Nuclear Demolition of the WTC??

[BigBird]

I frequent another forum that has a section set aside for 9/11 discussions.. Unlike this forum, the forum I frequent is sort of a joke... Not much actual intellectual conversation goes on there, as much as many of us try... I have quickly come to enjoy all of the intelligent answers around here....

Anyway, there is an individual at this forum who seems to have a bit of a problem having rational debate and discussion, likes to post really large pictures over and over again, you know, the normal desperate paranoid conspiracy nut-job who believes the jews are the reason his milk went bad the day before... To keep this short, I and others challenged this guy to take his theory and bring it to a forum that has actually smart people around, to see how long it could stay afloat...

Needless to say, he has not stepped up to the plate... I wanted you all to take a look at his theory and tell me what you think... Scientifically plausible? Any input would be appreciated, positive or negative...

Is something like this even remotely possible? Nukes underneath the towers, one goes off, but doesn't set the other off? No EMP? Radiation? I'm no expert on nukes, but I've been poking around here long enough to know you guys might have some insight....

-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/MADMLITIUMMININUKESDEMOLITION.jpg

"The beauty of Li6 Bomb is that it pulverizes everything and leaves virtually no long term residual radiation compared to a fission or atomic bomb as used in hiroshima and of course these are called thermo nuclear because they have a very small fission device to set off the fusion process."

Possible? Why or why not....

[Justin39640]

I frequent another forum that has a section set aside for 9/11 discussions.. Unlike this forum, the forum I frequent is sort of a joke... Not much actual intellectual conversation goes on there, as much as many of us try... I have quickly come to enjoy all of the intelligent answers around here....

Anyway, there is an individual at this forum who seems to have a bit of a problem having rational debate and discussion, likes to post really large pictures over and over again, you know, the normal desperate paranoid conspiracy nut-job who believes the jews are the reason his milk went bad the day before... To keep this short, I and others challenged this guy to take his theory and bring it to a forum that has actually smart people around, to see how long it could stay afloat...

Needless to say, he has not stepped up to the plate... I wanted you all to take a look at his theory and tell me what you think... Scientifically plausible? Any input would be appreciated, positive or negative...

Is something like this even remotely possible? Nukes underneath the towers, one goes off, but doesn't set the other off? No EMP? Radiation? I'm no expert on nukes, but I've been poking around here long enough to know you guys might have some insight....

-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/MADMLITIUMMININUKESDEMOLITION.jpg

"The beauty of Li6 Bomb is that it pulverizes everything and leaves virtually no long term residual radiation compared to a fission or atomic bomb as used in hiroshima and of course these are called thermo nuclear because they have a very small fission device to set off the fusion process."

Possible? Why or why not....

i think someone would have noticed the large glass cavern under downtown Manhattan where there was previously bedrock

o yeah they had to plant it in bedrock WITH NO ONE NOTICING LMAO

(o boy, thats rich - makes CIT look like brain surgeons lol)

[T.A.M.]

The issues are two-fold (at least).

1. Plausibility.
2. Evidence.

1. Plausible. In the same sense that it is plausible that gigantic beam weapons from outer space destroyed the towers, pulverized the steel and concrete, is plausible. In the sane, real world...nah, not so much.

2. Evidence? Where, show me a single piece of evidence in favor of a nuke taking down the towers.

Now there are others here who might actually want to get into the specifics, but for me it does not pass the first pass test, so it does not deserve my attention to detail.

TAM:)

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm no expert with nukes, but didn't take just one or two megatons to level Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the tail end of WWII? Sorry, but trying to imagine this scenario's like trying to pretend Judy Wood's space beams actually happened... it's too far fetched either way...

[triforcharity]

If it was a nuke underneath the TT, they would have faallen from the bottom up, not top down.

Plus, not to mention that not ONE PERSON has become sick or died from radiation poisioning. No shockwave either.

Done. Next topic please.

[ktesibios]

Umm... all of the fusion reactions usable for bombs produce copious quantities of high-energy neutrons. Neutron bombardment is an excellent way to produce radioactive nuclei from stable nuclei. If a thermonuclear device had been set off at the WTC it would be expected to leave traces in the form of residual radioactivity in the debris due to neutron activation of ordinary atoms of iron, aluminum and so forth.

The environmental studies done at and around Ground Zero were sensitive enough to detect the radioactivity due to tritium in luminous signs in the planes. The likelihood that they would have missed the presence of radioactive isotopes of iron, aluminum, copper and silicon is extremely minimal.

The absence of expected effects like this, or acute radiation sickness among people who were near the collapsing towers, ought to be enough to put speculation about nukes at the WTC permanently to bed.

[BigAl]

I frequent another forum that has a section set aside for 9/11 discussions.. Unlike this forum, the forum I frequent is sort of a joke... Not much actual intellectual conversation goes on there, as much as many of us try... I have quickly come to enjoy all of the intelligent answers around here....

Anyway, there is an individual at this forum who seems to have a bit of a problem having rational debate and discussion, likes to post really large pictures over and over again, you know, the normal desperate paranoid conspiracy nut-job who believes the jews are the reason his milk went bad the day before... To keep this short, I and others challenged this guy to take his theory and bring it to a forum that has actually smart people around, to see how long it could stay afloat...

Needless to say, he has not stepped up to the plate... I wanted you all to take a look at his theory and tell me what you think... Scientifically plausible? Any input would be appreciated, positive or negative...

Is something like this even remotely possible? Nukes underneath the towers, one goes off, but doesn't set the other off? No EMP? Radiation? I'm no expert on nukes, but I've been poking around here long enough to know you guys might have some insight....

-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/MADMLITIUMMININUKESDEMOLITION.jpg

"The beauty of Li6 Bomb is that it pulverizes everything and leaves virtually no long term residual radiation compared to a fission or atomic bomb as used in hiroshima and of course these are called thermo nuclear because they have a very small fission device to set off the fusion process."

Possible? Why or why not....

The boys and girls that monitor the planet for underground nuclear tests can detect a nuclear cow fart on the opposite side of the planet. Several countries have this capability. On 9/11, nobody recorded anything consistent with a nuclear explosion.

[Arus808]

um...isn't there like 5 stories that was DEDICATED to PATH subways???? why no subways in that picture? did he take that into account?

[Hamradioguy]

ktesibios pretty much nailed it. There would be plenty of induced radioactivity, and none was found. But the poster seems to have no idea of how nuclear/thermonuclear processes work to begin with. Tell him to take his theory to any Health Physicist (if he doesn't mind being laughed at).

[Robster, FCD]

If it was a nuke underneath the TT, they would have faallen from the bottom up, not top down.

Yeah, but that would make sense!

[triforcharity]

Exactly. Bigal, The USAF has such a building not far from where I live. Its caalled the "Technical Applications Building" and it is locaated at Patrick AFB not far from Cocoa Beach and Kennedy Space Center. I drive by it all the time.

[patchbunny]

I'm no expert with nukes, but didn't take just one or two megatons to level Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the tail end of WWII? Sorry, but trying to imagine this scenario's like trying to pretend Judy Wood's space beams actually happened... it's too far fetched either way...

Less than that. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 15kt, IIRC, and Nagasaki was hit with about a 20kt yield.

[Dumb All Over]

Anyway, there is an individual at this forum...
...
Hi BigBird. What forum?

[BigBird]

Hi BigBird. What forum?

www.arguewitheveryone.com

The largest collection of morons on the interwebz.... ;)

I don't even bother debating any of them anymore...

[cyclonic]

Nukes detonated underneath the towers would have launched debris into space, destroyed the judy woods flying microwave oven and violated the treaty with the alien greys.

[BigBird]

nukes detonated underneath the towers would have launched debris into space, destroyed the judy woods flying microwave oven and violated the treaty with the alien greys.

haahahhahahaha :d

[Reheat]

A 150 KT nuclear device going bang under the WTC would have pretty much wiped out most of NYC.

That idea justifies one post with a big NO

[parky76]

150 kiloton nuke....under Manhattan.

My friends, if this had indeed occurred, my parents would have been killed by the 20,000 degree heat, and I would have been killed by the nuclear fall-out.

[oldhat]

Welp, all the math in the diagram looks correct to me.

[fezzic]

Scientifically plausible?

No. I am not a nuclear expert but consider. A nuclear device under each tower. Instantly the basement area is vaporized. But the fireball would continue to force its way outward which would have erupted into or from the street in gouts of blast and radiation. Anybody in the lobby would have been incinerated and irradiated, after all the elevators did often have the bottoms of their shafts in the basement and that would be a natural path upward. I would also note that there would be no survivors in the building cores. Radios in the area, even other electronic device, would have at least had a momemtary interference from the EMP, assuming it wasn't enough to burn them out.

There is no way to precisely calculate the yield and exactly what is going to happen when the device detonates. You will likely have some expectations of post explosion chamber size and such, but to think that anyone would DEPEND on such precision seems ludicrous. To even think about concealing the detonation of nuclear device would be insane in the extreme.


Is something like this even remotely possible? Nukes underneath the towers, one goes off, but doesn't set the other off? No EMP? Radiation? I'm no expert on nukes, but I've been poking around here long enough to know you guys might have some insight....



Sure it is possible if concealment of the fact that nuclear devices were detonated was not an issue for the reasons noted above. If a conspiracy were to even think about using nuclear devices, they would at least have the smarts to make sure that US and other intelligence services had some inkling that the proposed patsies (i.e. Al Queda) had access to devices of that type and yield (and a plausible source). They would HAVE to assume that someone would notice any other way of thinking would be insane.

[Grizzly Bear]

and I would have been killed by the nuclear fall-out.
and just about any place within a couple hundred miles downwind of that...

[Bad_Doggie]

Is something like this even remotely possible? Nukes underneath the towers, one goes off, but doesn't set the other off? No EMP? Radiation? I'm no expert on nukes, but I've been poking around here long enough to know you guys might have some insight......
Perhaps your friend can enlighten us how the “Nuke” goes off in the basement the blast causes no damage to the bottom of the towers. Then manages to travel up the towers passing by the survivors (and not killing them) who were in the stairwell and causing no damage to the rest of the structure and then causes the towers to collapse at the point at which the planes entered the building??????

Or does he think that the “Nukes” were in addition to TNT, Thermite, Thermate, super-duper-nonexistent mega Thermite. Quite some bomb buffet don’t ya fink?

The only remedy to this type of problem is for him to visit a doctor!

Woof!

[orphia nay]

Well, Steven Jones has his homeopathic thermite, why can't we let this guy have his homeopathic nukes?


;)

[Brainster]

And doesn't destroy the "bathtub" or the slurry wall? Or send an explosive wall of air to Hoboken and Journal Square?

Yeah and monkeys could fly out of my butt.

[Robster, FCD]

Beyond destroying the supports of the towers, this would have created a seismic shock that would have demolished any nearby (several mile radius?) unreinforced masonry buildings. Since that didn't happen, neither did the nuking.

And if one did have a nuke of any useful size, wouldn't an airburst explosion from a small plane have had more effect on the city itself?

[T.A.M.]

Beyond destroying the supports of the towers, this would have created a seismic shock that would have demolished any nearby (several mile radius?) unreinforced masonry buildings. Since that didn't happen, neither did the nuking.

And if one did have a nuke of any useful size, wouldn't an airburst explosion from a small plane have had more effect on the city itself?

exactly. The whole reason nuclear tests are underground (albeit much further underground) is to minimize damage (both structural and radiation) from the detonation.

Traditional nukes are exploded way up in the sky.

TAM:)

[Macgyver1968]

.....Yeah and monkeys could fly out of my butt.

Actually, that's more feasible than a mini-nuke at WTC. :)

If a nuke went off...then why aren't there "glitches" in all of the video tapes of the collapse from the EMP of the blast?

Must have been a NanoNuke. I hear they are quiet.

[Quad4_72]

That's the type individual you need not engage in discourse with. If they honestly think a nuke was used to bring down the towers, they have much deeper issues that none of us can help them with (As already stated, if a nuke went off under the towers of that size the whole city would have been obliterated).

[leftysergeant]

Since the weight at the top of the building had been shifted so that it was being born all catwampus, anything they did at the bottom of the towers would have caused them to flop over on their sides.

[ElMondoHummus]

In order to visualize the damage caused by nukes, people can use the Google Maps app created by Carlos Labs called "Ground Zero":
http://www.carloslabs.com/projects/200712B/GroundZero.html

If you select New York City, then select just a 15 kiloton bomb - an order of magnitude smaller than the 150 KT one cited in the OP's graphic - you can see just how widespread the damage is. And that's for a much smaller bomb.

Like others have already said, that silly thesis is dead in the water.

ETA: There are other blast mapping apps out there; here's one example: http://www.nuclearterror.org/blastmaps.html

[sylvan8798]

Possible? Why or why not....

I love the part where the bottom of the building is crashed/damaged but the top is still up there, intact. Skyhooks, yea! Just looking at the diagram you know the guy hasn't got a clue.

[Luntoc]

If a nuclear bomb did take down the towers it sure wasn't loud. Apparently it's the quietest nuclear weapon in history. Where do these people get their claims from? I understand how some claims come about but this ain't one of them.

[alexi_drago]

The Sedan explosion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca4D0-s8OsI

'This cratering explosion, with a yield of 104 kilotons, displaced 12 million tons of earth and formed a 1,280 foot diameter by 320 foot deep crater in the desert floor, releasing seismic energy equivelent to 4.75 in the richter scale.'

I think it would probably be noticable on the many videos available of the collapse of the towers.

[tsig]

The Sedan explosion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca4D0-s8OsI

'This cratering explosion, with a yield of 104 kilotons, displaced 12 million tons of earth and formed a 1,280 foot diameter by 320 foot deep crater in the desert floor, releasing seismic energy equivelent to 4.75 in the richter scale.'

I think it would probably be noticable on the many videos available of the collapse of the towers.

They used nano nukes.:boxedin:

Great video but we are talking about people that can look at the collapse video and see anything they want in it.

[alexi_drago]

Just had a look at the text in the image in the OP

That is why all current nuclear demolition schemes use thermo-nuclear charges of 150 kilotons and never more than this.'


Who? what? where?

Are there any videos of an actual nuclear demolition?

[Comsat Angel]

If a nuclear bomb did take down the towers it sure wasn't loud. Apparently it's the quietest nuclear weapon in history. Where do these people get their claims from? I understand how some claims come about but this ain't one of them.


Stick around. You'll see something stranger and sillier than this in a couple of weeks, trust me.

I'm no expert, but - you could bury a 150kt warhead deep enough to create a camouflet that would, as alexi_drago posted, create a giant crater that drops one of the Towers into it. However, the graphic this chap has posted would not collapse the tower if the warhead detonated at the level shown, it would more likely put the shattered fragments into orbit. And that's only for one tower - I doubt you could manage simultaneous detonations of two nukes buried underground so closely.

I don't think this chap really understands how frakkin' big the bang a 150kt nuke makes. Cherry bombs they are not!

[ElMondoHummus]

If a nuclear bomb did take down the towers it sure wasn't loud. Apparently it's the quietest nuclear weapon in history. Where do these people get their claims from? I understand how some claims come about but this ain't one of them.

And as others have already pointed out here, it also would have been the least radioactive. So many characteristics of nuclear explosions are missing that it absolutely staggers the rational mind to contemplate how people like Bill Deagle and other truthers buy into this.

[newton3376]

I frequent another forum that has a section set aside for 9/11 discussions.. Unlike this forum, the forum I frequent is sort of a joke... Not much actual intellectual conversation goes on there, as much as many of us try... I have quickly come to enjoy all of the intelligent answers around here....

Anyway, there is an individual at this forum who seems to have a bit of a problem having rational debate and discussion, likes to post really large pictures over and over again, you know, the normal desperate paranoid conspiracy nut-job who believes the jews are the reason his milk went bad the day before... To keep this short, I and others challenged this guy to take his theory and bring it to a forum that has actually smart people around, to see how long it could stay afloat...

Needless to say, he has not stepped up to the plate... I wanted you all to take a look at his theory and tell me what you think... Scientifically plausible? Any input would be appreciated, positive or negative...

Is something like this even remotely possible? Nukes underneath the towers, one goes off, but doesn't set the other off? No EMP? Radiation? I'm no expert on nukes, but I've been poking around here long enough to know you guys might have some insight....

-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/MADMLITIUMMININUKESDEMOLITION.jpg

"The beauty of Li6 Bomb is that it pulverizes everything and leaves virtually no long term residual radiation compared to a fission or atomic bomb as used in hiroshima and of course these are called thermo nuclear because they have a very small fission device to set off the fusion process."

Possible? Why or why not....

It's only possible if someone is delusional or a moron....

Or both.

[TruthersLie]

Griz.

Sorry if this has already been answerd. The size of the bombs at hiroshima and nagasaki was about 15 to 25 KILOTONS (equal to 15k to 25K TONS of TNT). Not megatons (1,000 TONS of TNT).

[Macgyver1968]

It takes a whole new level of paranoid delusion to even contemplate such a thing. To dismiss such obvious things like...I don't know...the entire flatting of whole 7 burrows?...the blinding flash of light, 100s of times brighter than the sun?..vaporization of people in the area ....takes real delusion to ignore such obvious things.

Wow...even a layman of science would understand the basic concepts of a nuke going off. Takes some serious delusion to totally disregard such things. I bet if you met this dude in real life...you would probably walk very gently backwards away from him.

[Trojan]

What happens if you cross thermite with nuclear weapons?

Sounds like twoofers could publish another 'peer reviewed' article, anyone got the $800 needed?

[ElMondoHummus]

It takes a whole new level of paranoid delusion to even contemplate such a thing. To dismiss such obvious things like...I don't know...the entire flatting of whole 7 burrows?...the blinding flash of light, 100s of times brighter than the sun?..vaporization of people in the area ....takes real delusion to ignore such obvious things.

Wow...even a layman of science would understand the basic concepts of a nuke going off. Takes some serious delusion to totally disregard such things. I bet if you met this dude in real life...you would probably walk very gently backwards away from him.

How many miles across would 7 buroughs be? I ask because we're all used to the Cold War concept of multi kiloton to megaton nukes that can wipe out the greater part of a large city (just see my links above), and they don't have to be that big. The smallest device confirmed to have been produced is the M-388 "Davy Crockett" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)) man portable, recoiless rifle fired warhead. It was a sub-kiloton device, yielding only a 0.01 kiloton blast, so I don't think it wouldn't necessarily vaporize downtown New York.

But everyone: Keep in mind I'm addressing sheer blast yield, not the totality of effects that even a "tiny" device like this would have. Even though it wouldn't erase the greater part of a city, it would leave undeniable effects. For example, near the end of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE&feature=player_embedded), it's noted that one of the drawbacks of the Davy Crockett was that soldiers 3 miles away - the max range the device could be launched - were still within rage of the fallout. On top of that, a potentially fatal dose of radiation would be delivered to anyone within a quarter mile of the blast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)), and there's no way anyone would fail to notice that. So please understand that I'm not trying to lend credence to the silly idea that nukes could've been used at the WTC and nobody had noticed. The only thing I'm addressing is this popular belief that everything within miles of where a nuke goes off is turned into vapor. That's all.

[tsig]

How many miles across would 7 buroughs be? I ask because we're all used to the Cold War concept of multi kiloton to megaton nukes that can wipe out the greater part of a large city (just see my links above), and they don't have to be that big. The smallest device confirmed to have been produced is the M-388 "Davy Crockett" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)) man portable, recoiless rifle fired warhead. It was a sub-kiloton device, yielding only a 0.01 kiloton blast, so I don't think it wouldn't necessarily vaporize downtown New York.

But everyone: Keep in mind I'm addressing sheer blast yield, not the totality of effects that even a "tiny" device like this would have. Even though it wouldn't erase the greater part of a city, it would leave undeniable effects. For example, near the end of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE&feature=player_embedded), it's noted that one of the drawbacks of the Davy Crockett was that soldiers 3 miles away - the max range the device could be launched - were still within rage of the fallout. On top of that, a potentially fatal dose of radiation would be delivered to anyone within a quarter mile of the blast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)), and there's no way anyone would fail to notice that. So please understand that I'm not trying to lend credence to the silly idea that nukes could've been used at the WTC and nobody had noticed. The only thing I'm addressing is this popular belief that everything within miles of where a nuke goes off is turned into vapor. That's all.

The diagram in the OP says a 150 KT bomb. Under each bldg. NY harbor would suddenly become a lot larger.

[Myriad]

Or, to put it another way, a 150 kiloton explosion would release the same energy as 150,000 tons of TNT. Each tower including all its contents weighed somewhere between 300,000 and 450,000 tons. So there would be a ton of TNT worth of energy for every 2 to 3 tons of building. I think the upper parts of the buildings would have blasted off instead of falling down.

Perhaps the drawing is mislabeled and he really means 150 tons? 0.15 kilotons? That would still be an insane theory but at least, insane in a slightly less obvious way.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[JoeyDonuts]

Must have been the Experimental MIRV.

I shot that bad boy off underneath Anchorage Memorial. Oddly enough, the walls stayed intact - albeit covered in Mirelurk soup.

[ElMondoHummus]

Ah, yes, true. A 150 KT blast would have indeed leveled several burroughs. Hell, it would've gone much farther than that; it probably would've spread all of Manhattan over millions of square miles in the form of radioactive dust, as well as vaporizing everything from Hoboken to the far bank of the East River.

I think my point still stands, it just has nothing to do with the OP anymore :o. I'm so used to hearing the "suitcase nuke" argument from the likes of Bill Deagle believers (who try to argue that the nuke was small enough to avoid detection) that I'm automatically thinking about arguments showing that even small nukes cannot escape such detection. I should've stopped and realized the OP's diagram wasn't making an argument about small nukes at all. Rather, it was going in the opposite direction:

"...we apparently need to use some nuclear charge that is more powerful than 150 kiloton in TNT yield."


Jesus... That is not arguing the use of a miniaturized nuclear weapon. Not by a long shot. Rather, that's arguing an explosive 10 times the size of the Hiroshima blast. Yet, somehow little details about such an explosion don't enter that truthers mind... like the over 10 mile high mushroom cloud1. Seriously, take that Google Maps applet thing (http://www.carloslabs.com/projects/200712B/GroundZero.html) I linked earlier and do some comparative overlays. You'll see how ridiculous even a 15kt blast would be to argue, let alone a "more powerful than 150 kiloton" one.



1. I say "over" because the Hiroshima mushroom cloud is said to have topped out at 17000 meters. That's about ten and a half miles.

[BigBird]

Ohhh man get this.... I was re-reading the thread over there, and this is another post from the same idiot I mentioned in the OP

On the contrary its people like you who do the most damage because you think you know something and as usual you overlook the evidence that bites you in the ass like the siesmic data showing the huge explosions and that little forgotten fact that all devices in the area went dead when the explosions went off.

you know emp.

People like you do the most damage to the nation as a whole because you fail to consider all the evidence.

HAHAHAHA what the hell?? Was it just me or were there plenty of cameras around recording at the time of the collapses? Did any of them turn off?:rolleyes:

[ElMondoHummus]

The "little forgotten fact"?? Wow... that is delusional.

Did you respond? Post something pithy like "You mean, the never actually happened fact"? :D

[cyclonic]

AE911TRUTH member charles pegelow, one of the few actual structual engineers gage signed up, believes it was "4th generation nukes" that blew up the towers and vapourized 50.000 tons of steel.
lmao.

[BigBird]

AE911TRUTH member charles pegelow, one of the few actual structual engineers gage signed up, believes it was "4th generation nukes" that blew up the towers and vapourized 50.000 tons of steel.
lmao.

Speaking of that....This dude also claimed that there was a 50 ton press that was in the basement of the wtc that mysteriously vanished, as if vaporized... He also seems to think that the 50 tons they refer to is the actual weight of the press..... LOL!!!

http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/september-11th/52460-nuclear-demolition-wtc-2.html

[BigBird]

The "little forgotten fact"?? Wow... that is delusional.

Did you respond? Post something pithy like "You mean, the never actually happened fact"? :D

Unfortunately he mentioned this about a month ago, but still references it on a frequent basis...I wasn't partaking in that thread at that period.. I came to it after it had already gone 50+ pages, unfortunately... Check out the link in the previous post if you wanna read it first hand.. This dude is seriously off his rocker! :D

[Graham2001]

-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/MADMLITIUMMININUKESDEMOLITION.jpg

"The beauty of Li6 Bomb is that it pulverizes everything and leaves virtually no long term residual radiation compared to a fission or atomic bomb as used in hiroshima and of course these are called thermo nuclear because they have a very small fission device to set off the fusion process."

Possible? Why or why not....

The diagram reminds me of something I saw in a 1970's issue of New Scientist which covered how to build a working nuclear device inside a standard British terrace house.

I think the idea was that the fall from the attic to the basement would provide enough force to trigger an explosive critical mass without the need for high explosives.

The only reason I remember it is that the article had a 'flip-animation' at the bottom of the page showing a terrace house being launched into orbit atop a mushroom cloud! ;)

[Reactor drone]

The wiki page on underground nuclear testing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_testing) gave a table allowing rough calculations to be made of the physical effects that a 150kt nuclear device would cause.Those figures came from a paper about detection of nuclear tests by the physical evidence they leave(quite an interesting read actually).

http://www.ees1.lanl.gov/Wohletz/LAMS-13244-MS.pdf

From that we get these figures

Melt cavity( 4 – 12 m/kt1/3 ) 21-63m
Crushed zone (30 - 40 m/kt1/3 ) 159-212m
Cracked zone (80 - 120 m/kt1/3 ) 425-637m
Zone of irreversible strain (800 - 1100 m/kt1/3 )4250-5844m

In order to avoid a surface crater(which would cause the collapse to start at the base of the towers) the shot would have to be done at a depth of 584m in hard ground ( 110 m/kt1/3 ) or 1275m in softer ground(240 m/kt1/3 ) so it would be possible to detonate a bomb under New york without blowing half the city away or irradiating the population but there would be both seismic and physical traces as well as subsurface radiation detectable from such an event.

That's to say nothing of the insanity of the idea of using a nuke to try and promote a structural failure in a damaged skyscraper:boggled:

Of course if someone hadn't come up with this idea I probably wouldn't have looked up that info on nuclear testing and my knowledge would be less than it is now so I'd just like to say a quick thankyou to the twoof movement for giving me an excuse to broaden my knowledge :D

[alexi_drago]

The wiki page on underground nuclear testing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_testing) gave a table allowing rough calculations to be made of the physical effects that a 150kt nuclear device would cause.Those figures came from a paper about detection of nuclear tests by the physical evidence they leave(quite an interesting read actually).

http://www.ees1.lanl.gov/Wohletz/LAMS-13244-MS.pdf

From that we get these figures

Melt cavity( 4 – 12 m/kt1/3 ) 21-63m
Crushed zone (30 - 40 m/kt1/3 ) 159-212m
Cracked zone (80 - 120 m/kt1/3 ) 425-637m
Zone of irreversible strain (800 - 1100 m/kt1/3 )4250-5844m

In order to avoid a surface crater(which would cause the collapse to start at the base of the towers) the shot would have to be done at a depth of 584m in hard ground ( 110 m/kt1/3 ) or 1275m in softer ground(240 m/kt1/3 ) so it would be possible to detonate a bomb under New york without blowing half the city away or irradiating the population but there would be both seismic and physical traces as well as subsurface radiation detectable from such an event.

That's to say nothing of the insanity of the idea of using a nuke to try and promote a structural failure in a damaged skyscraper:boggled:

Of course if someone hadn't come up with this idea I probably wouldn't have looked up that info on nuclear testing and my knowledge would be less than it is now so I'd just like to say a quick thankyou to the twoof movement for giving me an excuse to broaden my knowledge :D

What would that have looked like? atm I'm imagining a massive shockwave travelling through the ground and up the towers and neighbouring buildings at 1000's of m/s, anyone know?

[T.A.M.]

Speaking of that....This dude also claimed that there was a 50 ton press that was in the basement of the wtc that mysteriously vanished, as if vaporized... He also seems to think that the 50 tons they refer to is the actual weight of the press..... LOL!!!

http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/september-11th/52460-nuclear-demolition-wtc-2.html

For comparison, an empty (no fuel or passengers) airbus a310, weighs 80 tonnes.

For comparison, 100,000 lbs (apprx 50 tonnes), is the same weight as about 18 Hummer H2 Vehicles.

I wish they would give up that silly stuff. Tonnage in this case, I am almost certain, refers to the pressure the press applies.

TAM:)

[TruthersLie]

This "theory" (snicker) is so ludacris as to be hillarious.

I love how they leave out ALL of the unique fingerprints a nuclear blast would leave.
seismic evidence
radioactive evidence
the towers EXPLODING from the bottom
the massive crater of radioactive glass...

but just ignore those and it makes perfect sense.

just like if you turn off the sound and squint and ignore the physical evidence you can look at CD's and say they LOOK EXACTLY like wtc7

[The_Fire]

I used the Googlemaps app. Targeted WTC. Used a 15kt nuke(hiroshima sized).
The Thermal map showed total annihilation of the Finance district and extensiv thermal (Read: Firestorm) damage all the way to Brookelyn heights, Greenwich Village and something called "Waldo" (Not kidding, that's what the map says ;)). Staten Island barely goes free. Granted, that is an airborn explosion, but it shows the damage of even a small nuke.

[newton3376]

Sometimes I think there should be a national "slap-a-truther" day....

It could be another holiday.
:hit:
Nuclear demolition? Where do these people come from?

Once the disease of stupid has progressed to that point, I'm afraid the disease is usually incurable and possibly life threatening.....

[Comsat Angel]

Ohhh man get this.... I was re-reading the thread over there, and this is another post from the same idiot I mentioned in the OP



HAHAHAHA what the hell?? Was it just me or were there plenty of cameras around recording at the time of the collapses? Did any of them turn off?:rolleyes:

You won't get an EMP from a subterranean detonation (despite what "Hard Target" shows)

[newton3376]

You won't get an EMP from a subterranean detonation (despite what "Hard Target" shows)

Comsat Angel is correct.

[JoeyDonuts]

Comsat Angel is correct.

However, you will get an inhuman amount of radiation-saturated particulate matter thrown thousands of feet up in the air...

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, since this seems to have turned into a science forum post about the effects of nuclear explosions :D... There's a new Ground Zero applet available that I didn't know about yesterday:
http://www.carloslabs.com/node/20

And for those who don't know what the colored circles mean, they are zones of effect/blast zones/damage zones/zones of destruction... if there's a formal term for it and someone knows it, feel free to chime in. But the point is that the circles demonstrate levels of effect the farther away you get from the point of explosion. The following site gives a basic explanation of nuclear blast zones:
http://home.clara.net/nybbles/oldestuff/vik/nuke/blastzones.html

It's a little frightening to contemplate that, for a small (!!) 10 kt weapon, a one mile radius will see everything destroyed, and an overpressure of 17psi. That's pretty excessive; a mere 2 to 3 psi causes barotrauma to a human being. On top of that, nearly 300 MPH winds... yeah. A small nuke going off, even underground, would not have escaped notice. Not by a long shot. A 150 kt one... well, let's just say the effects would have been that much more obvious. :rolleyes:

[newton3376]

However, you will get an inhuman amount of radiation-saturated particulate matter thrown thousands of feet up in the air...

I think I can buy that.....it sounds reasonable