Humint Events Online: The Problem with Mini-Nukes at the WTC

Thursday, November 26, 2009

The Problem with Mini-Nukes at the WTC

As Anonymous Physicist and I have written about extensively (AP should be given credit for the key insights), the best explanation for what happened at the WTC on 9/11 is a nuclear demolition.

There's no question that the official collapse mechanism is complete bunk-- which clearly means there was some sort of demolition of the towers. Conventional explosives are ruled out, due to the simple fact that the destruction was too extreme for normally placed demolition explosives, and it is very unlikely that enough conventional charges could be placed in the towers without detection. Thermite, or nano-thermite, suffers from the same flaw-- actually even more so, since thermitic agents have even less explosive power than conventional demolition. Beam weapons have some appeal as being able to explain the WTC destruction phenomenon, but only because beam weapons propose an unknown technology. The major problem with beam weapons being used at the WTC is the fact that so much energy was required for the demolition, and it is nearly impossible to imagine this energy being transmitted through the air, all in a matter of seconds. Further, the towers looked to be blowing up from WITHIN, not from without-- particularly given how the sequences started for both towers. Small nuclear bombs fits the scenario extremely well-- the extreme efficiency and power of the destruction, the apparent vaporization of the building contents and people, as well as the phenomenon of the extremely hot rubble pile for months.

But still... even nuclear demolition has a problem. The problem is this: for much of the WTC demolition, there are no obvious fireballs or extremely large, bright flashes that would be expected for the detonation of many small nukes. Generally I have said the nukes went off deep in the center of the towers, and the flashes were shielded by the resulting debris. The problem however, I think, is that any nuke or set of nukes that were powerful enough to vaporize so much inside the towers-- and we know there was vaporization-- would have been large enough to produce a significant large flash.

What we do see is:
1) large clouds of debris/dust ejected ahead of the demolition waves and then thick volcanic clouds subsequent to the tower coming apart
2) a very large fireball at the onset of the WTC1 demolition, at the "collapse" point
3) a few small bright flashes in the tower just prior to the WTC2 demolition, near subsequent breakpoints
4) a significant amount of dripping molten material in the tower just prior to the WTC2 demolition, near subsequent breakpoints
5) many many very small bright flashes in the dust clouds during WTC1 demolition

My feeling has long been that some sort of mechanism essentially turned the insides of the towers to complete mush before the "collapse" phase. Essentially, we see the top of the towers plowing down, as if through water, driving up the lower portions of the tower in massive waves.

How to explain this?

I have no friggin' idea! All I can do is invoke an unknown technology. But I don't think a "beam weapon" can account for the destruction at all.

One possibility is that there were some medium and small and micro nukes, associated with the bright flashes described-- that account for some of the destruction and the then the China Syndrome-- but that there was some other key mechanism involved in disintegrating the towers. What could this other mechanism be? A special type of nuclear explosive device that doesn't produce visible light, perhaps? One that also produces relatively little radiation?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

The FBI polygraphers will clean-up this mess.

Google "Quadri-Track ZCT"

9:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

kudos for a very good post!

2:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the towers were built with concrete cores and if very low-yield devices were used, I'm not sure there is a problem. A sufficiently low yield could be selected such that only the interior of the concrete core was vaporized. The flash would be shielded by the non-vaporized outer part of the core. The outer part of the core would be destroyed moments later by the force of the expanding interior material.

4:55 PM  
Blogger John Lee, Hollywood winner said...

Nukes would have to be installed on every floor on every column to explain the demolition of WTC at freefall speed.

My job in US Air Force was nuking active US military bases in controlled demolitions, a common job for 1,000s of DOD employees.

On 9/11 I was suing the owners of BFI in a class action for organized crime, for running massive cartheft rackets with police (just like Rudy Ghouliani's Mafia cousin before he was gunned down by FBI). A&E TV Investigative Reports' "Modern Mobs" showed dozens of BFI employees convicted under the RICO Act for membership in Gambino and Genovese Mafia families at WTC, with access to each floor of WTC in garbage contracts. BFI partnered with CDI in a $3B govt contract to "demolish" WTC "after" 9/11.

CDI and BFI owners are from Knoxville TN, home of GW Bush's gay lover, roommate and fellow cheerleader at all-male Yale Skull & Bones. Ask dominatrix Leola McConnell about her book "Lustful Utterances". Oh you can't, she's missing and presumed murdered.

1:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nukes would have to be installed on every floor on every column to explain the demolition of WTC at freefall speed.

not neccessarily. certainly regular explosives would have to be placed on every column but i think nukes could be placed in the very center of the tower, maybe every 5 floors or perhaps even 10 floors apart.
what theepee above says about concrete core shielding the perimeter from the flash makes sense to me and fits with the observed result of huge exanding clouds of concrete dust, almost total elimination of massive core columns and extreme expulsion of perimeter columns.

however, i am not the anonymous physicist, i am just the anonymous musician who makes his living being the anonymous rodeo clown, so my speculation is tenuous at best.

11:54 AM  
Blogger buka001 said...

Oh my fuck LOGIC has started to creep in. Holy fucking shit its going to snow!!! You finnaly realising that its possible that no nukes were used. Its a start good luck for the next 8 years

6:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

maybe buka001 can explain how all of the massive steel core columns could be vaporized at the rate of 11 floors per second without using nukes.
maybe he can also explain what other than nukes would cause molten metal to remain at ground zero for over 100 days despite constant dousing with water.

12:44 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger