Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (12569)	3/20/2006 6:45:20 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Would we find that on a video-tape presented to Al Jazeera?! Hmmm. They might. Think of the terror THAT could inspire! > It exists in a few university/national lab facilities and takes a lot of precise equipment. To me as a layman, lasers are ubiquitous therefore it makes sense that they could be used in a portable, mini-nuke set-up, even a semi-experimental one. The idea does not seem far-fetched. We're talking high power laser here, not LEDs found in a TV control display. > The explosion also leaves behind a lot more radioactivity than you credit it for. Let's consider, hypothetically, that mini-nukes were exploded in the basements of the WTC towers, nearly 100 ft below ground level, with the intention of destroying the bases of the 47, 4 inch thick, steel columns in each building. That contradicts what was cited as evidence in the past - the "puffs" along the side of the buildings. Also these in the past have been referred to as "controlled demolitions". Find me a previous controlled demolition of a skyscraper that ONLY had explosives in the basement. What did those beams look like? What was their cross section? How much explosive power is needed to destroy them? And would the building fall if only they were destroyed? A. I would argue that little or no radio-activity would find its way into the atmosphere. Depends on how large an explosion was needed. B. Since no independent observers were permitted on site in order to make measurements and the steel debris was removed ASAP, how would we know if residual radio-activity was, in fact, present? I accept there was molten metal in the basements for months afterwards. I am also aware that some tritium was found in the atmosphere near the WTC (and also that some atmospheric radio-activity was apparently found near the Pentagon) but I'm not aware of any radio-activity tests having been done at the WTC site itself. If the explosions were large enough, they would throw out radioactive material. http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm > You WEREN'T going to bring down the WTC towers without telltale radioactivity left behind and spreading out. Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence? No. But it doesn't mean nukes were used either. It means a Mexican stand-off at this point.