9/11 – Mini-Nukes or Directed Energy Weapon?
Pyroclastic flow on 9/11
Intel Hub Editors Note: Here at the Intel Hub we welcome all intelligent information and while we may not agree with all the theories put forth (specifically the no plane theory) the images and facts presented in this article cannot simply be ignored due to their inconvenience.
Before Its News
By Zen Gardner
February 16th, 2011
Pyroclastic flow at nuclear test site
Introduction by Nila Sagadevan
I began to think about this subject all over again when I read Susan Lindauer’s 9/11 forewarning in August 2001 (in the news yesterday) about micro-nukes at the WTC.
Coincidence? Take this for whatever it’s worth. It is not my intent to throw fuel onto yet another internal debate: the Thermite Vs Nuke imbroglio. That said, it has bothered me for years how it was that the pools of molten metal in the basements could have remained in a molten state for some two months purely as a result of a Thermite reaction. It’s simply not possible; this is more in accord with a self-sustaining nuclear reaction of some kind.
Pyroclastic flow at nuclear test site
Then there’s the problem with the more than 400,00 cu.ft. of concrete being almost instantly converted into 50-micron talcum-like powder. This could have happened only by instantly vaporizing all the moisture inherent in theconcrete. Thermite may have produced the requisite temperatures (degrees) to melt steel, but certainly not the heat (BTUs) to vaporize 110 one-acre floor slabs.
This debate has raged for years (alas, with a few crazies thrown into the fray as usual), and I’ve no desire to reopen it here; I’m sending this out because I just received it from a friend under the heading, “Stuff you already know”. Until such time as someone out there can explain to me how themetal in the basements remained molten for months (beyond limply offering that “debris is a great thermal insulator”); and how all that concrete was literally powderized, this is one debate that shall remain alive at least in my own mind.
Incidentally, the author of the article does not deny that “thermite and conventional explosives could have been used in some subsidiary capacity” (that’s already been proven by Steven Jones et al). He maintains the principal force was nuclear.
Like most 9/11 researchers, I’ve seen numerous photos of vehicles on neighboring streets — some, over a hundred yards away — with their steel shells singed and twisted beyond recognition — but their plastic moldings and fabric upholstery strangely intact. And to think all of this happened in under 10 seconds? The use of micro-nukes is a possibility I’ve never dismissed, and now Ms Lindauer’s forewarning of their use only rekindles my suspicions.
No comments:
Post a Comment