probly becsause most conspiracies are true. Hows your nuclear physics? The activities for 2.7, 3.2, 4.7 and 7.57 are 33, 40, 58 and 93Bq/kg. The graph shows that there is too much U on the girder coatings. Normal levels of U are about 12, at most 40Bq/kg My belief is that there is a cold fusion weapon or device of some sort. This employs Uranium and Deuterium. The output is neutrons, lots of heat, lots of energy, gamma radiation. The devise is the size of an apple or grapefruit but heavy (20-40kg). No radioactivity after the explosion except from Tritium H-3 which together with He-4 is the product and some short lived gamma radiation from neutron activations products (e.g. Ca-45 from the Ca in the concrete, Fe-55 from the steel). These would be radioactive for a few days only. [emphasis mine] You would thus expect to find too much Uranium and also Tritium. You find both. There is a paper showing high levels of Tritium in the water at WTC. We also see U levels are too high. Maybe the Barium is part of this mixture, and the Strontium. I have certainly found high levels of both in the war samples.
but we arent talking about an idea we are talking about measured results. nuclear physics not so good?
I didn't even bother reading all that stuff as the idea of nuke being used is stupid. You post uncited material (cold fusion weapon????) and I'm supposed to take you seriously? How can you even entertain the idea of a nuclear device being used on 9/11? It's beyond insane, and you guys are just desperate for anything to promote your anti-government propaganda. Cold-fusion weapon.....awesome!
Oh and since you are promoting the use of nukes AND thermite cutters. Would not the use of nukes negate the need for thermite cutters?
the best way to understand that is to go to school, then come back and read this carefully: The activities for 2.7, 3.2, 4.7 and 7.57 are 33, 40, 58 and 93Bq/kg. The graph shows that there is too much U on the girder coatings. Normal levels of U are about 12, at most 40Bq/kg My belief is that there is a cold fusion weapon or device of some sort. This employs Uranium and Deuterium. The output is neutrons, lots of heat, lots of energy, gamma radiation. The devise is the size of an apple or grapefruit but heavy (20-40kg). No radioactivity after the explosion except from Tritium H-3 which together with He-4 is the product and some short lived gamma radiation from neutron activations products (e.g. Ca-45 from the Ca in the concrete, Fe-55 from the steel). These would be radioactive for a few days only. [emphasis mine] You would thus expect to find too much Uranium and also Tritium. You find both. There is a paper showing high levels of Tritium in the water at WTC. We also see U levels are too high. Maybe the Barium is part of this mixture, and the Strontium. I have certainly found high levels of both in the war samples.
Cold fusion weapon???? Amazing! This guy tells me the best way to understand, blah, blah, blah and then in the third sentence says there is a cold fusion weapon. Does anyone take this guy seriously at all?
No you don't! If you did you wouldn't have made the statement below. Using the word "depending" indicates you are unsure of what point he is making. So what point is he trying to make?
Excellent! So now that you've admitted that, I can present to you the following scenario based on his video and what he has said here in the forum. If I want to accurately demonstrate the law of conservation of momentum and predict the physical outcome of two, real life semi trucks, all I have to do is purchase two Hot Wheels semi trucks and smash them together. Since both you and he both think that a model/s in an experiment does not matter when trying to show results in a real life scenario, the above example is perfectly fine right for getting accurate results right?
Let's talk about the law of momentum conservation and psikeyhackr's video here: [video=youtube;caATBZEKL4c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c[/video] Below is an explanation of the law of momentum conservation taken from here: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle In psikeyhackr's video the two objects are defined as the following: Object 1 Object 2 Based on the results of the video, object 1's descent is halted and object 2 doesn't gain any momentum from the collision between itself and object 1. The result is shown in the next screen capture. According to the explanation of the law of momentum conservation above, two things should have happened. 1. Object 2 should have gained some momentum from object 1 2. The total momentum of the objects prior to object 1 and object 2 colliding should remain the same AFTER the collision. So koko, why didn't points 1 and 2 above occur in psikeyhackr's video? Were the laws of physics not in play that day or what?
Cold fusion???? Anyway, I get the feeling you're not interested in what other people think, so I won't waste my time on this stupidity. Suffice it to say, someone has been watching 'Back to the Future' too many times.
I dont care what certain people "think" when all they have is snarks and are incapable of discussing the topic on the table. - - - Updated - - - you think it didnt? got data? video? gif? anything?
Hey Dude, you're discussing a post by a fruitcake who believes in Cold Fusion. It's just crazy (*)(*)(*)(*) for crazies. What do you want me to say? I won't take anything that assumes cold fusion exists seriously, so that begs the question, why do you? Do you think Star Wars was a documentary? Pinocchio was a biography?
No, I don't think nuclear physicists are nutters, I think the person who wrote that piece is a nutter. What the (*)(*)(*)(*) is wrong with you? Do you have a mental problem? Dude, two words: COLD FUSION That should speak volumes if you have a brain. I can't believe I'm arguing with someone who posted a piece stating cold fusion is a reality.
