It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pictures Prove Mini Nukes Caused 9-11 Devastation

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:15 AM
reply to post by Mythkiller


Disinfo is getting pretty strong as of late, NO?

Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic

edit on Fri Sep 17 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:36 AM
reply to post by Mythkiller

You're right. It's impossible for me to know if you scurried or not, but in light of the information you brought forth and the information that you didn't address, it has the suggestive qualities of one that would appear to be scurrying.

Out of context, I said "I never saw anything similar" but in context I was referring to a specific portion of the picture comparison that clearly shows the lack of similarity. I already explained what I see as similar and why I don't believe it's a good comparison. I don't need to look harder as I already implied that the plumes of smoke and dust look alike. How else was I able to note the differences if I also didn't note the similarities? Just because something looks similar and someone else suggested that they are the same, does not prove that they are indeed the same.

I never mentioned or complained about any pictures not being embedded or having any sort of difficulty investigating the material you presented, but thanks for the disclaimer.

I listened to the interview and heard about the fires and the twisted and melted vehicles but am unsure the point you're trying to imply here. Is there anything in particular that I should be looking for in the slide show? I see lots of pictures of burned vehicles, crushed vehicles and burning vehicles. All sights that I would anticipate from a disaster such as this. One picture in particular was especially interesting to me since only the rear of the police car was burned. This seems to further question your original link that stated "strange fires appear to be attracted to the engine blocks". The last time I checked Ford Crown Victoria's still had their engines in the front. I've included the picture below to ease the difficulty of finding it in the slide show.

PS: Go to "my pictures" (yours), click on the picture you want to embed, a new window will open up with three linking options, copy the last one "embed on ATS" and paste it into your post. If the picture is too wide, delete the "ats" from the bracketed "atsimg" so that you're left with a bracketed "img".

edit on 9/17/2010 by Three_moons because: something needed to be fixed. Thanks for asking

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:51 AM
Please Try studying a little REAL science I wont say if they destroyed them but I WILL say if they used any KIND of nuk a giger counter will BE making all kinds of noise .
Go to a army surplus get a giger counter then goto new york and turn it on and walk around .
If there was a nuk used there YOU WILL know it .
But I highly dought you will find any thing other then background radiation.
And i have no dought taht someone has tryed this alest once and if it had come vback as a nuk it would be all over the web with proof .More then just clouds created from the collapse.
The government may have destroyed the buildings but they didn't US a nuk .
My god you could goto Hiroshima or Nagasaki and still pick up the rads from thous two nuks and taht was 70 years agaio.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Mythkiller
Nukes leave traces of Tritium:

Did you even read that reference, as if you did you would have found:

"Tritium radioluminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that the two Boeing 767 aircraft that hit the Twin Towers contained a combined 34 Ci of tritium at the time of impact in their emergency exit signs.
There is also evidence that many weapons from law enforcement were present and destroyed at WTC. Such weaponry contains by design tritium sights."

"The model is consistent with instantaneous oxidation of the airplane tritium in the jet-fuel explosion, deposition of a small fraction of HTO at ground zero, and water-flow controlled removal of HTO from the debris. The model also suggests that tritium from the weapons would be released and oxidized to HTO at a much slower rate in the lingering fires at ground zero."

So no mystery about Tritium being present...

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:45 AM
I have to agree that something other than fire or conventional explosives brought down the twin towers (Bldg. 7 was probably a normal CD job).
It was the "spire" (WTC building facing) turning to dust that really got me wondering and I have yet to hear a rational explanation from any debunkers for it.
Whether it was micro nukes in the basement or some other form of exotic weaponry will be nearly impossible to prove. There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence pointing that direction and I certainly cannot accept the OS of fire and inward bowing bringing down the towers the way they did.
I think the Hutchison effect is our best candidate for an answer as it appears to me that molecular disassociation occurred on a wide scale (it would explain the disappearing spire and the dust from the top of the towers down).
Keeping looking for answers. It will take some solid proof to bring over popular opinion and gain momentum for a new investigation, which is badly needed IMO.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:18 AM
FYI about mushroom clouds: they are produced by any sufficiently large explosion. A large enough artillery shell will create a mushroom cloud.

As for the first set of pictures, the first one appears to be when the tower is collapsing, which could make it look like a "ground hugging pyroclastic flow" when clearly it is a collapsing tower (and there is no lava involved, which I think is necessary for the definition of "pyroclastic").

Thirdly, even a "mini nuke" has a minimum possible size, as a critical mass must be reached for the chain reaction to occur. I don't think the explosions we saw were large enough even to have been a tactical nuke.

And then as another poster mentioned, radiation at the site is not considered a big issue.

Conclusion: While 9/11 was almost certainly a conspiracy, there were no nukes involved.

edit on 17-9-2010 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:33 AM
reply to post by Mythkiller

Logic fallacy

A happens . B happens Therefore A caused B. Plenty of other reasons for cancers including dust on scene
full of corrisive chemicals, pulverized glass, heavy metals

Tritium - Both aircraft contained luminous cabin lights containing tritium. Numerous police agencies had arsenals
in buildings (Port Authority, Secret Service, ATF) - luminous gun sights contain tritium . As do watches with
luminous dials and exits signs - Plenty of sources of tritium

Crater in WTC 6 - Debris from North tower falling on it caused hole in building , Fires resulted in internal collapses

The steel in just the upper half of the Tower's northeast wall weighed several thousand tons. It can be imagined, given the degree of mushrooming in the Tower collapse, that Building 6 received most of the weight of the Tower's northeast wall. Thousands of tons falling from a thousand feet could have crushed all eight stories of such a building. Moreover, the rectangular shape of the hole, and the fact that it runs the length of the Tower's northeast wall (whose remnants can be seen in the left side of the photo), suggests that it corresponds to the region of heaviest steel fallout from that wall. If the Tower continued to disintegrate in the uniform manner seen before dust clouds obscured the region of breakup, it is easy to imagine that the column-and-spandrel panels of the perimeter wall would be blown off fairly consistently in the direction perpendicular to the wall. That would result in a roughly rectangular distribution of fallout.

Fires - plenty of combustible materials (Furniture, carpets, cubicle dividers, thousands of tons of paper)
to burn . Temps reached 1800 F in places and continued to burn for 3 months

Soryy - doesnt work

Need to find some other idiotic conspiracy theory.....

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 10:23 AM
Thanks for the advice Three_moons and Kiwifoot, took me awhile but finally got it sorted.

I agree its possible the door handles could have been plastic but where were these extreme fires...apart from at the base of the buildings under tons of debris? Admittedly I don't know exactly where these vehicles were, but they show very concentrated areas of heat.

Melted cars and missing engines...
It's almost as if there was a definite concentrated line between the internal blast area and the external blast zone as the cars in the foreground are in good condition compared to their opposite counterparts.

How is this possible - These door panels have melted and yet the paint is still on the lower part of the door and not even blistered?

A badly damaged fire truck. Where did its engine go? The bottom of the tire has turned to goo below a distinct horizontal line in the tyre.

From left to right: A huge steel beam from the south tower falters, turns to "dust" and blows away...How is this possible.

I am the first to admit that I don't know a lot about nukes and I also don't know exactly what the military has upit's sleeve, but I have seen enough damage done by explosions and nothing resembles what I am seeing here.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 10:39 AM
There are 2 posts made by Sauron and Myself around the same time that talk about the cars in detail..

As with most things with that day I am curious to why some vehicles caught on fire for no reason..
Some have said overheating but these cars are police cars and ems vehicles and buses.. That didnt work well for me for these cars are made to run constantly all the time, and the temp on that day wasnt extremely hot or humid so that wasnt a good answer..

I was talking with someone on the forums here and they believe that a small tach nuke of some sort was used.. I suppose I am leaning toward something because there is no reason some of these cars and buses and so on should have caught fire.. Not only caught fire but caught fire in some spots and left others spots of the same car untouched..

Anyway... Ya I think something other than what happened that day caused something to happen that I can not answer.. One of the billion and 1 questions that i wonder about 9/11..

For Reference I do not advocate Judy Woods or her theories.. She is crazy... I am no part of her camp...

edit on 9/17/2010 by ThichHeaded because: Added That Woods is a wackjob.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 10:44 AM
Not saying I support the nuke theory, however has anyone ever heard of “Red Mercury”?

This could be a hoax, a soviet code name, or according to Samuel Cohen, the "father of the neutron bomb", a powerful explosive-like chemical known as a ballotechnic. The energy released during its reaction is enough to directly compress the secondary without the need for a fission primary. He claims that he has learned that the Soviet scientists perfected the use of red mercury and used it to produce a number of softball-sized "pure fusion" bombs weighing as little as 10 lb (4.5 kg), which he claims were made in large numbers.

This to the best of my knowledge gives the possibility to detonate a fusion bomb without the side effects of EMP or radioactivity.

Whatever the case is, this is an interesting read.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by Mythkiller

I am FF with 22 years experience

Those cars are not "melted" - what happened was that plastice/rubber parts of vehicles burned leaving behind
the metal. Many vehicles today have plastic body parts including bumpers which burn well.

As for "missing engines" - what engines are missing ? Again engine compartment contains many plastic/rubber
parts (belts, hoses, fluid containers) -someone not versed in thsi can easily make mistakes

As for fire truck - engine is mounted farther back where pump is. Again someone not too smartt jumped to conclusions

These vehicles are lined up on West Side Highway having been towed there to clear scene .

Vehicles were set on fire by flaming debris/jet fuel from towers - vehicles were set on fire starting with
AA11 impact at 8:47. FDNY having other priorities let them burn , which turn ignited adjacent vehicles

If look at pictures can see the numerous vehicles burning at scene

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 10:55 AM
There is no other rational explanation: EMP's were experienced by many people, and testimony is available on demand. ONLY nukes could cause the EMP effects that are documented, no other source even comes close. I used to believe the judy Woods beam story, but the beams cannot duplicate the effects of EMP as closely as seen.

Nukes explain the incredible temperatures documented, and explain the ' dustification' of the steel core, etc. Nukes fit the bill all the way, and of course conventional means were used as well. It is beyond doubt that thermates were used, as well as regular explosives. No doubt the perps had anything and everything they could want at their disposal, and the dustification could not take place from conventional alone...small nukes staged in series would do exactly what is seen: Towers exploding upwards and outwards, with all comcrete turned to dust and less dense items scattered, like paper.

Falling debris is a sick may be all the official story cultists have left in their desire to avoid reality, and many EMP effects were seen far from falling if debris could melt an engine block while leaving the rear perfect!!

The problem is NOT evidence....we have plenty of that....all we need are honest media...and that is far away.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:05 AM
Vehicle on fire

Video of burning vehicles - about 1 minute in

Numerous vehicles set on fire by debris falling from buildings, also vehicles ignited by fires in adjacent vehicles

Cars today built with plastic which burns.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:09 AM

Originally posted by thedman
Vehicles were set on fire by flaming debris/jet fuel from towers

No this is wrong, The fuel was consumed on impact which means it burned off right after inital impact.. FEMA states this.

Originally posted by thedman
- vehicles were set on fire starting with
AA11 impact at 8:47. FDNY having other priorities let them burn , which turn ignited adjacent vehicles

If look at pictures can see the numerous vehicles burning at scene

This is wrong.. As above stated the fuel was burned off on initial impact.. you can see this in all the videos of the impacts that the fuel burns off on initial impact, I dont need anyone to tell me otherwise.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by richierich

There is no other rational explanation: EMP's were experienced by many people, and testimony is available on demand. ONLY nukes could cause the EMP effects that are documented, no other source even comes close. I used to believe the judy Woods beam story, but the beams cannot duplicate the effects of EMP as closely as seen.

Emp? - EMP doesn't start fires, It burns out sensative electronics in vicinity. Now if there was an EMP
why are the radios and video recorders still working ?

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:11 AM


Why even have a plane hit the tower, if you have these?

I'll say the same thing here that I said in the CD thread. The collapse of both towers started at the aircraft's impact point. If there were mini-nukes involved,
how did the people who placed them know where the planes were going to hit? How did the nukes survive the impact and explosion of the aircraft? Anybody know the easiest way to disarm a nuke?........................................You blow it up. A nuclear bomb is a delicate thing. Everything has to work just right to get a nuclear explosion, or else all you get is a conventional explosion and contamination from the radioactive components. Otherwise a "dirty bomb".

As far as Tritum being found, I know the aircraft emergency exit signs contained some, but, did anyone think of the smoke detectors in the towers? The majority of smoke detectors have minute amounts of Tritum in their sensors. Figure on several detectors on each floor of each tower and that minute amount can add up.

Mini-nukes. That's a good one.

edit on 17-9-2010 by JIMC5499 because: Spelling error

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:11 AM

Originally posted by richierich
EMP's were experienced by many people, and testimony is available on demand.

That's gonna need a citation. Got a link?

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:14 AM
Im not gonna comment on the on what took down the towers, who really knows??
But I restore cars for a living, and I have seen a lot of stuff. Several years ago I had a garage fire, 3 cars burnt up and looked just the same.

Most modern vehicles are made out of 22 guage sheet metal. It takes a very small amount of heat to warp and distort.

As for the missing hoods on some of the vehicles, a lot of them are made out of fiberglass or aluminum. In my garage fire, the aluminum wheels on my truck melted completly into puddles.

Virtually no car built in the last 20 years has steel bumpers. They are usually ABS plastic, headlights, grill, etc... all would have melted in a small fire.

As for the paint , I will try to find pictures from my fire. All three vehicles in the garage fire, looked no different from what is shown in the pictures.

I have yet to see a picture of car with a missing engine.. Im not calling you out. . I just dont see it...

Google "car fire" and Im sure you will find similiar images..

Anyway, I am not trying to discredit the rest of this theory, because it goes over my head. But Im just puzzled about the relevance of the cars to any of this. I cant even comprehend what these pics of normal looking burnt cars has to do with any of this theory.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:21 AM
reply to post by Cheesefacedogbone

They are trying to use the pictures of the cars to back up their claim of mini-nukes. They are trying to say that the damage to the cars was caused by the thermal pulse of the detonating nuke.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by JIMC5499

I realize thats their intention. it just things like "missing engines" that just scream total BS to me.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in