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: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


Just one problem with your little fantasy - the basements were still intact , especially the concrete slurry wall
or bathtub which formed the foundations of the towers

The PATH rail tunnels under the Hudson were intact as were the subways, though in some cases steel beams
had speared into the ground and damaged the tunnels . This incluides several rail cars stored there which were undamaged


In several places, individual beams from the trade center weighing tons punched through the street, through about seven feet of earth and through the concrete-and-brick tunnel ceiling, and then kept on going into the tunnel floor, where they remain lodged like spears.


Then of cource had one of your fantasy nukes gone off in the basement would have killed everyone there
including that darling of the lunatic fringe Willie Rodriguez, the man of a thousand stories

Radiation even from basement explosion would still sicken/killed people for hundreds of meters around. Still
would have left residues of the nuclear material and fallout products. Yet no radiation was detedted by haz mat
teams who specifically looked for such traces of nuclear, chemical, biologic weapons

Sorry does not compute......




posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


Just one problem with your little fantasy - the basements were still intact , especially the concrete slurry wall
or bathtub which formed the foundations of the towers

The PATH rail tunnels under the Hudson were intact as were the subways, though in some cases steel beams
had speared into the ground and damaged the tunnels . This incluides several rail cars stored there which were undamaged


In several places, individual beams from the trade center weighing tons punched through the street, through about seven feet of earth and through the concrete-and-brick tunnel ceiling, and then kept on going into the tunnel floor, where they remain lodged like spears.


Then of cource had one of your fantasy nukes gone off in the basement would have killed everyone there
including that darling of the lunatic fringe Willie Rodriguez, the man of a thousand stories

Radiation even from basement explosion would still sicken/killed people for hundreds of meters around. Still
would have left residues of the nuclear material and fallout products. Yet no radiation was detedted by haz mat
teams who specifically looked for such traces of nuclear, chemical, biologic weapons

Sorry does not compute......


Please don't ridicule my fantasy! I'm not ridiculing yours whatever it may be. I was merely pointing out that your formula only applied to airburst and not directly to any other set of circumstances. Whether or not a nuke was planted in the basement, below the basement or in a number of locations is another point altogether.

What cannot be denied is the seismic evidence indicating a massive explosion just before the collapse of towers 1 & 2 and smaller ones at the time of the aircraft impacts and the collapse of tower 7. If you've checked out my links in this earlier post, you'll know that the timing of the massive explosions preceded the collapse of each tower by approx 12 seconds which coincides with Dmitri Khalezov's explanation of the projection of the crushing wave generated by an underground nuke detonation. (link kindly supplied by Human Alien in this post.) Is he right? I don't know but as fantasies go, this one is worth investigating, not ruling out because some evidence doesn't appear to fit.

(Seismic sources)
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
911research.wtc7.net - Seismic Records of the Major Events in Manhattan

(As a little aside, nothing says that the seismic events coinciding with the aircraft impacts had to be caused by the aircraft impacts. The firefighter evidence showing the explosive damage at lobby level well below the aircraft impact level is a more likely source of the reading IMO. (See 911 Mysteries- the documentary))

By the way, you appear to be quoting the info about steel spears embedded in the tunnel. If so please provide link as I'm not aware of this particular bit of evidence.

Do burning cars prove or disprove nuclear demolition? I'm not convinced either way.
How about firefighters surviving the collapse of the north tower? Chief Richard Picciotto
How about the damage to the bathtub although not destroyed/melted? (See 911 Mysteries- the documentary)

Are you really sure that you have evidence disproving the use of nuclear demolition despite the overwhelming evidence in favor of it? I use to have a book on tornados that showed where a house had been destroyed by a twister but left a bicycle standing in the driveway. Would you deny that a tornado had destroyed the house just because the bicycle wasn't knocked over?



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Hey.

Dimitri Khalezovs claim, that mini-nukes were detonated under the three WTC buildings isn’t true. period.
..for the simple fact that the lower parts of the core(s) was left standing ..so obviously it didn’t disappear into this “nuclear cavity” as suggested by Dimitri Khalezov ..so his theory CAN’T be true
Here’s some photos and on some of them you can see the core remains of the North Tower
911research.wtc7.net...
-
-
-


Now to this article..
www.henrymakow.com...
First..
..The North Towers core was NOT turned into nano-dust as claimed in this article..
The core remains actually fall into the rubble, and leave some concrete dust behind .. “Molecular Dissociation” of the core did not take place as suggested by the article. period.
www.youtube.com...

..see?

How could the core columns sway left and right if they were pulverized? ..they weren’t.

..the core remains drop into the rubble and leave some dust behind, which may seem like the core is pulverized by “thermal nuclear detonation” ..but this isn’t actually true

Here’s another compilation of the “spire” falling into the rubble and leaveing some white concrete dust behind
..starting from 1:55 you can see the “spire” go down and come up again as the video gets played backwards
9/11 WTC North Tower Core, HAVE YOU SEEN IT?
www.youtube.com...
Second..
The WTC 80 % of the steel was not pulverized, like it is claimed in this article ..most of the concrete was pulverized, but the structural steel was not.
Why there wasn’t a big pile left by the Twin tower collapses is because the outside walls were ejected outwards, they do not fall inwards like in a normal implosion demolition ..so naturally a big pile isn’t left standing
..Here you can see many Ground Zero photos, which will tell you that most of the WTC steel was left for the clean up grew ..and was NOT pulverized as claimed in this article
911research.wtc7.net...
So the pulverization of WTC stell with a thermal nuclear device isn’t true either.

There were some big explosions in the WTC towers, like in the basement level(s) ..but, were these micro-nukes ..i dunno. ..there is little, if any evidence left behind from these supposed nukes.
But there is evidence of nano-thermite ..concrete evidence of nano-thermite charges being used in those towers..and you can’t say the same for the “nuke theory”.

Here are some videos proving demolition charges:

Evidence for thermite and view of the "spire" collapse
www.youtube.com...

Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center
www.youtube.com...

EXCELLENT Analysis of the North Tower Exploding
www.youtube.com...

South Tower Coming Down
www.youtube.com...



-
-
-

This “all engine blocks melting away” ..is a myth ..and I doubt it is true

Here is a picture of one of those trucks, whose engine supposedly “melted away”


www.drjudywood.com...

…but if the truck is similar to this one here .. the engine ,pretty much can’t be even seen from where the picture was taken …the engine is further back and under the cockpit


www.brunswickme.org...
So at least this picture of a burned truck don’t prove “all the engines melted away” ..cause clearly they don’t seem to know how trucks are built in the first place!

Here are many pictures of the burned cars ..but I can’t see even one picture that would show clearly a car with it’s engine melted a way.
..why are some cars “wilted” ..they most likely got hit with something ejected from the Twin Towers or WTC 7
www.drjudywood.com...
Peace.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by cee420
 



Originally posted by cee420
Hey.

Dimitri Khalezovs claim, that mini-nukes were detonated under the three WTC buildings isn’t true. period.
..for the simple fact that the lower parts of the core(s) was left standing ..so obviously it didn’t disappear into this “nuclear cavity” as suggested by Dimitri Khalezov ..so his theory CAN’T be true
...


I believe that you're probably right in most or all of the disproving evidence. As I said in my first post:



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.


Whether or not we agree with Dimitri Khalezov, it's important to know and understand his viewpoint when investigating other theories. It's strange that you give nano-thermite so much credit which is unwarranted IMO and cannot account for any significant part of the twin towers demolition.

When you've read Ed Ward's work on Update: The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTC, you'll have much more serious points to ponder. Can you say "Dimona"



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnJasper
reply to post by cee420
 



Originally posted by cee420
Hey.

Dimitri Khalezovs claim, that mini-nukes were detonated under the three WTC buildings isn’t true. period.
..for the simple fact that the lower parts of the core(s) was left standing ..so obviously it didn’t disappear into this “nuclear cavity” as suggested by Dimitri Khalezov ..so his theory CAN’T be true
...


I believe that you're probably right in most or all of the disproving evidence. As I said in my first post:



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.


Whether or not we agree with Dimitri Khalezov, it's important to know and understand his viewpoint when investigating other theories. It's strange that you give nano-thermite so much credit which is unwarranted IMO and cannot account for any significant part of the twin towers demolition.

When you've read Ed Ward's work on Update: The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTC, you'll have much more serious points to ponder. Can you say "Dimona"


Hey.
The thing with nano-thermite is, is that it is the only explosive material that we have solid proof of..
Even the people who found the nano-termite, S. Jones and Neils Harrit etc. hold that there might have been other kinds of explosives alongside the nano-thermite-charges. They don’t claim that thermite is the only explosive used
..but there isn’t any evidence of these possible other kinds of explosives.

I also believe it is possible there were so other kind and bigger bombs planted in the buildings than just nano-thermite cutting charges ..but nano-thermite is the only explosive material so far that we have any concrete proof of ..so this is what we should focus on

On Ed Ward..
I haven’t read much of his material ..just started few days ago when this new article appeared on Henry Makow’s site ..but some of Ed Wards claims are not true ..maybe he used Khalezov’s theories too much and didn’t check them ..i dunno.

Ed Ward also claim it can’t be nano-thermite that kept the fires going for 100 days cause you’d need “so and so much of the stuff”.
But he doesn’t consider that the thermite-reaction doesn’t need to be on going for all that time, but only to heat a space and material, and then these will keep the fires and heat going even after the thermite-reaction would have stopped ..nano-thermite can produce temps over 3500 Celsius ..and if the reaction goes on for long enough and the space is air tight ..i doubt that it cools down that fast
..so I believe the thermite could very well explain the molten metal and the 100 day fires.

Peace.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by cee420
 



Originally posted by cee420
I also believe it is possible there were so other kind and bigger bombs planted in the buildings than just nano-thermite cutting charges ..but nano-thermite is the only explosive material so far that we have any concrete proof of ..so this is what we should focus on


That's an interesting comment you make, cee420. Dr Jones' nano-thermite is a reason to forget about investigating any other type of explosive. Unbelievable! Unless of course you're trying to steer attention away from something more incriminating than nano-thermite!

It's time that you stepped back and reconsidered how interested you actually are in finding out the truth about 9/11.

To me, a huge, ground-rumbling, 2.x magnitude explosion just before each tower fell plus the huge craters left in the ground is evidence of an extreme explosive and it should receive top priority in getting answers.



On Ed Ward..
I haven’t read much of his material ..just started few days ago when this new article appeared on Henry Makow’s site ..but some of Ed Wards claims are not true ..maybe he used Khalezov’s theories too much and didn’t check them ..i dunno.


Ed Ward doesn't sound like the kind of guy who wouldn't check his facts but he may very well be wrong in some or all points. As the only one you pointed out is the thermite heat duration and your reason for refuting his claim is that you "doubt" and you "believe", you've hardly proved him wrong.



..nano-thermite can produce temps over 3500 Celsius ..and if the reaction goes on for long enough and the space is air tight ..i doubt that it cools down that fast
..so I believe the thermite could very well explain the molten metal and the 100 day fires.


You're obviously committed to the nano-thermite crusade so I'll leave you to it. As for me, my mind is only made up until further evidence changes it.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Mythkiller
 


Hi, I'd really like to check out the article you refer to (www.henrymakow.com...) but i get 'server not found'. I figured I was a little late arriving to the topic initally. However, I ping the domain and no response and whois lookup reveals the domain has been locked since the end of august, but this thread started Sept(!)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bismarcksea
 


a 4th generation thermonuclear does not use fission components, and there fore has no radiation.
there are elevated levels of titrium which is hidden whit copious amounts of water.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by xxcalbier
 


4th generation leave no radiation detectable by geiger counter



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cheesefacedogbone
The explosion pictures are interesting. But I dont get the point about the cars. I do see door handles on a few cars. Most handles nowadays are plastic and would melt along with the paint. I dont see a single piece of evidence of a missing engine block.( How can you tell) I dont get it. I dont know anything about mini-nukes, but am I supposed to beleive that they somehow dissolved or disentagrated or melted the thickest strongest piece of steel on a car while the 22 guage sheet metal remains relatively in tact?



Right on. I find it pathetic that this "evidence" is put forth to support the nuke theory.

I have a modicum of understanding of how nukes work and which effects they cause. To imply that the engine block may in fact magically vanish from under the hood is just silly. Beam me up, Scotty?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by xxcalbier
 

4th generation leave no radiation detectable by geiger counter


Neutron flux is bound to create isotopes detectable by a Geiger counter. Even if it's orders of magnitude less prominent than with a fission bomb, it's certainly not zero.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
I often see threads about some method of blowing up the twin towers or some kind of weapon knocking them down.. but what if the Twin Towers were designed from the beginning by the "illuminati" or the US government to be made to collapse whenever they chose to implement this pre orchestrated scenario?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Nukes didnt bring down the towers as there would have been damage to the bathtub and high radiation levels recorded immmediately after the event.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth".



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by 8311-XHT
 


that has been proposed



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Mythkiller
 

That's the most hilarious thing I've seen all day. Thankyou for the laugh.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Nonchalant
 


yes if the nuclear was fusion, fission reaction.
what about 4th generation pure fusion.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by 8311-XHT
 


that has been proposed


It seems as if they were designed this way because all you have to do is destroy the core and it will collapse internally. And it evenb seemed as if the outer portion was designed to contain the buildings so they collapsed in on themselves rather than leaning like a tree etc.

It would be interesting to trace the main architect that designed the buildings and see if he has any illuminati ties.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 



.yes if the nuclear was fusion, fission reaction.
what about 4th generation pure fusion.


So why dont you explain how this 4th generation fusion is supposed to work - considering that for past 30 years
physicists been trying to do this as means of generating electric power.

Using billion dollar machines have been unable to get it to work effectively

If you are able then can collect Nobel prize

Otherwise just some conspiracy loon parroting nonsense.......



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by 8311-XHT
 


Bin Laden construction company
helped build the buildings.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join