It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
The concept of detonating "mini-nukes" in the vicinity of the Twin Towers on the morning of Sept. 11th is the fanciful imaginings of the woefully uninformed. I'll simply as these questions:

1. If a tactical nuclear weapon detonated in or near the Twin Towers, would there be any video footage of the aircraft hitting the towers when those detonations occurred?

2. How many people present in the adjacent buildings died from exposure to gamma radiation, or received flash burns from the thermal pulse, or were blinded?

3. Considering the HUGE amount of debris and dust at the site, where is all the fallout containing alpha and beta particles?

4. If even a TINY nuclear device (0.2-0.4 Kt) was detonated dead-center inside one of the Twin Towers, wouldn't the tower itself simply collapsed immediately? A 0.2 Kt explosion is still roughly 4-5 THOUSAND pounds of TNT....

I could ask more questions, but I think you get the picture......Man oh man.......




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Mythkiller
 

I seem to recall, like thedman said, that these cars were towed from the area of the WTC and the picture was taken on the West Side Highway. I could speculate that the circled area confirms the towing and shows a scratch mark where it was dragged or pushed.




I honestly don't understand why you're referring to the cars as melted since I only see burned cars. I also don't understand why you're talking about missing engines. I see two cars without a hood here and the one I enlarged I can still see what looks like an engine. I see something in the engine bay and I can make out at least two circular objects that sure look like pulleys to me. What I do see missing is a hood, radiator and grill. The circled part gives me the impression that something fell on the front of the car and destroyed missing said objects or, lIke Cheesefacedogbone mentioned, the fire consumed the parts. I haven't a clue where these cars were but seem to recall reading that cars were towed to this location and accounts for the burned versus unburned cars.




The police car picture doesn't seem especially odd to me and it appears to be the same location as the first picture. Again, I don't see melted anything. In the circled area, I see what appears to be damage from something falling on it and and it catching on fire. The burn pattern seems to suggest the same to me.




Yes, a badly damaged fire truck indeed. The circle up top appears to show damage from something that fell on it with great force. Note the inset picture and the location of the large bumper and then the grill and behind that, the engine. Just like thedman mentioned previously, while I was putting pictures together and typing this. Compare it to the damaged fire truck and what do you see? A picture that barely shows the front of the engine. The tire obviously does show that it melted some. I'm not positive what you mean by the horizontal line but I'll take a stab at it. Note to the far right of the photo is a bucket from a backhoe that appears to be pushing the truck. The pool of black stuff could be oil from the damaged engine.




I think your perception is being manipulated into thinking the beam is turning to "dust". Seriously, you're being fooled by believing this. Watch this very brief video, which is the 4 pictures animated and looped 3 times, then form a decision and read my interpretation.

WTC beam




I really hope you see it differently presented in this way. I see it falling a bit to the left and away from the camera, giving it the illusion that it's disappearing into dust. You can see it leaning and falling and getting "lower" each frame.




edit on 9/17/2010 by Three_moons because:




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
IMO any one that is reading this thread should watch the move"Evening in Byzantium" 1978 that became, in theory, reality, on 9/11/01. see it then think! for some times, art is reality, just takes time for it to do so.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 

Did FEMA also state there was no flaming debris? How about the car that's clearly seen burning in the video thedman posted?


reply to post by richierich
 

Okay, I'd like this testimony that's available on demand.


reply to post by Asktheanimals
 

Does this really look like it turns to dust?
WTC beam





Or does it look like it's falling away from the camera and creating an illusion?



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Pyros
 



4. If even a TINY nuclear device (0.2-0.4 Kt) was detonated dead-center inside one of the Twin Towers, wouldn't the tower itself simply collapsed immediately? A 0.2 Kt explosion is still roughly 4-5 THOUSAND pounds of TNT....


Actually .02 kt is 20 TONS (aka 40,000 lbs) - for comparison the Oklahoma City bomb came in at about
5000 lbs (2.5 tons)


Here is quick calculator for lethal blast radius of nuclear weapons - need Microsoft Excel/Works or calculator
with fractional exponents

take yield in tons (ie 1kt is 1000 tons, 10kt 10000) divide by 2500 this is Y

Take result and raise to power (^)

Blast = Y ^.41 (4.7 psi overpressure - equivalent to Cat 5 hurricane)

Thermal = Y ^ 33 ( 3rd degree burn on exposed skin)

Radiation = Y ^ .19 (500 rem - lethal dose)

Multiply result by 1000 to get distance in meters

For 1 kt

Thermal 739 meters

Blast 687 meters

Radiation 840 meters



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


In other words.

Big smoking radioactive crater. Building debris scattered over a 1/3 mile radius. Both towers gone with one blast. Buildings 1/2 mile away with shattered windows and burning facades due to shock wave and thermal pulse. Buildings across the river damaged because of the lack of resistance to both shockwave and thermal pulse. Thousands with radiation sickness and thousands more flash blinded due to detonation.

Did anything like this happen? Nope. Nuff said.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Hang on a minute...am i talking a foreign language here or what?!

You say essentially the same thing i did, that if this were a mini battlefield nuke, there would be radiation all over the show, which there wasn't (so I DON'T BUY THE NUKE THEORY), you answer my post as though i was saying I thought that nukes WERE used, and you get 20 stars and i get nothing!!!

What the hell?!!
and








edit on 17/9/2010 by spikey because: spelling error due to gnashing of teeth



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Not that this is really needed in my opinion, but in order to deny ignorance and show further evidence that the cars at the WTC were burned by fire, and not by a mini nuke or similar, here's some examples of other cars burned by fires and their similarities.

The origin of this car fire is apparently in the engine compartment. Without the inset picture one might presume that the engine is no longer there, but it is. One can also clearly see the extensive damage to the entire front end of the car and all of the missing parts that presumably were consumed by the fire. Also noteworthy is all the black goo, as it's been described, on the ground presumably from melted plastic in this case.


Here's a couple of pictures of police cars, one from being burned during a riot (the inset) and the other from malfunctioning after market police specific lighting.


This car was apparently fully engulfed yet part of the rear bumper was not affected by the fire. There's also another instance of goo near the rear.


It appears that not all of the paint was destroyed (driver's door at least) during this inferno. Of particular interest is the "missing" hood and what could be perceived as a void in the engine bay.


These 2 trucks were destroyed when the garage they were in was struck by lightening and caught on fire. You can see damage from the roof that collapsed on the truck in the foreground. (I'm unsure why there's grass growing but simply relating the story that was attached with the picture)


This car is fully engulfed but the paint at the front is unaffected.


This picture is included to show a wide angle view of the cars that were placed along the WSH/FDR which are related to pictures previously discussed.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Two things that struck me as odd (at the time) was the same two facts addressed. Why is the paper not burning and where is all the steel?

The truth has no agenda: Speak truth!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
The "theory" of nukes has already been looked at by scientists and was proven false. That paper can be read here:

www.journalof911studies.com...

You may also want to read my thread that pertains to this subject here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
considering that nuclear weapons are 65 year old technology and the u.s. has developed nuclear grenades the size of regular grenades, anything is possible including nuclear explosives that are small enough to be smuggled in anywhere and that release minimal radiation during ingnition. don't forget all those firefighters, volunteers and clean up crews that mysteriously developed ground zero syndrome and were shut up with hush money.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
and the u.s. has developed nuclear grenades the size of regular grenades,


Um, the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch does not actually exist, nor do nuclear grenades that small. Your source for that claim is?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



Originally posted by thedman
Here is quick calculator for lethal blast radius of nuclear weapons - need Microsoft Excel/Works or calculator
with fractional exponents

take yield in tons (ie 1kt is 1000 tons, 10kt 10000) divide by 2500 this is Y

Take result and raise to power (^)

Blast = Y ^.41 (4.7 psi overpressure - equivalent to Cat 5 hurricane)

Thermal = Y ^ 33 ( 3rd degree burn on exposed skin)

Radiation = Y ^ .19 (500 rem - lethal dose)

Multiply result by 1000 to get distance in meters

For 1 kt

Thermal 739 meters

Blast 687 meters

Radiation 840 meters


Thedman - you forgot to specify the height/depth of the nuke at detonation? certainly this formula cannot apply if the device is buried underground to any appreciable distance especially if it is closely surrounded by rock.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
It's not a pyroclastic explosion. Just because it looks like one. The FLOW and appearance is what makes it one. For example, pyroclastic explosions flow UPWARDS. The WTC buildings fell DOWNWARDS. And the resulting smoke stack is what was once floors. The bulb at the bottom is the collapsing debris impacting floors as it continues to fall.

It's the opposite of a pyroclastic flow.

Disputed.

And yeah, lol radiation? Or were they using hydrogen mini-nukes?
Save the environment with new green nukes! Radiation free!


edit on 18-9-2010 by mryanbrown because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Mythkiller
 



Originally posted by Mythkiller
A picture paints a thousand words - I urge everyone to take a look at these - let the debunking begin...

www.henrymakow.com...


As many have already stated in this thread, the pictures don't actually prove anything. However, when added to the other evidence pointing towards nuclear demolition, they help build an extremely strong case. I've read/watched the presentation of cases by a number of individuals, some who make extremely good arguments and others who seem to go off on strange tangents. If you can get past the bits that painfully stretch the imagination too far, there's enough solid food for thought and a basis for further research.

In any order, I suggest the following reading and viewing:

The Nuclear Demolition of The World Trade Center
166-page report of evidence supporting an "underground secret nuclear reactor" theory

Update: The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTC
plus the Original Report
(multiple micro-nukes used on the day)

911 WTC nuclear demolition Dimitri Khalezov (this video keeps getting knocked off youtube for various reasons but keep trying to chase it down)
(nuclear demolition built into towers as condition for build approval)

911 Eyewitness 1 of 3 (and follow links to 2 and 3) for evidence of multiple explosions and timings

Google Video Link


TruthTheory.org - 9/11 Mysteries Important documentary and eye-witness testimonies

Bali Micro Nuke - Lack of Radiation Confuses "Experts"
(Another micro-nuke attack with a nod towards Canary Wharf, London Docklands)

YouTube - 1996 London Docklands bombing (Who knows?)


As an argument against, here's Dr Stephen Jones' Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf. He argues (unconvincingly IMO) that the nuclear demolition theories are disproved based on a number of points. Judge it for yourself.

If you've heard the cases as presented you'll be in a better position to pass judgement on them.

POSER: If you drop tons of metal on top of a building, how do you end up with a deep, empty hole? (WTC 6)



edit on 18-9-2010 by JohnJasper because: Forgot two important videos 9/11 Eyewitness and 9/11 Mysteries




edit on 18-9-2010 by JohnJasper because: Added contrary opinion source (S. Jones)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Here's an excellent interview with Dimitri Khalezov--- former officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence, who supports the nuclear demolition theory.
Video is 1 of 26 and worth the watch.





posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 



considering that nuclear weapons are 65 year old technology and the u.s. has developed nuclear grenades the size of regular grenades, anything is possible including nuclear explosives that are small enough to be smuggled in anywhere and that release minimal radiation during ingnition. don't forget all those firefighters, volunteers and clean up crews that mysteriously developed ground zero syndrome and were shut up with hush money.


Nuclear grenades?

Mimimal radiation ?

See you have no concept of phyics ....

Smallest warhead developed was W54 - it measured 12 x 16 inches and weighed 50 pounds



en.wikipedia.org...

Nuclear reaction produces massive amounts high energy gamma radiation. In fact reason developing these small
size warheads is the lethal radius of radiation far exceeded the blast radius limiting collateral damage to buildings
Idea was to sicken/kill enemy troops without destroying everything around



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


Yes it is for airbursts. Problem how does one bury it in middle of Manhattan without any seeing it?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



Originally posted by thedman

Yes it is for airbursts. Problem how does one bury it in middle of Manhattan without any seeing it?


For starters, there were 6 basement levels so even unburied, it could have been approx 100 ft underground (my guess as I can't find an actual figure.) In such a controlled area with underground rail access, any amount of digging could have been done. However, my point is only that one cannot assume airburst parameters would apply to any given nuclear detonation.

As a related point, 9/11 Mysteries which I linked to in the previous post includes a number of eye-witness testimonies to works being done in the towers in the time leading up to 9/11 as well as other suspicious activity on the day. It's worth checking out.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join