WTC Paper and WTC Nukes

I don't think the paper seen on the streets near Ground Zero is evidence against nukes planted in the WTC.

First off, when I say "NUKES" here, to clarify, I am talking about small "clean" (fissionless) fusion bombs-- very small, but obviously very powerul.

Second of all, we don't know exactly where this paper came from in the towers-- it could have been out from regions not directly hit by the nuke blast, or the light paper could have been blown ahead of the main blast wave.

Third, we don't really have any way to quantify the paper in the streets. The WTC towers were no doubt filled with millions of sheets of paper. One could make an argument that if anything, there was a DEARTH of paper found in the streets around ground zero. In fact, I think there was certainly far less paper in the streets around ground zero, than would be seen in any sort of gravity-induced collapse.

So I'm wondering-- what exactly is the scientific argument against the WTC towers being blown up by several small "clean" fusion nukes?

Wood and Reynolds argue against nukes in their DEW article:

The nuclear theory fails because an explosion powerful enough to turn most of each tower to dust would have seriously damaged the bathtub, probably flooded lower Manhattan, and spiked a high Richter reading. It violates a number of data points, including the observed top-down disintegration. And if a nuke were at the top, it could not progressively destroy lower floors and there were only a few steel beams tossed onto adjacent buildings and none above the 20th floor. Lots of aluminum cladding was tossed onto neighboring buildings’ roofs but no steel beams. How could a nuke be so selective? It could not. Nor can a nuke explain the toasted cars.

I think ONLY nukes can vaporize steel to the extent that was seen-- and nuclear blast energy is the only reasonable explanation for that phenomenon. Thus, to the extent that steel was missing and that there was less damage to the bath-tub-- it was done by nuclear energy. Remember, we are talking about small nukes here-- that could have been programmed to go off top to bottom, in the manner the collapse occurred.

Nukes can certainly explain the toasted cars-- both hot gases blowing down and an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) wave that is always associated with nuclear blasts.

Lots of aluminum cladding was tossed onto neighboring buildings’ roofs but no steel beams. How could a nuke be so selective? It could not.

This is not a convincing argument against nukes, as this selectivity argument is not well substantiated. Importantly, aluminum cladding is lighter than steel, and is knocked off the steel columns relaitvely easily. Thus, it will get blown off the steel columns and fly further than the steel columns. Finding aluminum cladding on nearby rooftops is not particularly surprising. The fact is, in the videos, we SEE outer steel facade columns being blown down, with a wave of cladding ahead of them.

I think the nukes were more important in terms of vaporizing the inner core columns, as opposed to the outer columns-- since, as I noted before, a large percentage of the core columns seem to have disappeared.

Finally, one other argument in favor of nukes (as opposed to conventional explosives) is that they are not explode from fire.

NOW-- what was used to take down the WTC?

My guess is that it was mostly nukes, with some conventinal explosives and some directed energy weapons and even a bit of thermite perhaps.

But it was mostly nuclear energy that took down the twin towers.

Hence, GROUND ZERO.