It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+8 more 
posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:38 AM
A picture paints a thousand words - I urge everyone to take a look at these - let the debunking begin...

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:46 AM
If somebody who is a little more computer literate than me can imbed these pictures I'd be much appreciated -thanks in advance.

Peace to all.

edit on 17-9-2010 by Mythkiller because: spelling mistakes - Doh

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:49 AM
Reading this article does reveal some amazing things I hadn't heard before... Like the engine blocks missing from cars..

Over the years I have seen more, and more, and even more evidence coming out that supports that some very difficult to believe things happened that day. Much more evidence for this than any evidence supporting the official lies being told.

I truly hope one day there will be judgement coming for those that caused this , wether that be foreigners or whatever... and judgement for any human being that knowingly supported those that were telling lies about what really happened. Their souls will be cast into the eternal lake of fire.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:49 AM
Ummmmm yeah.....What about radiation dude?

Seriously, a mini nuke?

Thermite or Thermate sounds like a better theory than this.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:49 AM
Cool post but I don't buy this. The smoke looks somewhat similar but not enough. If they were nukes they would have caused way more damage and chemical affects would have lingered on. Nukes are also extremely expensive. The pictures are a logical fallacy of false analogy. How would anyone have snuck these nukes into the building anyway? I personally don't think this is that likely at all.

Oh ya and these pictures don't "prove" anything; to you they may suggest something, but certainly not "prove".

edit on 17-9-2010 by Ignorance_Defier because: added Prove rant

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:53 AM
I read that whole article. Found it very interesting.

This is a very interesting take on the tragedy. Some of the facts the guy present in his theory, also seem to make sense.

Lets see what the sceptics say.


posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:04 AM
Look at the first picture shown that talks about cars with missing door handles and engine blocks.

Notice the white car that is in the foreground? It still has its door handles. They debunk themselves with their own evidence.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:52 AM
There is not a single piece of evidence of anything on that entire page! Sites like that serve no purpose other then to spread rumors and ridiculous "theories"

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:58 AM
I'm not buying it. The EMP would have disrupted the city, and there would be thousands of cases of radiation poisoning.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:08 AM

Originally posted by alienreality
Like the engine blocks missing from cars..

So a mini nuke can now be targetted just to remove engine blocks.... is that only for front engined cars? What about mid engined cars, or rear engined cars - what happens to them?

Any proof that those cars were missing engine blocks? I suppose the engine head was just hanging there in space, with a empty space between the head and sump? Did the pistons just fall into the sump?

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post by Mythkiller

I don't see proof of anything but rather pictures and words that are suggestive of other things.
I have an issue with almost everything mentioned on the linked site although I'm only listing a few of my favorites. I'm a truther but these examples aren't any help to the cause in my opinion.

From the second "facts": How was it measured and where was it ever mentioned that anything around GZ was hotter than the sun?

What do these two pictures have in common? They both represent a highly unconventional destructive release of energy, with temperatures much hotter than the sun.
What an odd comparison of pictures. What's almost more interesting is what the two pictures don't have in common. A column of smoke & dust where a building was standing moments ago and fell from the top down versus an explosion that began at ground level and rose into the air. If they're so similar where's the red hot explosive part in the twin towers? I never saw anything similar. I can use these same comments on the first two pictures.

A squad car on FDR drive with wilted doors, burned paint, instant rust and no door handles or engine block. Strange fires appear to be attracted to the engine blocks, while the gas tanks and nearby paper are not affected.
Wilted doors? Where? I see no such thing in the referenced picture. I'll agree that there's burned paint where the car's on fire. I don't see any rust never mind "instant" rust and I have no issues seeing the door handles. I don't see an engine block on fire but rather a fire on the ground that is catching the front of the car on fire. The gas tank probably isn't on fire because the fire's not near the gas tank yet.
Why should the paper that's not directly adjacent to the fire catch fire? Should there be some accelerant there that I'm unaware of to catch the paper on fire?

Buildings a few blocks away,had mysterious holes in the windows, and the front marble façade is completely gone, but no other damage.
Mysterious holes in the windows? I don't think blown out windows from the shock wave of millions of tons from a fallen building and resultant debris is very mysterious. I don't know what connection they're trying to make with the marble so I have no comment on it.

Why doesn't the paper burn?
What is burning? Why should all of the surrounding paper also be burning? Again, should there be accelerant for all these papers to burn? Would it be better if all of the paper spontaneously combusted?

That link is a full of questionable information that only hinders some of the real questions that need to be answered. A distraction at best with wild speculation without any proof in my opinion. Did you really not see all of the questionable information here?

Edit to add: The debunking began and it's not looking good for this "proof".

edit on 9/17/2010 by Three_moons because: I wanted to edit my post to add words

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:17 AM
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?

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:43 AM
What about that freaking beam turning into dust? Is that for real? That just makes no sense..

I feel that the government has somekind of antigravity they are hiding.. I thought that would be a great way to control the destruction of these buildings. Increase the gravity and pull the buildings down to the foundation.

The hutchison effect is an tineresting theory though. With that effect you could transmuite material. So any metal they target could be turned into some powder like substance. What was all that powder all around?

What if it was a matter antimatter bomb? How might that effect the environment? Maybe different effects than a nuke?

edit on 17-9-2010 by 8311-XHT because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:57 AM
reply to post by Ignorance_Defier

I don't buy this theory either.

The absence of radiation for one thing.

BTW I.D., nukes come in all sizes, from the very large to the very small.

A mini-tactical battlefield nuclear weapon could conceivably be detonated in a city, and it would pack a similar punch to a conventional explosive, but in a much smaller package.

Not all nukes are Hiroshima sized.

But i don't think mini-nukes did this. Thermite was found on the scene, iron spheres (classic telltale signs of thermite/thermate chemical reactions), dripping and pooling of molten steel point to this being the cause, not nukes.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:00 AM
Thanks for posting this

+9 more 
posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:39 AM
reply to post by spikey

Smallest nuke fielded - W54 for "Davy Crockett" recoiless rifle with nominal yield of 10 tons (.01 kiloton) had a
lethal radiation range (500 rem) of 350 meters . Basically everyone on WTC site and hundreds of meters around
would be dead from radiation

There were 14 survivors in the stairway B of North tower -none of them were sick.

Also hazmat team from FDNY surveyed site for radiation that afternoon - nothing found as neutrons from blast would have transmutted materials on scene to become radioactive and fallout debris from initial blast would still linger at scene

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:55 AM

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:39 AM

Originally posted by Mythkiller
Lets examine some more evidence then.

In other words, "okay, that didn't work. Let's try something different".

*scurries off to find different information while not addressing numerous points about car handles, engine blocks and other items mentioned*

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:57 AM
That wasn't a pyroclastic flow, if it was then every camera man who was filming in that dust cloud would have been turned to carbon almost instantly.


edit on Fri Sep 17 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS- FORUM REJUVENATION

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Three_moons

Originally posted by Mythkiller
Lets examine some more evidence then.

In other words, "okay, that didn't work. Let's try something different".

*scurries off to find different information while not addressing numerous points about car handles, engine blocks and other items mentioned*

I didn't "scurrie"off anywhere, other than to prepare my dinner...which I am now enjoying,while I reply to your derogative reply...

How you are unable to see any similarities in the pictures is a strange thing to say

maybe you should look harder because the plums of smoke/dust look very alike to my eyes.

Please check out this interview and proceeding slide show available here -

PS: Unfortunately I am unable to embed the images to satisfy your ease of investigation.

edit on 17-9-2010 by Mythkiller because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in