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: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


But if there was a "mini-nuke" buried 6 levels underneath WTCs, then why does the building collapse starting from the impact zone? And then, why do the cores of both WTCs stand after the initial collapses for another 15-20 seconds?

Sorry but the mini-nukes idea is pure 100% garbage.


Let's start with para 2 of your reply - if you had said "Sorry but the therm*te idea is pure 100% garbage" I would be starring you and in complete agreement (knowing what you think about said therm*te.) But when asking myself why so much disinformation about therm*te, I have to think that either they're just trying to waste our energy or there's something that they're trying to cover up. So when the nuke theory arises and starts to answer a lot of questions I already had, I start thinking that maybe this is the something.

What could be more incriminating than proof that nukes were used in bringing down the towers? You couldn't blame that on Bin Laden! It's hard enough to blame him for a controlled demolition with conventional explosives.

Back to para 1 - what do we know about the state-of-the-art in nuclear demolition? Nothing! Everything that is generally available to the public is 30+ years old. We automatically think huge fireball, blast wave, mushroom cloud, EMP and radioctive fallout so of course that couldn't possibly have happened in New York without us knowing. But then we get a number of people giving us an inkling into how the technology has moved forward and suddenly the nuke is back on the table.

You may be right (and probably are) that it's pure garbage. IMHO it is an idea that needs to be explored thoroughly to the point where we can account for any unanswered phenomena on the day or be reasonably assured that a nuke could not have been the cause.

My point about a nuke in the basement was only to show the error of assuming airburst parameters. The same could apply to an extremely low-yield nuke placed on a higher floor.

You ask why do the cores of both WTCs stand after the initial collapses for another 15-20 seconds? From the videos I've seen, only part of the cores are still standing after the collapses and those cores are just the steel frame completely devoid of any concrete or other (obvious) material attached. Is it possible for them to have been picked clean by gravity collapse? By therm*te? By conventional explosives? By a series of low-yield nukes? By one nuke in the basement?

As far as the initiation of the collapse, I suspect that was more a feature of conventional explosives regardless of whether or not nukes were used.

While I'm speculating, it's conceivable that the 2.1 and 2.3 magnitude shocks that preceded the 1st and 2nd collapses were pure coincidence or were nukes or huge conventional explosives used for other purposes but timed to be explained away by the collapses. Note the huge empty holes in WTC 6 and 5 and the craters surrounding the 2 towers.

I you want me to stop discussing nukes, then just explain away these anomalies plus many more that have been listed elsewhere. I won't be disappointed to learn that nukes weren't used.




posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


Here is my dilema.

Those who do not believe the OCS have emotional investment to continue to pursue the issue with a passion.

Those who believe the OCS should not have any emotional investment to continue to try to pesuade non believers to accept the OCS.

There must be some other motivating device here?
What is it that highly motivates OCS believers to passionately strive to convince non believers of OCS?

What interest is there to be so passionate about this seemingly trivial issue?
After all mos OCS believers think non believers are "ignorant, stupid, uneducated, irrational morons."
Why would these OCS believers invest the time and energy into associating with the non-believers?
Plus a common denominating factor the OCS group espouses and pushes is a seemingly party line of
"You are reading those darn fool websites."
"You have no evidecnce."
"You have not proved one thing."

Anyway, just a few ideas and thoughts.

If gravity collapse pancake style, how come there are no pancakes on the ground?
Gravity cannot produce both disintegration of material and heat to the extent witnessed.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


If you listen to this guy who oversaw some of the clean-up of the world trade centers, he says 14 floors were compressed into 8 feet.



Honestly, if that's not pancaking, I don't know what is.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by slugger9787
 


If you listen to this guy who oversaw some of the clean-up of the world trade centers, he says 14 floors were compressed into 8 feet.



Honestly, if that's not pancaking, I don't know what is.


So which building was he talking about when he mentioned the 14 floors? The way the footage is spliced, it's not evident. If he was talking about tower 1 or 2, then at a rate of 8 feet to 14 floors, the stack should have been about 56 feet tall. WTC 2 might have been close to that height but WTC 1 was nothing at all.

WTC 2 debris pile


WTC 1 debris pile

edit on 11-10-2010 by JohnJasper because: Added excellent (IMO) photo of WTC 1 debris pile



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


8 feet and 14 floors? And you think that is believable evidence of the WTC pancaking? What happened to the other 96 floors? If you were a juror in a court of law, and the lawyer said that a 110 story building pancaked into an 8 foot cube composed of 14 floors, don't you think that would cause a reasonable doubt as to where the rest of the floors went?



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 



Originally posted by slugger9787
Here is my dilema.

Those who do not believe the OCS have emotional investment to continue to pursue the issue with a passion.

Those who believe the OCS should not have any emotional investment to continue to try to pesuade non believers to accept the OCS.

There must be some other motivating device here?
What is it that highly motivates OCS believers to passionately strive to convince non believers of OCS?

What interest is there to be so passionate about this seemingly trivial issue?
After all mos OCS believers think non believers are "ignorant, stupid, uneducated, irrational morons."
Why would these OCS believers invest the time and energy into associating with the non-believers?
Plus a common denominating factor the OCS group espouses and pushes is a seemingly party line of
"You are reading those darn fool websites."
"You have no evidecnce."
"You have not proved one thing."

Anyway, just a few ideas and thoughts.


slugger9787,

You're spot on! Your observation will no doubt get right up some peoples' noses but the proof is written in their posts. I had at least 3 of these directed at me personally today and read no end of them directed at other posters. You'd think that they'd come up with something new.

Back on topic, I ran across this thread today 2012 Forum • WTC's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 were nuked which offers another viewpoint on the nuke theory. Check it out when you get time.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
If the temperatures at ground zero were hotter than the sun, how come the people in the buildings and nearby were not cooked?



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lord Jules
reply to post by Varemia
 


8 feet and 14 floors? And you think that is believable evidence of the WTC pancaking? What happened to the other 96 floors? If you were a juror in a court of law, and the lawyer said that a 110 story building pancaked into an 8 foot cube composed of 14 floors, don't you think that would cause a reasonable doubt as to where the rest of the floors went?


Try not to be dense. The man was talking about how they had cut through to one spot where 14 floors had pancaked into 8 feet. I didn't say that was all that there was.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnJasper
Check it out when you get time.


Yes, if you need a good laugh certainly check it out.... ""softball sized micronuclear bombs." and "of WTC 6, was similarly caused by the thermonuclear demo charge tumbling down from the disintegrating North Tower, the ancillary damage to WTC 6 and the massive holes in WTC 5 visible in the above pic, were caused by the missile strike!"

Now we are ack to missiles being fired at the buildings, and even mini nukes falling out of WTC onto another building then exploding....

Just when you though truthers could not make up anything sillier than they already have.... they never fail to dissapoint!



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
if you believe the mini nuke theory
you might want to read my thread
here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

mini nuke, the size of a hand grenade!



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Lord Jules
 


LOL, not to the OCS guys it wouold not.
But my issue is why so much pasion on their part if they just simply believe the OCS?

There is way too much passion to convince us hillybillies that OCS happened.

Why do smart, intelligent, well informed, well researched men spend time with us guys that get our facts from a darn fool website?

What is in it for them?



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


John they cannot come up with anythng else.
This is the script that is handed to them.

They are like actors, paid to profess and say what the boss dictates.
Hell half of them don't believe the OCS themselves.
What a place to have your integrity compromised.

I hope they do it for more than LOVE.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
CDI defensibly had something to do with the demolitions of the towers.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarInvader
CDI defensibly had something to do with the demolitions of the towers.


On what evidence? It hasn't even been conclusively proven that demolitions were used at all! (new guy, I guess)

I highly suggest you read through a few of the short conspiracy threads on 9/11 here. Get both sides of the argument, then come back and start making claims.



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


have you read boondock saint thread?
would lov to hear your comments.

Ever read much on the Bail mini nuke?

he craters are evidence after the fact.

Craters instead of piles of rubble.



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by Varemia
 


have you read boondock saint thread?
would lov to hear your comments.

Ever read much on the Bail mini nuke?

he craters are evidence after the fact.

Craters instead of piles of rubble.


What craters? I recall a very large pile of rubble after 9/11. It took them months to clean it up.



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu...

www.nytimes.com...#
edit on 12-10-2010 by slugger9787 because: www.nytimes.com...#



posted on Oct, 12 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by Varemia
 



www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu...

www.nytimes.com...#
edit on 12-10-2010 by slugger9787 because: www.nytimes.com...#


You said "craters instead of rubble." What you show there is very clearly a lot of rubble and pockets of 30 feet underground exposed. We know the WTCs had basements, and there are also sewer systems in Manhattan. Could you explain how this is evidence of a mini-nuke?



posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation” Herbert Spencer

Those were not the best LiDAR images I could not find the ones that Dr. Ed Ward had on www.thepriceofliberty.com as those on ther are disabled.

Why do you not see if you can help me find them?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join