Manhattan Project Redux

2cb4-1_705x1000.jpg

Kerosene did not do this. The only thing that has the power to create the effects that were seen at the WTC on 9/11 are the bombs that were first created by the presciently named Manhattan Project.

Only nuclear explosives have the power to create a spectacular explosion such as this one and vaporize people and whole buildings and their contents into clouds of ultrafine dust particles, particles which were as small as 3 microns (the majority of the concrete particles were 3 microns). The WTC towers not only collapsed, they ATOMIZED into dust particles. The finer the dust the greater the energy required to create it.

Radiation hotspots have been found in various parts of NYC following 9/11 and are detectable five years later. There are hotspots over the Fresh Kills landfill where 9/11 debris was dumped and a spectacular radiation spike over the Israeli Embassy.

sw_all735x529.jpg

Nuclear devices were the ordnance of choice as they could produce the greatest amount of destruction for the smallest weight of explosive used – even a 9/11 debunking site says it would have been impractical to have used the amount of conventional explosives that has been calculated to bring about the destruction seen on 9/11:

Now if this was to be provided by explosives, then how much might be required?

Well, a metric ton (1,000 KG) of TNT has 4.184 * 10^9 joules (http://www.answers.com/topic/megaton ). A ton is a lot of explosives, but not enough for us: we have to get to 36 x 10^11 joules. Which suggests we would need 860.420 tons (aka 860,420 kilogrammes, or 1,896,901 pounds) of TNT to produce the WTC collapse and its observed results.

Nearly 1.9 million pounds of explosives placed without noticing? Per tower? How many detonators do you think might be required for that? How much cabling? Is this sounding just a tiny bit unlikely to anyone?

There are more powerful explosives, of course: C4 will offer 34% more energy, for instance, reducing out requirements to 642,104 kilogrammes. Let’s assume the conspirators used something ten times more powerful still: now we’re down to 64,210 kg, or 141,558 pounds of this mystery explosive. Per tower. We’re being generous here, but this still isn’t sounding very plausible.

http://www.911myths.com/html/pulverised_concrete.html

https://apunked.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/dust_n_2_mod.jpg?w=640

No, it doesn’t sound credible at all, and if it is farfetched to think that 1.9 million pounds of conventional explosives (which would have been the amount required to produce the degree of pulverization seen in 9/11 and this is an unscientifically calculated and gross underestimate – see below), were placed in the three towers without anyone noticing, then think how much sense does the theory that two plane-tankfuls of fuel destroyed the WTC Twin Towers MAKE?

And that these tankfuls of airliner gas destroyed WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 as well? (They’re stretching the airliner gas rather thin…) These towers weren’t hit by planes but they were demolished in the attack along with WTC 1 and 2, and in the case of WTC 7, the destruction was complete: WTC 7 imploded into a dust heap that settled on its footprint. How does the two plane-tankfuls of kerosene explain these events?

Pic 1: WTC 7; Pic 2 and Pic 3: WTC 6

No, kerosene is completely out when it comes to the destruction of WTC towers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (seven towers were in the complex). Conventional bombs may account for the destruction of WTC towers 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, but only a nuclear event can explain the utter devastation of WTC 1 and 2. (WTC 7 imploded; WTC 1 and 2 exploded.)

What the debunker ignores is that not only does the total mass of the buildings that were destroyed in 9/11 have to be taken into account when making energy output calculations, but also:
1) the mass of the buildings’ contents
2) the degree of atomization (the smallest size of particles was 0.3 micron)
3) the material that was destroyed.

And steel was ablated we know – see the video of the steel spire atop the North Tower turning into steel dust, leaving a trail of steel spray – note no fire present ….

It must be asked WHAT has the capacity to vaporize steel?


GIF of steel spire of North Tower dissolving into dust

Not fire, not kerosene fire certainly, and not even conventional bombs ………………. but NUCLEAR ENERGY.


WTC mini-mushroom cloud and Nagasaki mushroom cloud

A nuclear bomb can dissolve steel; it can turn anything in its path into fine dust; it can make it appear as if matter has disappeared. No other bomb releases that kind of energy.

And isn’t that what happened on 9/11?

Where are all the bodies?

Is this man covered in the dust of human bodies? Were the bodies pulverized into dust? And then mixed with the dust of the steel, the concrete, the glass, the plastic, the planes, the wood, the …?

The phenomenon of vanishing humans was also observed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Any object within a two kilometer distance from the hypocenter suffered significant burn damage, and those located near the hypocenter were instantaneously vaporized. The Shima hospital, the hypocenter of the atomic bomb was vaporized, along with all her patients.

http://users.dickinson.edu/%7Ehistory/product/steele/seniorthesis.htm

What made the people disappear on 9/11?

What we witnessed was not just the collapse of a couple of buildings, but the unprecedented blanket destruction of matter, turning the WTC Complex site into a ground-zero scene of nuclear devastation.


Ground-zero after attack

Compare this with the firebombing of Dresden where structures (made of wood and brick) still stood even after the Allies unleashed a massive bomb attack of holocaustrific proportions:

2 (1)
Dresden after fire-bombing

Can we even begin to compare the destructive force of two plane-tankfuls of airliner gas with the relentless pounding of Dresden by bombers dropping thousands of pounds of fire-bombs?

If it can’t pass the steel-ablation bottleneck test, then it wasn’t the thing that destroyed the Twin Towers.

Kerosene fails the bottleneck test completely; the amount of conventional explosives required to destroy the quantity of steel that was observed to have been obliterated on 9/11 would have been ridiculously high, and besides steel ablation is not a characteristic effect of most conventional ordnance detonations, so conventional bombs also fail the test; thermite has been put forward as a candidate, but thermite is an incendiary device that destroys steel through heat; and the explosions that we witnessed that day when the Twin Towers blew up were notable for the lack of flame and overall absence of typical incendiary ordnance effect.

This latter observation also puts to lie the official claim that the towers were brought down by gravity AND fire.

       
Picture 1: Madrid Tower fire; Picture 2: Twin Towers – fires almost burned out before collapse
Other features of the explosions seen on 9/11 that support a nuclear event are:

– the seismic pattern of collapses had a nuclear fingerprint

– cancer profile of rescue workers mimics Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors

– NYC is awash in nuclear fission products

– the Compton effect was observed – electric and electronic devices were knocked out by the nuclear radiation; this effect is typically seen during nuclear explosions

– phenomenally high levels of tritium are present at the WTC site – tritium is a nuclear fusion product

– nearby cars were toasted


Toasted car

And what is all this paper doing, floating around after the Twin Towers explosions? The Paper and Powder Theory of nuclear explosions. Everything except paper gets turned into dust.


Paper and powder

People say that the lack of obvious fallout rules out the nuclear bomb theory, but they forget that the nuclear device was “small”, a low-yield device that produces minimal fallout – a minimum residual radiation mini-nuke (MRR device), not the kind of megaton fission bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki or Hiroshima or on Pacific atolls during nuclear bomb testing and that produces obvious observable fallout; and they also overlook that if the fallout of a MRR bomb is not tested for immediately and with the correct instruments, it will be missed.

They also fail to take into account the presence of the longterm effects of fallout that ARE observable such as the radiation-induced cancers we see among the survivors and rescue workers – these people are walking evidence that America was nuked on 9/11.

wtc-wreckage-exterior_shell_of_south_tower2.jpg

WTC Wreckage – exterior shell of south tower (Date of photo: Sept 11, 2001)

JPG from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WTC-Wreckage-exterior_shell_of_south_tower.jpg

Source: http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=5259669&ct=8644769

393px-wtc-remnant_highres-13.jpg

URL: WTC-remnant highres.jpg

IMG URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WTC-remnant_highres.jpg

New York, N.Y. (Sept. 13, 2001) — A New York City fire fighter looks up at what remains of the World Trade Center after its collapse during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. U.S. Navy Photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Jim Watson. (RELEASED) URL: http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=1465

_________________________________________________________________