You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] ACatIsFineToo ago 

Like I said, and maybe I'm not properly understanding how to read that website, I couldn't figure out what was actually being claimed. I certainly wasn't claiming no-one was killed, I was saying that if there was a massive release of neutrons at the site it would have killed anyone nearby.

What is actually being claimed here? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I can't follow the website and still don't know.

If it's a miniature h-bomb? That's achievable, but doesn't seem like it would have much advantage over conventional explosives.

"Blowing apart everything on an atomic level" - wouldn't create visible dust and would create massive evidence in the form of isotopes of the breakdown products created. The entire site would have been dangerously radioactive for years later. And hydrogen bombs do most of their damage from release of conventional thermal energy, not from neutrons.

0
1

[–] justjakk [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

In Paul's research, he is claiming that it was a nuclear fusion reaction. That reaction result's in less than 10% (I think that was the number) of explosive energy. The result is a massive realease of neutron's. In that research, he explains and shows the actual test's conducted on blast radius. When the particles where released from the basement, they travelled up the elevator shaft and fanned out along any path they could. The entire structure was literally constructed for the sole purpose of testing this weapon on it. The reason it didn't kill anyone nearby is evident in the 2 video's shown. In them, the particle affects can be seen in the video feed to be disrupted with glitter(Paul also links to ACTUAL tests conducted which are IDENTICAL). After the glitter, the video sync goes out, then is completed disrupted. This weapon does NOT produce a huge BLAST or explosion. It's sole purpose is to release neutrons at a high rate of speed. An analogy is a billiards cue ball, striking a racked set of billiard balls. The cue ball blows the racked balls apart, and in turn, those balls bust up OTHER balls. This weapon was NOT an H-bomb, in the sense that most people think of it. It's a fusion reaction. Conventional explosives are chemical reactions that have no impact on material around them, other then than the explosion blowing the constructed objects to pieces. The objects are NOT converted to dust by conventional explosives. Watch the video's. There was nothing but dust and it was clearly visible. It was everywhere. and it WAS full of isotopes. That's why to this day, people are still getting cancer from 911. That's why ground zero has all that water circulation pools, covering up and filtering the radiation.

Plus, there are comparison photo's of hiroshima victims with radiation burns compared to some of those people working in that rubble. Any protection those people wore, was worthless. They ALL should have been wearing ground zero radiation suits, at the very least. Gee, I wonder why the site of 911 is named "ground zero". That's for nuclear impact sites. That's because this weapon IS NUCLEAR. Nuclear Fusion.

0
1

[–] ACatIsFineToo 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Thank you. That makes far more sense to me now. I think for whatever reason the links on that site don't load properly - probably my noscript settings. Anyway.

Neutron induced failure of materials like steel and concrete is a very slow process. It mostly hardens and embrittles the materials leading to an ultimate fatigue failure. Also, neither concrete nor steel are going to contribute to a neutron chain reaction, so the neutrons would have to be produced entirely at the initial source. The "billiard ball" effect occurs in materials that are fissile/fusile, not in materials like iron (which is, nuclearly, the most stable known element.)

With regards to the cancer from the overhaul - modern construction materials are very carcinogenic in fires. Firefighters wear SCBA much more for protection from the long term effects of modern fire smoke than for preventing passing out from smoke inhalation.

At the distance videos were taken from, it's hard to tell dust from gravel, with regards to the material coming out of the building. Concrete which has already lost its structural integrity will crumble while falling. I can't find the video of the steel beams turning to dust, so I won't make any claims on that. Something falling from the top of the building would be going over 100mph by the time it hit the ground, so having concrete generate substantial dust clouds on impact isn't surprising.

In sum, I don't believe that a neutron based device could cause material failures seen at the WTC in such a short time period. Nor is something exotic required to produce the effects seen on 9/11. Any device which could generate a neutron flux large enough to cause rapid material failure, would cause extremely rapid death of any humans present. Such a device would be orders of magnitude more powerful and compact than any known technology of the sort.

Not saying "nothing to see here." Whatever specfic mechanism was used on 9/11, some derka derka in a cave was very unlikely the original cause of it. There are a lot of people and nations who benefited immensely from 9/11 and the wars it generated. I still think there's more utility to focusing on who than debating what was used to achieve it.