bombs in the towers"
group of theories, has been
very small. But the situation is changing: Rick Siegel, the maker
of the video
9/11 Eyewitness, has announced that the second version of his
video will
include the nuclear bomb theory, presumably much more prominently
than the first
version. On this list it was already mentioned that our friend
the Soldier has
agitated him on the subject.
If extreme
theories did not have the tendency to spread, or more correctly
if they
were not consciously made to spread to actively, it would be easy
to just let
the nuclear bomb theory be on one webpage, just on the off chance
that it was
true after all, and just in case it would be useful to
noiselessly keep it in
view. But this is not the case, so it must be resisted.
So, onto the matter at hand.
=======
"The fusion reaction advances to the chosen direction (upwards) extremely fast."
So where does the four second duration come from?
"turns directly from solid to vapor"
Just say bravely sublimates.
"A few of
these 22-ton elements are thrown distances of even 200 meters
sinking
into other buildings outside the WTC-block (eg. the AMEX building
at a height
of about the 20th floor)."
I mentioned this already. No nuclear bomb.
http://911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html
(4th picture from the top, I don't necessarily agree with the
whole page)
"The
aluminium cladding plays no role here, just aluminium wouldn't
even be thrown
that far, and wouldn't penetrate a skyscraper's wall."
Pieces of the
cladding were eg. on the roofs of the Verizon and USPS buildings
next to 7, these are sometimes confused with steel elements. What
do you mean
aluminium could not be thrown that far?
"plasma"
Why did nothing
massive happen at the bottom floors of the buildings when the
nuclear bomb exploded? Was the plasma neatly contained on all
sides inside
the buildings, only the destructive effect directed three hundred
meters away did
something that was visible? How was it possible that people were
rescued even
from the bottom floors of the building, weren't they vaporized by
the plasma?
"People, who can describe [a directed mine], can probably be found near you."
Oh I'm one of
those technical students who has completed his military service
and
who is interested in military technology who has no idea how
shaped charges work.
"So much
C4 would be required [for WTC7], that its installation could not
go
undetected."
A Federal
building (in practice). Tenants had no access to bottom floors.
In the
middle there was a secret command center.
"A tower
could not fall all the way to the ground, unless all pillars
are cut near the bedrock."
All the time
you are listing things that support controlled demolition but do
not require a nuclear bomb!
"The steel
pillars of the core, 47 pieces, were sturdier than the turrets of
the tanks of the Second World War."
What a relevant and exact comparison.
"What was needed therefore was 47 cuts like this"
You know of
course that the core columns were not solid objects but were
composed
of cross-supported parts, surely.
"As a
solution to the problem the hydrogen bomb has been augmented with
cutter
charges placed on the outermost pillars and the upper floors of
the core. These
are based on thermite, that has been spiced up with sulfur,
nanotech and a
suitable explosive."
So even a
nuclear bomb was not enough!! Those were some miraculous
buildings, as
they needed in order to be destroyed conventional explosives, two
different
varieties of thermite and a nuclear bomb on top of it all! And
not a single expert
on structural engineering has yet publicly stated that the
official collapse theory
is after all not only highly unlikely, but totally absurd!
"According to photos the cuts were made at an angle"
(I hear there
is picture somewhere that shows a dismantling worker cutting the
pillars to that angle with a torch, so these images may not
necessarily even
support thermite)
"It would
be useful if all errors were found as quickly as possible from
this
theory, that would seem to fit all the observations."
I'm trying all the time, but there are so many of them.
"When the
WTC towers (as well as wtc7) were destroyed a cloud was spred all
around
that rapidly grew to five times the volume, ie. a hot
cloud."
Expansion to a
multitude of volume does not require heat, a mechanical
explanation
might be enough. I cannot recall a single witness who described
the hotness of the
cloud.
"And if
concrete plates are dropped to asphalt from different heights
(500m - 40m),
do you think that they disintegrate to molecular dust?"
100 microns
is molecular?? The concrete slabs were not dropped, they had
steel and
debris fall on them. How do you explain that even those concrete
slabs that were
out of reach of your nuclear bomb were turned to dust?
[I said less
than 100 microns, the mean size being propably less than
50 microns.
This size definition has been picked from a knowledgeable
American discussion]
"I have seen molten steel at a steel factory on many occasions."
Oh OK then. Before this I must yield.
>>So do you claim that [...] Or had a [...]
"Yes"
Cute answer. So
the persistent heat is explained by the initial heat OR by
a mini-Chernobyl?
"You still have not properly answered even one of my questions"
Uhhh OK.
=======
The valued
expert would have an easy recourse for shoring up his
credibility:
telling his name. Because he apparently does not possess any
classified information
about an existing device, de-anonymization could not have harmful
effects to
national security. Otherwise I would naturally trust the
assessment of his
knowledge and skills by the intermediary Hannu Yli-Karjanmaa, if
it wasn't for
the fact that Mr. Yli-Karjanmaa has displayed that his judgement
is clouded by
overeagerness to accept extreme theories.
-------------------
My translation of the H-bomb theorist's third message on 2006-06-05
(I've smoothed out some of his poor formatting)
_____________________________________________________________________________
HIS THIRD MESSAGE
>The most
significant open question in any case is the harm caused by his
>poisonous claim. So far the destructive effect of the
hydrogen bomb claim, that
>harms the credibility of the "bombs in the towers"
group of theories, has been
>very small. But the situation is changing: Rick Siegel, the
maker of the video
>9/11 Eyewitness, has announced that the second version of his
video will
>include the nuclear bomb theory, presumably much more
prominently than the first
>version. On this list it was already mentioned that our
friend the Troop has
>agitated him on the subject.
>If extreme theories did not have the tendency to spread, or
more correctly if they
>were not consciously made to spread to actively, it would be
easy to just let
>the nuclear bomb theory be on one webpage, just on the off
chance that it was
>true after all, and just in case it would be useful to
noiselessly keep it in
>view. But this is not the case, so it must be resisted.
>So, onto the matter at hand.
Only the truth
helps. The opposing conspiracy has many resources, and many
people
to run it. Their goal is to keep the discussion going almost for
ever, always
corroding from some corner, so that a clear truth will never be
found. On the other
hand the next strike by "al Qaida" may already stop
these discussions when a greater
war starts, along with the silencing of opposition.
But these days
I'm already pretty skeptical regarding even the use of drone-767
planes, but explaining this reality to the public at large, which
has for a hundred
times seen from their televisions a video forgery executed
skillfully and in
real time, is not my mission. From real planes there should
however be found parts,
correct size engines and landing gear as well as pieces of wing
and tail. On the
other hand in a scenario according to my theory not many black
boxes would probably
be found.
>>"The fusion reaction advances to the chosen direction (upwards) extremely fast."
>So where does the four second duration come from?
>[elements ejected great distances]
The takers of
the picture had a decimal point error, they wanted to say 60 000
lbs
and therefore 22 tons. The object is easy to identify from the
picture, it is a
fairly intact outer wall steel element. Thinking that this is
aluminium indicates
that those claiming that are either completely unknowledgeable,
or frauds. And
thinking, that aluminium shaped like that could be cast 175
meters and then sink
into a skyscraper shows a lack of sense of physics and
aerodynamics. Smooth pieces
of aluminium in the shape of a kite less than one square meter in
size might be
found on a roof.
Would you now
explain based on any theory of your choosing, how steel is
catapulted
in that way for 175 meters? For instance that from the 80th floor
in WTC2 is suitable
for a starting point (the 77th-80th floors, that is).[sic] It's
difficult to get the
potential energy to throw sideways, isn't it?
[bizarre,
unrelated pondering on "throw-charges" that I can't be
bothered to translate]
And if this ["throw-charges"] could be done, the cause
to do so is completely missing?
[more irrelevant wankery]
My explanation
[for upward trajectories] is that at that spot the focused
pressure
wave of the nuclear bomb struck the outer wall and formed
momentarily a largish
overpressure inside the building at that spot. [blahblah]
>Why did
nothing massive happen at the bottom floors of the buildings when
the
>nuclear bomb exploded? Was the plasma neatly contained on all
sides inside
>the buildings, only the destructive effect directed three
hundred meters away did
>something that was visible? How was it possible that people
were rescued even
>from the bottom floors of the building, weren't they
vaporized by the plasma?
The steel beams
of the core each lost 20 meters from the bottom. The pressure
wave
struck downwards to the bedrock causing a 2.1 Richter quake.
[pulverization ...
completely superheated steel ... 4000C surfaces ... end result
resembles volcano
crater]
>>"People, who can describe [a directed mine], can probably be found near you."
>Oh I'm one
of those technical students who has completed his military
service and
>who is interested in military technology who has no idea how
shaped charges work.
So you are perhaps in the wrong kind of discussion. I really know this stuff.
[...]
>[C4 IN WTC7]
No it's about
WTC1 and WTC2. When an H-bomb is needed there, one more is not a
big
problem.
>>[47 column cuts in WTC1 and 2]
Would you now
explain in your own words the setting of the charges on floors
-7...+50 in the [core]? We'll assume you have as much C4 and
superthermite as you
want. But there are well-scared employees in the tower who do not
want to commit
suicide. Some of them jog up and down stairs as break exercise.
People use the
elevators all the time.
I have for
twenty years focused on a much easier problem: how can you
destroy enemy
tanks using suitable explosive charges? [no need to cut turrets
... cannons are
usually large enough to also fire hollow charge anti-tank shells]
Compared to this
a cut is an incredibly difficult task.
So what charges, how many and at what intervals? Suddenly
one bomb smaller than
a pineapple, that takes care of most of this, would feel handy
after all?
>[need plastic explosives AND two types of thermite AND an H-bomb]
No,
conventional explosives (fairly numerous, but small and
efficient), one kind of
thermite-based cutter charge (also small and efficient) and then
a small nuclear bomb.
[need all three kinds of bombs]
If the outer
walls had been cut with thermate, very visible streams of
sparks
would be spraying out from the walls of WTC1 and WTC2. And against
the much
stronger core columns, thermate is the better choise. And
because the mini-H-bomb
will be used covertly, and since the fireball is not rectangular
in form, some of
the outermost core columns need to be taken down with thermate.
Just like the
evidence is showing (pictures from ground zero). Thermate is also
needed in
upper parts of the core.
>>[dust cloud]
>Expansion
to a multitude of volume does not require heat, a mechanical
explanation
>might be enough. I cannot recall a single witness who
described the hotness of the
>cloud.
The cloud isn't
that hot after it's expanded enough. [...]Either there was a lot
of
explosives or the explosives were very hot. The surfaces of cool
air against the hot
explosion fumes were too thin so the clouds were able to advance
much further.
>100 microns
is molecular?? [I said less than 100 microns] The concrete
slabs
>were not dropped, they had steel and debris fall on them. How
do you explain
>that even those concrete slabs that were out of reach of your
nuclear bomb
>were turned to dust?
Heat radiation
emitted from the fireball diffracts easily in the smoke and dust
and
when hitting steel. Because the internal parts of the tower have
already been heated
with neutron radiation among other things, this heat
radiation doesn't cool fast. It
reaches at least everything inside the tower.
>>"I have seen molten steel at a steel factory on many occasions."
>Oh OK then. Before this I must yield.
Good that at
least something was settled. 600 C and 1500 C will feel very
different
in the workplace.
>[What explains the persistent heat]
The initial
heat that is. I estimate some 4000 C still [absorbed] where the
blast
wave hits the outer wall steel elements, ripping them off. The
steel vapor left
behind by the first steel elements of the walls being ripped off
proves this.
>The valued
expert would have an easy recourse for shoring up his
credibility:
>telling his name. Because he apparently does not possess any
classified
>information about an existing device,
There is also
confidential information. And even just understanding of the
subjects
in [sic] discussion requires a lot of dedication to the matter,
and also other than
theoretical knowledge. Very many of my colleagues from around the
world don't seem
to be joining this discussion. Even using a pseudonym, even to
debunk my claims. In
the army we also follow a need to know principle. So let's just
stick to the subject.
>[my debunking will soon be finished and ready for publication]
Your own theory
would have to somehow explain all the observations my theory
neatly
solves. There are more than 20 of them, but you still
have no satisfactory explanation
for the first four I mentioned. I suppose it's not worth of
effort to continue to shoot
a little bird with a shotgun.
[...] the
"witness" in question doesn't even seem to recognize
that there are
problems with these points. [...]
>>[pulverization]
Isn't it difficult to pulverize all those concrete slabs (110+7
floors)
>>even with explosives. In your theory, how did they do
this?
>>[pools of molten steel at the bottom of the elevator shafts of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7?]
>>[100 days needed to cool off the steels?]
>>[no
survivors] Why there was no survivors in the ruins? Are survivors
never found
>>in collapses? Why there was no bodies, no recognizable
parts of bodies, no furniture
>>and no computers either? Tell a comparable case from
somewhere else?
---------------------------------------
My third response (translated) of 2006-06-07
_____________________________________________________________________________
>Only the truth helps.
That is precisely the reason why I oppose you and your poisonous theory.
>The
opposing conspiracy has many resources, and many people to run
it.
>Their goal is to keep the discussion going almost for ever,
always
>corroding from some corner, so that a clear truth will never
be found.
So be quiet! It is you who wants to keep a pointless discussion going.
>But these
days I'm already pretty skeptical regarding even the use of
>drone-767 planes
I guess I
shouldn't be surprised that a fantasist imagining nuclear bombs
also imagines bluescreens. Up to now only I have opposed
Mr. Expert's claims.
Do they still have silent support? [Where did I mention bluescreens?
Now
you of course know all the information warfare technologies
possible here?]
>From real
planes there should however be found parts, correct size engines
>and landing gear as well as pieces of wing and tail.
Plane parts
were found, as you well know.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/index.html#gz
>>So
where does the four second duration come from? [It still
is the
estimated duration of this small thermonuclear detonation. You
needed
some timing, and you got it. Now correct me if you know better. I
even
explained what phases this detonation includes, but perhaps it's
better
for you to just keep asking what numbers mean, avoiding issues]
SO it's useless to expect an answer for this. Gotcha.
>>>[elements ejected great distances]
>The takers
of the picture had a decimal point error, they wanted to say
>60 000 lbs and therefore 22 tons.
As is said on
the page I referred to. Why do you repeat it as though it was
new information?
>The object
is easy to identify from the picture, it is a fairly
>intact outer wall steel element.
Do you know
what difference there is between the wall of World Financial
Center 3 and the roofs on the buildings next to World Trade
Center 7?
See the picture.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7pile3.html
>Smooth
pieces of aluminium in the shape of a kite less than one square
>meter in size might be found on a roof.
A fairly good
description of the pieces found on the roofs ob the buildings
next to WTC7. And now if you could just comprehend what I tried
to say: the
pieces that were on the rooftops are sometimes confused with
heavy steel
members. Only a few steel elements were thrown far away.
>Would you
now explain based on any theory of your choosing, how steel is
>catapulted in that way for 175 meters?
I already did.
If you can't find it in my previous message, I repeat:
During the destruction sequences of the towers there must have
been tensions
that were capable of casting elements sideways.
>For
instance that from the 80th floor in WTC2 is suitable for a
starting
>point (the 77th-80th floors, that is).
I wonder what
this means. [He does not know the positioning of outer wall
steel elements between several floors]
>["throw-charges"]
Irrelevant.
>My
explanation [for upward trajectories] is that at that spot the
focused
>pressure wave of the thermonuclear bomb struck the outer wall
and formed
>momentarily a largish overpressure inside the building at
that spot.
And the "largish" overpressure threw steel 175 meters. Rightright.
>>Why did
nothing massive happen at the bottom floors of the buildings when
the
>>nuclear bomb exploded? Was the plasma neatly contained on
all sides inside
>>the buildings, only the destructive effect directed three
hundred meters away did
>>something that was visible? How was it possible that
people were rescued even
>>from the bottom floors of the building, weren't they
vaporized by the plasma?
[If you are
preparing a false flag operation and an insurance fraud with
mini-H-bombs, the whole point is that the truth will not become
obvious.
The H-bombs are set with this in mind: suitable yield, size of
the fireball
and arch of destruction. Those firemen rescued chose a good place
or they
were very lucky].
You did not
answer a single one of these questions, each of which alone
destroys your theory.
>The steel beams of the core each lost 20 meters from the bottom.
No use hoping for a trustworthy source for this.
>The pressure wave struck downwards to the bedrock causing a 2.1 Richter quake.
Ah, good that
you mentioned YET ANOTHER item that alone is enough to refute
your delusion. Seismic data indicates that no massive explosion
took place at
the start of the destruction sequence.
[Or so the official theory tells us. Other interpretations exist.]
>>Oh I'm
one of those technical students who has completed his military
service
>>and who is interested in military technology who has no
idea how shaped
>>charges work..
>So you are perhaps in the wrong kind of discussion.
You cannot even grasp sarcasm. (Surprising of predictable?)
>I really know this stuff.
Ahahhahahahahahahahaha
>No it's
about WTC1 and WTC2. When two H-bombs already are needed there,
>one more for WTC7 is not a big problem.
Just go shopping! [It is a little more complex, but feel free to think so]
>Would you
now explain in your own words the setting of the charges on
floors
>-7...+50 in the [core]?
To the isolated
core via basement floors. Riding even on the roofs of
elevators destructive devices are attached to the core structures
on a couple
of nights. During this (1) Pakistani subcontractors and/or (2)
the bypassing
of electronic security afforded by the Securacom connection may
have been
used.
[The question
was: so what charges, how many and at what intervals? Without
thinking matters like these the alternate theory builder cannot
understand
how impossible it is what he is suggesting. Yes that part is
correct it is
best to use non-native subcontractors and people who cannot speak
English]
>But there
are well-scared employees in the tower who do not want to commit
>suicide. [So they yell if they see any type of bombs]
Mindless sentence.
>Some of them jog up and down stairs as break exercise.
Stairwells have nothing to do with the rest of the core. [Core service access?]
>People use the elevators all the time.
So the
elevators had in your opinion windows that show the inside of the
core.
[No, possible core service access?]
>I have for
twenty years focused on a much easier problem: how can you
destroy
>enemy tanks using suitable explosive charges? [no need to
slice the turret in
>half, just to penetrate it with a very small hole...]
You may not
have noticed, but the WTC towers were stationary buildings that
did not shoot towards those attaching charges.
>Compared to this a full cut is an incredibly difficult task.
So you think
that all controlled demolitions of steel framed buildings are
done with nuclear explosives.
You have
earlier claimed that in order to destroy the central pillars C4
plastic explosives of 30cm thickness would have been needed. The
columns of
the core were hollow boxes constructed of structural steel (not
comparable to
armored vehicles) of wall thickness between 5 inches ... 1/4
inches.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
We'll take as an example the widely used value of 4 inches: 10cm.
[And you might
not know, that the steels of Twin Towers were harder than
the usual construction steels used in older high-rise buildings.
They also
were some 10% more expensive. You can expect some 50 to 60 mm
side armour
is common in older, mass-produced tanks. I think 105 mm of this
steel is
comparable to that. See the book "Twin Towers", printed
1999].
In other words
you claim that THREE TIMES the thickness is needed of plastic
explosive to cut structural steel!
[I actually
expected you to define that. Just claim how much and in what
shape
you will use. I'm not the one who is cutting the central core
columns with
C-4 only. YOU are that guy. YOU know better. You are somehow
replacing my
theory ...with what? Kid babbling?]
There are only three options.
1) You lie when you claim that you are an expert of explosives and/or steel,
2) you are utterly unknowledgeable of the construction of the WTC or
3) both of the preceding options.
>So what charges, how many and at what intervals?
A classic
disinformation tactic: demanding that the prevailing
explanation's
(gravitational collapse) criticism (controlled demoliton) must
also offer a
complete explanation for everything.
[A classic
disinformation tactic: trying to refute a theory, which fits
better into the observed facts than the prevailing explanation,
but due
totally lacking the knowledge on the subject neither showing weak
points
in the H-bomb theory nor offering any detailed alternate theory]
>Suddenly
one bomb smaller than a pineapple, that takes
>care of most of this, would feel handy after all?
A Klingon Bird
of Prey using a cloaking device that shoots the towers to
shit with disruptors would also have been might handy.
>No, conventional explosives (fairly numerous, but small and efficient)
Ah ha! Don't
you ask yourself "So what charges, how many and at what
intervals?"
>[need all three kinds of bombs]
And how might
these YOUR explosives have been installed?
And how might these YOUR explosives have been capable of the
"incredibly
difficult task"? Just say it your own words!
>[cloud] there was a lot of explosives or they were very hot
I bet you think thermite is of room temperature.
[Thermite is
not good in melting vertical columns. It surely will fall
off before any melting takes place]
>>100 microns is molecular??
A slight error
you did not admit to. Again. [The error is yours, I said
"less than" but I understand kids prefer whole
numbers.]
>Because the
internal parts of the tower have already been heated with
>neutron radiation among other things, this heat radiation
doesn't cool
>fast. It reaches at least everything inside the tower.
Do you know
what ad hoc argumentation means? [Do you know what
just basic argumentation means, to start with? You fail to show
your arguments with any details, just wasting bandwith]
>>>"I
have seen molten steel at a steel factory on many
occasions."
>>Oh OK then. Before this I must yield.
>Good that at least something was settled.
The quality of your mind is interesting indeed.
>[...] the
steel vapor trail left behind by the first steel elements of
>the walls being ripped off
It is without a
doubt totally pointless to ask you to tell what possesses you
to think that it was "steel vapor". [Yes, everybody
with eyes and some basic
understanding can see this in hundreds of pictures. I'm no
longer surprised
that you cannot.]
>>The
valued expert would have an easy recourse for shoring up his
credibility:
>>telling his name. Because he apparently does not possess
any classified
>>information about an existing device,...
>There is also confidential information.
What does that
have to do with your name? What confidential information would
come to light? I strongly suspect that that is only an excuse,
although you
may of course just be delusional enough to really believe that.
[So this kid
thinks I should tell at this point some secret or at least
confidential information. Obviously I'm naughty because I'm not
going to...
Those people knowing at least something on these subjects should
get the
idea what I'm explaining about. This kid was said to study
physics...]
>And even
just understanding of the subjects in [sic] discussion requires a
>lot of dedication to the matter, and also other than
theoretical knowledge.
And that is
what you lack. [And this judgement comes from your deep
knowledge of these subjects]
>Very many
of my colleagues from around the world don't seem to
>be joining this discussion.
Perhaps they
can see no connection between destroying main battle tanks and
nuclear bombs in steel towers. Perhaps they think that your
claims are
completely nutty. Perhaps they have not ended up on
11syyskuu.org.
On the other
hand, very many of your colleagues, namely spreaders of extreme
theories, quite probably will soon take part in this
"discussion". (I don't
really know if brutalizing as one-sided as this can be called a
discussion --
you are not at all capable of defending your claim.)
[Of course.
Your deep knowledge allows this judgement. Without any arguments
of your own. You don't understand argumentation any better than
the physics.
I leave this matter to other persons for judgement. Perhaps
someone comments,
some day.]
You did not
imagine that this dicussion that has been kept on a single
mailing list of 38 members would be global somehow?
>Your own
theory would have to somehow explain all the observations my
theory
> neatly solves. There are more than 20 of them, but
you still have no
> satisfactory explanation for the first four I
mentioned. I suppose it's not
> worth of effort to continue [...].
False.
I only have to show that the official theory cannot hold true.
[Sorry but as I
said you don't understand argumentation either. We both
know
the official theory is false. But I also did publish an
alternate theory,
which fits into all the facts observed. Now if you try to
refute my theory,
you should find weak points from my theory, or issue a
superior theory, which
also fits into all known facts. Is this really so difficult to
understand?]
In addition to
this I may offer a theory that explains the biggest
discrepancies, but this is not required. Any holes, such as the
fact that
1000 of the deceased could not be identified and a very large
portion of the
concrete was pulverized, will be explained after a real
investigation
commences.
>the "witness" in question
(I'm a 'witness'???)
>[You still have problem with three of these points]
I have already
presented adequate answers to all of them. [And of course
you decide, what is adequate. None of your
"explanations" will hold any
water, but they are too short to be commented. You could
look how I did
explain the H-bomb detonation, but instead of explaining your
competitive
theory you just keep basically asking me "tell more"
and "more". You don't
understand the subject at hand enough to discuss on it.]
>[pulverization]
Explosives and
building debris. [You don't get this right before you think
how to place the charges even if you really hate the
concrete. Falling
rubble will neither smash all the concrete nor pulverize it so
totally]
>[pools of molten steel]
Molten IRON, from the thermite. [This actually is possible]
>[100 days to cool steel]
Ongoing
thermite reaction. [Thermite eats it's way downwards and burns
all the time. After perhaps a day the burning is finished and
even the
last steels would start to cool down. You cannot get the massive
heathing
required in this way.]
>[no survivors]
Complete
devastation, because the structures were cut. [Sorry. There will
always be plenty of survivors. That's why they have rescue dogs
ready in
all countries].
Dear "expert". Your theory has been annihilated.
If truth,
justice and freedom interest you, you will not
in the future disseminate your discredited theory. Acknowledge.
["You
should not become a judge in your own issue". I leave this
matter
to other persons for judgement. Perhaps someone comments, some
day]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------