Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

35 reasons for many small fission nukes at the wtc

page: 1
7

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
So apparently those are reasons that would point to the use of mininukes on 911. Can nuclear weapons do all that? I am particularly curious about point 1 and 2 for now. The blogger claims that the fact it was not possible to quench the burning steele with water and that the steele stayed hot for months points to the use of fission material. Can fission material do that? I thought after it realeased all its energy in the explosions, thats it its done, how could it keep the steele glowing for a month?

I would be also curious about point 19) low efficiency of fission nukes ensures leftover radioactive fragments and China syndrome

Is that claim accurate in any way?

1) heat generation at ground zero for six months (china syndrome)
2) inability to quench ground zero heat with water
3) red hot/molten steel at ground zero
4) missing core columns from ground zero (vaporized during destruction)
5) spreading of sand at ground zero consistent with attempts to limit radiation
6) washing of steel recovered from pile consistent with radiation decontamination
7) extreme security for ground zero steel shipments consistent with limiting access to radioactive steel
8) extreme security at ground zero, limiting exposure, view of devastation
9) extreme pulverization of WTC concrete into very fine particles
10) disappearance of over one thousand human bodies from WTC debris
11) disappearance of furniture, phones, filing cabinets and computers from WTC debris
12) disappearance of elevator doors, office doors, office cubicle walls, toilets and sinks from WTC debris
13) several floor fragments fused together in “meteorite” object
14) bone fragments sprayed into Bankers Trust upper floor during destruction
15) multiple blast waves during destruction of tower
16) large fireballs during initiation of WTC1 destruction
17) small backpack-sized fission nukes exist
18) fission-nuke technology well-established
19) low efficiency of fission nukes ensures leftover radioactive fragments and China syndrome
20) EMP formation during tower destruction (exploding cars, partial burning)
21) Description of heat in WTC blast cloud
22) Extensive cover-up of ground zero air by EPA
23) High rate of cancers, including thyroid cancer typically associated with radiation exposure, in ground zero responders
24) Melted, hanging skin in WTC survivor Felipe David in absence of fire
25) Vaporized press and crumpled steel door in WTC basement reported by Pecoraro
26) Steel beam bent in U, without cracking, evidence of extreme high temps
27) Steel beam bent in U has layer of molten metal on surface
28) Extreme overall devastation of two massive towers and blasted out Ground Zero aftermath
29) Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical DEW theory by likely govt agents-- uses evidence of nukes (EMP, extreme pulverization of tower into dust) but denies nukes at all costs
30) Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical thermite (super nano-thermite) theory by likely govt agents-- uses evidence of nukes (molten steel, china syndrome) but denies nukes at all costs
31) Small iron microspheres found by Jones et al in WTC dust— evidence of steel vaporization by high temps of nukes
32) Pyroclastic debris cloud during WTC destruction
33) Upwards jutting debris trails reminiscent of debris trails formed during underground nuke test
34) Small bright flashes during destruction of both towers
35) Extremely compacted ground zero debris

edit on 19-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Just more fuel to the fire of this obvious conspiracy. Good work on this!



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Is that claim accurate in any way?


No. Look at some of those claims for just one minute. Do a little exercise. Take a few of the claims and see how difficult it is to either explain the observed with something other than mini nukes or challenge the authenticity of the claim. Shouldn't take but a minute.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
doubt it, more likely white phosphurus(not sure if right spelling)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
So apparently those are reasons that would point to the use of mininukes on 911. Can nuclear weapons do all that? I am particularly curious about point 1 and 2 for now.

1) heat generation at ground zero for six months (china syndrome)
2) inability to quench ground zero heat with water
3) red hot/molten steel at ground zero


Lets start with the first one.

The heat in the pile was not suprising. It was NOT incredibly hot for 6 months afterwards. In fact, the bulk of the fire was officially announced as "out" 99 days after 9/11. Not 6 months. Small pockets of fire deep within the area continued to burn, but their effects were minimal.

Secondly, the reason it was difficult to get to the fires was because they were scattered throughout the piles, some very deep. It's kinda hard to put water on a fire you cannot get to. Not to mention the fact that trying to get water on the fires was a challenge. You could spray water down to get to a hot spot, and it would hit other stuff in the way, deflecting it all over, making it very ineffective. Also, the heat generated by the fires below would take that small amount of water, and just boil it. Steam does not extinguish fires very well.

Lastly, there is no evidence of any significant amount of molten steel at GZ. Red-hot? Sure. Fire will do that to metal. Not molten.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I don’t Have the time to reply to all of those, but I would like to touch on a few of them.

Originally posted by Cassius666
5) spreading of sand at ground zero consistent with attempts to limit radiation
6) washing of steel recovered from pile consistent with radiation decontamination
7) extreme security for ground zero steel shipments consistent with limiting access to radioactive steel


This is standard abatement procedures for any type of hazmat material, including things such as asbestos (which was most certainly in that building).


Originally posted by Cassius666
20) EMP formation during tower destruction (exploding cars, partial burning)

There was no EMP, which is part of what proves that this theory is bogus. If there had been EMP, electronics all around town would have shorted out, as well as a big chunk of the electrical grid. The cars that caught on fire where from falling debris, and normal car fires that happen in a city that size on a daily basis. Usually the fire department puts those car fires out fairly quickly and removed the debris from the road, but on the morning of 911 the fire department was just a bit too busy to be messing with car fires.


Now on the other hand, there are things that are missing which should be present if there was such a device used in the towers: Fallout, effects from EMP, and remaining high levels of radioactive contamination. The lack of those things pretty well proves that a more conventional method of destruction was used that day.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
The evidence tends to lead away from this conclusion rather definatley in my opine.
This is likely just more obfuscation of the situation by the perpetrators or their agents.
The many whacky theories and statements that have been made regarding this tradgedy all have tended to tie up valuable resources and time, for rebuttals.
I think it would be better if the truth seekers ignored these wierd theories and concentrated on getting the facts, and all evidence possible rather than arguing with such ridiculous speculations......
No doubt there has been an ongoing cover up in the forums and media,(wherever there is serious discussions,) by paid agents of disinformation.The logical follow up of a carefully planned operation.
The ongoing and ridiculous arguments of the OS fanatics, have the flavour of deliberate disinfo and cover up.
Every thread on this seems to draw many of the same avatars to argue moot points, and make for a disjointed discussion which invariably ends in more confusion than it began.
Time is having its usual effect on this event, however, and more details and snippets of info keep it alive.
In everyones mind.
Many of the dots have been connected to indicate a very likely Mossad participation in 9/11



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Another funny point is 20) EMP formation during tower destruction (exploding cars, partial burning).

Surely an emp discharge would not only set cars on fire, but have other adverse effects on electronics and the like. Have the effects of an EMP discharge materialized in the surrounding area or not?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
What gets me is the con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites are even trying to milk the illnesses of the first responders now. The reason people are/were getting cancer is't radiation poisoning. It's becuase of the foul crap they were breathing in, from asbestos to toxic fumes from burning plastics to concrete and drywall dust to coolants to spilled fuels to god knows what else a collapsed and burning building would produce.

The peopel claiming it was a mini-nuke are simply making up crap off the tops of their heads.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
What gets me is the con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites are even trying to milk the illnesses of the first responders now. The reason people are/were getting cancer is't radiation poisoning. It's becuase of the foul crap they were breathing in, from asbestos to toxic fumes from burning plastics to concrete and drywall dust to coolants to spilled fuels to god knows what else a collapsed and burning building would produce.

The peopel claiming it was a mini-nuke are simply making up crap off the tops of their heads.


Amen, brother. Ridiculous is just not a strong enough adjective to describe this theory. Farcical? Ludicrous? I'm at a loss......



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I think you are all wrong on this inside job thing. The great decider was on the phone to god. Who told him to invade iraq. He then provided a miracle, to ensure that the great decider could invade iraq. Those poor people in iraq,needed to be liberated and the great decider liberated them. Mainly heir bodies. Dosnt god move in mysterious ways. Oh yee unfaithful types you should praise the lord and his great works.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Another funny point is 20) EMP formation during tower destruction (exploding cars, partial burning).

Surely an emp discharge would not only set cars on fire, but have other adverse effects on electronics and the like. Have the effects of an EMP discharge materialized in the surrounding area or not?


Well, ask yourself - did you or did you not see video (electronically recorded) of the towers collapse? If there was EMP generated by a nuke then how was that recorded? There is video taken about a block away, just a few hundred feet, no EMP. No EMP, no nukes, end of story.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


No steel was "vaporized" on 9/11 .

In addition , if you obtained these 35 points from an external source , you need to use external quote and source tags , otherwise you are likely in violation of the ATS T&C , as well as copyright issues . ATS has had to deal with this already , so please use external quote and source tags .

If your edit window has expired , then please contact a mod to insert them for you , upon providing them with a source for your OP .
edit on 19-1-2011 by okbmd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

10) disappearance of over one thousand human bodies from WTC debris
11) disappearance of furniture, phones, filing cabinets and computers from WTC debris
12) disappearance of elevator doors, office doors, office cubicle walls, toilets and sinks from WTC debris


All (would be) evidence of a violent, explosive collapse and lots of fire. Not nukes. The same thing would happen with nukes -- but because of the explosive, violent collapse crushing them together and pulverising them and so forth.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Ya know, I think people may have forgotten this quick mention that day that.... to my knowledge, has never been explained




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


It has - was rumor, one of many that were flying around that day. Example - State Department was blown up
by truck bomb, we know that was false. Just one of the many bizarre rumors.





new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join