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.

 

Claimed evidence that WTC has been Nuclear Demolished !!!

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by noahproductions
 


Notice you have ignored my evidence dismissing your claim of nuclear explosions in WTC


Notice you don't have any clue about different time zones... The world is not only the place where you live,..
there are other places where people do sleep while you are active on ATS....!!

Though I appreciate your effort to debunk the theory of nuclear demolishing...
If we're convinced that a topic has been fully debunked, we will classify it as "debunked" on our webpages.
As I said we will publish more of our topics this week.
About this nuclear demolishing... there are still too little reactions on this one yet....
I have one question for now: "Do you believe that this whole report is fake?"




posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by noahproductions
reply to post by GrisGris
 


Yeah,.. ok about the planes,.. but the claimed evidence, in fact, tellls us that the planes where actually the false flag..!!! Because the real devices where underground.....
edit on 8-12-2010 by noahproductions because: (no reason given)


If you're going to discuss 9/11, you need to learn the difference between a false flag and a red herring.

The Boeings flying into the twin towers were a red herring. The whole incident was a false flag.

A false flag is a terror attack designed to cause trouble between two other groups.
For example group A attacks group B's boat, and makes it look as though group C did it.

For a report planning false flags, read: Operation Northwoods

For information on more false flags: False Flag Terrorism



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Well the thought behind the operation would be: hiding what was happening inside and under the buildings.
All eyes of the world were on the burning and smoking spots...



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by noahproductions
 


Oh, I see....


Yes that's right,.. we.. NoahProductions is my company and I (the owner) did not find former threads on ATS.
And you're right about the links to my website, because the pages were part of our Broadcasting and the advertisement is our one and only income like any other newspaper or whatever channel... even ATS !!


So then, it is assumed you've cleared this thread (and the blatant posting of advertisement for your "enterprising" website) ahead of time with the owners/administrator of THIS site?

Well, good...then carry on.

Oh, and BTW..."nukes" in the basement??

I am afraid there are a subset of so-called "truthers" who will not like you very much...and will be along shortly to accuse you of being "disinfo", to make the rest of them look bad. Just so you're prepared for the onslaught.

However, if you represent a group who ACTUALLY BELIEVE this "nuke" nonsense? Then, you will have a lot more problems than a few ticked off "truthers"...in the long run.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by noahproductions
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Well the thought behind the operation would be: hiding what was happening inside and under the buildings.
All eyes of the world were on the burning and smoking spots...


Yes, that's the definition of a red herring.
Something designed to distract attention.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


But, not applicable here.

Airplanes were hijacked, and suicidally flown into buildings, in a planned attack. Much as MANY cases of similar events, using ground-based vehicles, have occurred in the past.

Subsequently, damage was extensive, and exceeded the ability of the structures, as they were designed, to remain intact...against the force of gravity, after being compromised.

End of story.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by noahproductions
 


Yes -

Have submitted evidence that the presence of various elements can be easily explained by their use as
phosphors in flourescent lighting /CRT tubes in televisions & computer monitors. A much more plausible and likely source than someboby secretly setting off nuclear weapons.

Also the lack of any meaningful radiation traces as measured at WTC eliminate nuclear detonations
as cause of collapse



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   


The buildings were "smulched into a smouldering pit" where the temperature remained so
high that soil and glass were vaporised - boiled away - for over 6 weeks.


Are you seriously proposing that six weeks later, glass was still being vaporized, and that there is some sort of objective proof of this?

Do you have any sort of proof that a nuclear weapon has this as a side effect? Because seriously, people were running around ground zero back in the 40's within a few days after the Trinity shot in order to document what had happened. Maybe not the smartest or most healthy thing, but it wasn't a huge pit of still-molten glass that was actively vaporizing.



In the dust, they found high levels of chemical elements that had no business being there.

Extremely rare and toxic elements.

Some of them elements that only exist in Radioactive Form.

Elements such as Strontium, Barium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum and
Yttrium.


As stated already, rare earths are found in a lot of electronic equipment. It's tough to try to guess why "only exist in RADIOACTIVE FORM!!!" is meaningful here - I suppose you're referring to thorium. At this very moment, you are slightly radioactive, yourself. That doesn't mean you've just been through a nuke. It does mean that you have some radioactive isotopes, generally of potassium, that are naturally occurring. Trace radioactivity is the natural state of any biological lifeform.

You want to push this agenda, you'd be better served by demonstrating a lot of I-131 or a Cs134/137 ratio that is indicative of a prompt fission reaction, there are a number of other indicators as well, none of which will be present, because it wasn't a nuke.



But even more than that, the vast quantity of fallout produced and other factors show
that the explosions were not produced by ordinary atomic bombs


Pretty sure you don't know what "fallout" means.



The explosions were produced by a clandestine Nuclear Reactor under each tower
undergoing a "power excursion" and then a core meltdown


Well, at least it's a bit more creative than the usual "I just read yet another crappy Dan Brown novel, so I think it was an anti-matter fusion bomb!" However, nuclear reactor failures don't work like this. And the radiation from a 'disassembled' reactor and a subsequent meltdown would be unmistakable due to the piles of dead people everywhere and that gentle blue Cherenkov glow.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a) nuclear weapons create an EMP, or electromagnetic pulse, when detonated. Most if not all electronics in the area would be fried.

b) nuclear weapons of course emit radiation.


DEBUNKED. I hope this topic ends here.
edit on 9-12-2010 by fordrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by fordrew
a) nuclear weapons create an EMP, or electromagnetic pulse, when detonated. Most if not all electronics in the area would be fried.

b) nuclear weapons of course emit nuclear radiation.


DEBUNKED.


And of course, there's the earth-shattering kaboom. Where's the kaboom?

In this case, the OP is apparently trying to dodge the non-kaboom problem by invoking the ghost of SL-1. However, SL-1 was a steam explosion/hydrogen flash, instead of a nuclear explosion as claimed. Worse, the remains of SL-1 were horribly active, and it was quite difficult to clean up. And there was no "meltdown", per se, partly because the core was scattered around far enough that reactivity ceased. Even so, there was a lot of I-131 produced, which is a telltale of this sort of thing. And the explosion wasn't that large - certainly not large enough to "dustify" a WTC building by itself. Not to mention that if it HAD been large enough, you'd have gotten more of a blowing out instead of a falling down thing going on. The lack of overpressure effects is another issue, although essentially no radioactivity at all is the real biggie.

Fun fact: the "insider" story of the end of SL-1 involves one of the supervisors diddling the wife of one of the operators, and the operator getting the supervisor out on top of the unit, where the rod was manually withdrawn on purpose. And there's your earth-shattering kaboom!

Another fun fact: they don't design reactors like this anymore on purpose, it has to do with the design being really unstable. You just can't generate an SL-1 like earth-shattering kaboom anymore.
edit on 9-12-2010 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

In this case, the OP is apparently trying to dodge the non-kaboom problem by invoking the ghost of SL-1. However, SL-1 was a steam explosion/hydrogen flash, instead of a nuclear explosion as claimed.



Really? A criticality accident is a nuclear explosion (which I define as unstable to fast, as opposed to slow, fission reactions), and that's what happened at SL-1 (just like Chernobyl).



Worse, the remains of SL-1 were horribly active, and it was quite difficult to clean up. And there was no "meltdown", per se, partly because the core was scattered around far enough that reactivity ceased. Even so, there was a lot of I-131 produced, which is a telltale of this sort of thing. And the explosion wasn't that large - certainly not large enough to "dustify" a WTC building by itself. Not to mention that if it HAD been large enough, you'd have gotten more of a blowing out instead of a falling down thing going on. The lack of overpressure effects is another issue, although essentially no radioactivity at all is the real biggie.


The 9/11 "truthers" are Just Plain Nuts. The actual conspiracy is out there in plain sight, and there's a motion picture about it ("Fair Game").
edit on 11-12-2010 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I did not see the videos, but I cant imagine why one would use a couple of mininukes to demolish the buildings, when explosives work just fine. Unless evidence of fallout and radiation has been found, nothing points to the use of nuclear devices.

This will just be used as a strawman argument by the believers.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
I did not see the videos, but I cant imagine why one would use a couple of mininukes to demolish the buildings, when explosives work just fine. Unless evidence of fallout and radiation has been found, nothing points to the use of nuclear devices.


This report doesn't mention MINI nukes !!
(The mini nuke story is a very different one).
Obviously you did not read the report !!



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by noahproductions
 


Still haven't explained why no radiation detected at WTC despite multiple agencies surveying the scene for months after.......

I suppose will have some facile hand waving to dismiss this



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by noahproductions
Because the real devices where underground.....



They must have been WAY underground, since the Naudet footage at the base of the towers during the first collapse totally debunks your "theory".

Another thing, it's really hard to take someone serious with all the horrible grammar mistakes. So maybe work on that a bit before trying to pimp your "production".



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
I really dont see it. No radiation was found and I cant imagine why somebody would go through the trouble to set off a nuclear device for something that can be achieved with conventional explosives.




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join