WTC was a Nuclear Demolition - New Facts and Hard Evidence Exposing the Coverup and Censorship!!

reply to post by 911thology


911thology - I'm a little late joining the party here but missed this thread when it first appeared and only found it when I googled "Nuclear Demolition." I still have some catching up to do in this thread but most of what I've seen so far is about nano-thermite which, IMO, has been thoroughly discredited by so many. It's almost a religion seeing how difficult it is for "believers" to let go of it.

I'm amazed that pteredine can compare an airliner with a rail gun. Regardless of how fast the airliner was moving, it was hardly going to create an aircraft shaped hole including wing tips through steel. Of course, pteredine is the source of all knowledge as you'll notice if you read any of his posts on any other subject.

But I'm not really here to pour scorn on others. My purpose is to increase my knowledge and I have watched your video interview. I am convinced that nuclear demolition was the means and I cannot see any other theory that accounts for all of the evidence. Any argument as to who did it and why are secondary to the physical evidence.

You kindly pointed us to www.nucleardemolition.com for the full document of Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Center. On page 94, in the discussion of seismic data, the author has shown that the impulsive seismic event supports the massive explosion under the tower. In para 9, he states:

"5 other impulsive seismic events were measured by the observatory between 08:46 and 11:30. What was their source?"

You've accounted for 2 of these events in the destruction of WTC 1, 2 (as 7 was much later in the day.) There is sufficient evidence of similar events affecting buildings 4, 5 and 6, mainly that large portions of each of those building disappeared leaving gaping holes that cannot be accounted for by falling debris. I'm putting together the evidence supporting this for a later thread but am hoping to hear if you have any views on this already.

IMO a nuclear device is the only thing that's closely comparable to explain all the anomalies we all saw at the WTC ground zero site from start to finish, this has been recognized by a number of experts for many years now. The effects from a nuclear blast can explain virtually all of the effects we see on 9/11 and there after.

To speculate further though I do wonder if such materials like uranium or perhaps some other type of material (perhaps discovered and forged by tinkering with nuclear reactions and processes) were weaponized and used which to this day remains classified. Let's call it super-uranium! Also, this theory lends itself back to foreign operators and doesn't have to be the 'inside job' type of theory everyone seems to cling to. Although it's obvious a coverup followed the events this is not unusual for the US government and does not prove their guilt as the direct operators of 9/11. I would say you can't pin it on the US government until you truly know and understand what actually happened, but I would say that it's obviously a cover up. Who's to say a foreign entity has not discovered more about nuclear weaponry than the Americans? The Russians certainly did, and Israeli have been dabbling in nuclear weapons without intervention for decades. Who really knows what they've been cooking.

On the very day of 9/11, without much exposure to the news stories and going on what I was seeing, my first impression was a new kind of bomb (or bomb-lets), spawned from all that bunker busting R&D. All those ominous flashes seemed very odd and could not be compared to singular nuclear bomb.

reply to post by Insolubrious

Originally posted by Insolubrious
IMO a nuclear device is the only thing that's closely comparable to explain all the anomalies we all saw at the WTC ground zero site from start to finish, this has been recognized by a number of experts for many years now. The effects from a nuclear blast can explain virtually all of the effects we see on 9/11 and there after.

... Also, this theory lends itself back to foreign operators and doesn't have to be the 'inside job' type of theory everyone seems to cling to. Although it's obvious a coverup followed the events this is not unusual for the US government and does not prove their guilt as the direct operators of 9/11. I would say you can't pin it on the US government until you truly know and understand what actually happened, but I would say that it's obviously a cover up.

Insolubrious,

It's always a mistake to consider facts in isolation. I agree that nuclear demolition is the only plausible theory that incorporates all of the evidence surrounding the destruction of the twin towers. I also agree that the technology required is probably in the hands of multiple governments. However, other governments don't have the power to get NORAD to stand down, to activate FEMA on the day before, to get George W. to sit idly by while the attacks commence, to get Rumsfeld to stand on the lawn admiring the demolition instead of taking charge of the defense of the country that was apparently under attack.

There's a long list of evidence pointing to collusion before, during and after the attack and it must be part of any investigation.

JJ

Hmmm...
I guess the cancer people got came from a nuke and NOT from all the asbestos that was used INSIDE the twin towers....I guess none of that was floating around the air afterward...

reply to post by HomerinNC

Originally posted by HomerinNC
Hmmm...
I guess the cancer people got came from a nuke and NOT from all the asbestos that was used INSIDE the twin towers....I guess none of that was floating around the air afterward...

Cancer could be caused by either or both. However, the asbestos could not cause the 2.3 magnitude earthquake.

A nuclear demolition doesn't negate the asbestos threat. If anything, it amplifies it.

Like I just said in my previous post, it's always a mistake to consider facts in isolation.

reply to post by Insolubrious


i agree completely with you and most of the replies and condemnations seem to have come from people who haven't even bothered to review the material. GoodOlDave seems to me to obviously be a plant. i think that if this material and knowledge were to become mainstream, it would shock people into action. it is probably high priority material for the plants to dismiss.

reply to post by mrwiffler


you are pretty silly soundind if that your best synopsis of this work.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by franspeakfree

 

New York City's media reported in June 2006 nearly 300 WTC responders including cops, fire fighters and construction workers have been diagnosed with cancer, and 33 of them have already died of cancer. Many of them are diagnosed with Blood Cell cancer such as Leukemia. Earlier in April the same NYP has reported 6 cops died of brain cancer. Americans who know nothing about Hiroshima and Nagasaki would instantly attribute this to airplane fuel's Benzene contents.

www.agoracosmopolitan.com...

A 47-year-old Brooklyn firefighter who worked at the World Trade Center wreckage for a month after the Sept. 11 terror attacks has died of throat cancer.
Ray Hauber's relatives and colleagues believe conditions at Ground Zero might have caused the esophageal cancer that killed him Saturday morning.

www.nydailynews.com...

"This is the story of 9-11 and cancer.

To date, 75 recovery workers on or around what is now known as "the Pile"—the rubble that remained after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on the morning of September 11, 2001—have been diagnosed with blood cell cancers that a half-dozen top doctors and epidemiologists have confirmed as having been likely caused by that exposure.

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

NEW YORK - The head of the largest program tracking the health of World Trade Center site workers said several have developed rare blood cell cancers, raising fears that cancer will become a “third wave” of illnesses among those exposed to toxic dust after Sept. 11.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Why are Ground Zero workers getting sick?
Could this be a coincidence? Is this for real? How will we ever know? Those are just some of the questions I asked myself when writing about workers and emergency responders from Ground Zero who now claim they're sick from the toxic cocktail to which they were exposed.

www.cnn.com...

Need more?

Well something is giving these people cancer, does that normally happen after buildings collapse from office fires?

Actually yes, we kind of do. The towers were full of asbestos, that is known to cause cancer if inhaled and it all got turned into dust on 911. Of course the stuff is harmless if it just sits there in the ceiling, but tell that mothers sending their children to school. Some sort of radiation reading would help for example.

reply to post by Cassius666


I doubt it, but I'm not married to the nuke theory either, I'm not that interested in speculation anymore.

The symptoms of mesothelioma can arise between 20 and 50 years after initial exposure to asbestos occurs.

www.asbestos.com...

Plus they're finding rare blood cancers...

NEW YORK — The head of the largest program tracking the health of World Trade Center site workers said several have developed rare blood cell cancers, raising fears that cancer will become a “third wave” of illnesses among those exposed to toxic dust after Sept. 11.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

The answer is not that simple...

So I watched the whole series too and I have to admit that the general theory behind this is very sound.
However:

If the crushed and cracked zones are a direct result of the pressure of the cavity against the surrounding rock how would they be able to extend over the major part of the towers without the cavity entering the towers them self? Just that the towers are less dense that solid rock shouldn't mean that the crushing effect can extend that much further.
That isn't explained well enough in the videos.

Then the figures of the various zones differ in a order of magnitude between wikipedia and the author of the theory. (which one is right)


Which brings me to the final point: The all so controversial No Plane/Media Fakery Theory also mentioned in the videos.
The main proponents of this theory (septemberclues) claim that every media of the events is fake and (maybe surpringsly at the same time this series appeared) that there are no nuclear bombs in reality and their existance is a hoax as well.

I find this disturbingly irritating. Every single entity out there seems to be in some popularity contest accusing each other of fraud or even being a cointelpro. Worse on every board (even here) the residents engage in some sort of circle jerking in their particular nice avoiding the creation of a theory which could involve more evidence or even be complete.

I hate that!

-

reply to post by kybertech

Originally posted by kybertech
...
I find this disturbingly irritating. Every single entity out there seems to be in some popularity contest accusing each other of fraud or even being a cointelpro. Worse on every board (even here) the residents engage in some sort of circle jerking in their particular nice avoiding the creation of a theory which could involve more evidence or even be complete.

I hate that!

I know what you mean. It's almost as though people are intentionally trying to frustrate the cognitive process. Perhaps out of fear that we'll stray into areas that should best be left alone.

PS: I decided that Dmitri's explanation had too many very big holes in it - especially the one directly underneath the tower that should have resulted in the tower falling directly into the whole intact. However, I cannot discount the seismic evidence, the cratering and the pyroclastic flow as indication that something more than conventional explosives was at work here. Unfortunately, it's well beyond my level of science education to advance this discussion.

I dont think it was a nuke. but I dont say impossible.
a small tactical nuke would not have much Radiation.
but the shock wave would give it away.

but Asbestos could course all the cancer.
the fire proofing and the isolation could have been asbestos.
and that is as bad as radiation.
all the people in that dust could could get it any time.
sorry...

Originally posted by buddha
...but Asbestos could course all the cancer.

See my post above. Cancer from asbestos is a specific type of cancer and it takes at least 20 years for symptoms to show, and that is after long term exposure. It's not an instant, 'oh asbestos I have cancer', type of thing.

9-11 was not even ten years ago.

That also does not explain the rare blood cancers.

Originally posted by JohnJasper
I decided that Dmitri's explanation had too many very big holes in it - especially the one directly underneath the tower that should have resulted in the tower falling directly into the whole intact.

Have you watched the whole interview? He presents 2 scenarios, the one you just described which they hoped to happen and some sort of pulverisation from the pressure which he said actually happened and explained.

The issue is from my understanding that the pulverisation would have to rely more on the mass inertia of the material of the buildings rather than a pressure build up. There may be no difference above a certain acceleration, but that's difficult to verify since we don't know the exact effects.

It's basically the same mechanism if you would build a sandcastle on a table and knock the plate from below very rapidly, then the sand would most likely collapse.

reply to post by kybertech

Originally posted by kybertech
Have you watched the whole interview? He presents 2 scenarios, the one you just described which they hoped to happen and some sort of pulverisation from the pressure which he said actually happened and explained.

I did watch the whole interview but admit that because of it's length, I might have missed some key information. My specific criticism was of when he diagrammed the hole that would have been blasted underground which indicated that the building above would have been poised over a gaping hole.

The minimal (by some standards) damage to the bathtub is another sticking point.

The massive explosion witnessed when the second tower began its collapse speaks of a powerful bomb being detonated at that level.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


lol for once we agree dave!

I fail to see how any misses the fact that the collapse initiated around the 90th floor,, not the basement.

This is more painfully obvious that the CD theory.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
IMO a nuclear device is the only thing that's closely comparable to explain all the anomalies we all saw at the WTC ground zero site from start to finish, this has been recognized by a number of experts for many years now. The effects from a nuclear blast can explain virtually all of the effects we see on 9/11 and there after.

To speculate further though I do wonder if such materials like uranium or perhaps some other type of material (perhaps discovered and forged by tinkering with nuclear reactions and processes) were weaponized and used which to this day remains classified. Let's call it super-uranium! Also, this theory lends itself back to foreign operators and doesn't have to be the 'inside job' type of theory everyone seems to cling to. Although it's obvious a coverup followed the events this is not unusual for the US government and does not prove their guilt as the direct operators of 9/11. I would say you can't pin it on the US government until you truly know and understand what actually happened, but I would say that it's obviously a cover up. Who's to say a foreign entity has not discovered more about nuclear weaponry than the Americans? The Russians certainly did, and Israeli have been dabbling in nuclear weapons without intervention for decades. Who really knows what they've been cooking.

On the very day of 9/11, without much exposure to the news stories and going on what I was seeing, my first impression was a new kind of bomb (or bomb-lets), spawned from all that bunker busting R&D. All those ominous flashes seemed very odd and could not be compared to singular nuclear bomb.

Really? How so? A nuclear blast would mean radiation and as far as I know a nuclear blast does not keep heating the steele for months either. Has radiation been detected? What exactly is the evidence for a nuclear explosion? Nobody is denying there was not an explosion at the ground level, as reported by numerous whitnesses, but why use a nuclear device?

www.wsmr.army.mil...

Looks like I was wrong. Radiation was apparently 10 times higher than normal background radiation 2 years after 911. I am still puzzled on why they would use a nuclear device though. Did they need something that generates a lot of heat along with the blast?

Cant see the mentioned videos apparently they have been set to private. Are any other links avaiable?

This theory strains credulity.

Given the fact that we can detect nuclear detonations on any continent on earth, and other countries are capable of doing the same...

Even if there were a cover up in the government, countries such as Russia and China are capable of detecting surface/subsurface nuclear detonations, and I think they would have said some thing had there been a nuclear blast detected in NYC, don't you?