Quantcast

Pictures Prove Mini Nukes Caused 9-11 Devastation

irish -liberty or death! 2010/09/21 14:53:47
Related Topics: Google, Earth, Fuel, Temperature
You!
Add Photos & Videos



Pictures Prove Mini Nukes Caused 9-11 Devastation

Posted on Pakalert on September 18, 2010 // 16 Comments








There are only two events known to cause ground-hugging pyroclastic flows (pictured above).




  1. A volcanic eruption


  2. A thermo nuclear detonation

by “Dennis”



All research provided by:


www.drjudywood.com and http://911u.org/




On the morning of September 11th, 2001, we were told a fairy tale. That wide body jets flew into the twin towers and completely destroyed them. Let me repeat that: Passenger planes (large hollow aluminum tubes) flew into industrial steel, marble and concrete sky scrapers, and caused them to turn into a pile of dust. And the worst part about this fairy tale is that we, the American people believed it. Now, nine years later, it’s time to wake up from your slumber and take a good hard look at what did and did not happen on that fateful day. The conventional explanation we were provided, by government and media, for a top-down highly destructive gravitational collapse, in near-free-fall times, is physically impossible, and is thus about as worthy of discussion as is the belief that the Earth is flat.


FICTION: Passenger jets flew into the Twin Towers, and the burning jet fuel caused them to collapse.


FACT: The Twin Towers did not collapse. They suffered a mid-air pulverization due to an extreme unconventional energy source that caused the initial upward trajectory of so much of the towers’ mass during the ‘collapses’ as (supposedly only) gravity was pulling them down.


FICTION: The burning jet fuel melted all of the steel beams causing the buildings to collapse directly onto their own footprint.


FACT: 80% of each of the towers 50 million ton mass NEVER hit the ground. The steel did not melt, but turned into nano-dust. Pulverization + Molecular Dissociation = Ground Zero Evidence. When matter is elevated to temperatures hotter than the surface of the Sun, molecular dissociation results. Molecular Dissociation (MD) is easy to understand once we realize that there are four (4) states of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Just as ice has trouble surviving in water or steam, molecules have trouble surviving in plasma, which is highly energetic (ie, extremely hot). When molecules dissociate, they leave behind loose atoms and fragments of molecules. In other words, extremely small particles. In this sense, it is correct to think of molecular dissociation as disintegration.



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.


So once we confirm evidence of widespread molecular dissociation having occurred at Ground Zero in New York City, we have a very strong indication that only exotic, unconventional weaponry could have released that much extremely — unimaginably — high intensity energy which suddenly appeared just as the towers disintegrated from top to bottom. This understanding means we cannot blame the highly unconventional Ground Zero devastation on thermite/thermate/super thermate and “controlled demolition” any more than we can blame it on “jet fuel” or “box cutters”.



In a “pancake collapse” the rubble pile should be at least 1/8 of the original building height (12.5%). The actual rubble pile was no more than 2% of the original building height. Both towers went “poof.”


So where did these 110 story tall 50 million ton sky scrapers go?






They were turned into nano-dust and 80% of the “dust” floated off into the atmosphere.




From left to right: A huge steel beam from the south tower falters, turns to “dust” and blows away.


Now that we’ve scientifically proven that only exotic, unconventional weaponry could have released that much extremely — unimaginably — high intensity energy to cause the pulverization and molecular dissociation of these buildings, let’s look at some of the other unexplainable anomalies..


1400 VEHICLES melted NEAR WTC







All of these cars have unexplainable similar damage: Paint gone, instant rusting, and all of their door handles and engine blocks are missing!



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.



Buildings a few blocks away,had mysterious holes in the windows, and the front marble façade is completely gone, but no other damage.









Why doesn’t the paper burn?



For months we witnessed trucks coming and going from Ground Zero and the media told us they were hauling away the steel. What steel? There was very little steel left in the rubble because it had been pulverized into nano-dust. So what were these trucks really hauling back and forth? Dirt! They hauled in dirt, spread it all over Ground Zero, then scooped it up and hauled it away, and this went on for years. Didn’t they do that at Chernobyl? Yes they did!



So now you know what didn’t cause the buildings to “vanish.” Planes, jet fuel and thermite are irrelevant. So what kind of unconventional energy could have caused the Twin Towers to turn to dust? A fissionless fusion thermo nuclear event? Direct Energy Weapons? HAARP? A scaled up weaponized version of The Hutchison Effect? The investigation continues………



Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Dave**Gay for Girls** 2010/09/22 11:42:33
    comment
    Dave**Gay for Girls**
    +2
    OMG, this is dragging things beyond the point of credibility. Nuclear explosions....stay away from ground zero or you'll die from radiation poisoning. Good grief........

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • jamesmitchem7 2010/09/25 08:26:43 (edited)
    comment
    jamesmitchem7
    It's nano thermite shaped charges, no it's a mini nuke, no it's a death ray from outer space!!!!

    You know what is the most discrediting thing about the 9/11 truthiness movement? (Aside from bizarre theories that defy the laws of physics) Lack of consistency...
  • irish -... jamesmi... 2010/09/25 11:57:01
    irish -liberty or death!
    whats disconcerting is that until someone comes clean,there will always be speculation. its a normal human function,to wonder. and actually the only thing that is unknown is the exact cause of steel towers falling down in 8 seconds. especially the one that was hit last falling before the first one.
  • jamesmi... irish -... 2010/09/25 19:09:34 (edited)
    jamesmitchem7
    +1
    "actually the only thing that is unknown is the exact cause of steel towers falling down in 8 seconds."

    "falling down in 8 seconds" WTF???

    The Twin Towers did nothing of the kind. Watch the video clips and time it.



    Furthermore, 8 seconds is impossible, free fall speed from the top floor of the 110 story twin towers would take 9.22 seconds, this figure assumes a perfect vacuum so as to remove air resistance from the equation.

    8 seconds would mean the towers fell faster than an object falling at free fall speed in a perfect vacuum... that quite simply isn't possible, it defies the laws of physics. Also as the video evidence demonstrates, it simply did not happen, not in 9.22 seconds and certainly not in "8 seconds".

    "especially the one that was hit last falling before the first one."

    The fact that the South Tower collapsed first even though it was hit last is easily predictable and explainable by the basic laws of physics. I'll explain.

    The North Tower Also known as WTC 1 was hit by American Airlines Flight 11 at 8:46 AM, the Boeing 767 impacted between the 93rd and 99th floors. WTC 1 fell at 10:28 AM local time.

    The South Tower also known as WTC 2 was hit by United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:03 AM, this second Boeing 767 impacted the South Tower between the 78th and 82nd floors. WTC...







    "actually the only thing that is unknown is the exact cause of steel towers falling down in 8 seconds."

    "falling down in 8 seconds" WTF???

    The Twin Towers did nothing of the kind. Watch the video clips and time it.



    Furthermore, 8 seconds is impossible, free fall speed from the top floor of the 110 story twin towers would take 9.22 seconds, this figure assumes a perfect vacuum so as to remove air resistance from the equation.

    8 seconds would mean the towers fell faster than an object falling at free fall speed in a perfect vacuum... that quite simply isn't possible, it defies the laws of physics. Also as the video evidence demonstrates, it simply did not happen, not in 9.22 seconds and certainly not in "8 seconds".

    "especially the one that was hit last falling before the first one."

    The fact that the South Tower collapsed first even though it was hit last is easily predictable and explainable by the basic laws of physics. I'll explain.

    The North Tower Also known as WTC 1 was hit by American Airlines Flight 11 at 8:46 AM, the Boeing 767 impacted between the 93rd and 99th floors. WTC 1 fell at 10:28 AM local time.

    The South Tower also known as WTC 2 was hit by United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:03 AM, this second Boeing 767 impacted the South Tower between the 78th and 82nd floors. WTC 2 fell at 9:59 AM local time.

    So why the seemingly 'early' or 'premature' collapse of the South Tower? The explanation for the timing of the collapse of WTC 2 is simple: weight.

    The South Tower impact area was bearing a total of 32 stories above the beginning of the impact zone, that is a lot of weight.

    The North Tower impact area was by contrast only holding up 17 stories above the start of the impact zone.

    The added weight easily explains why the South Tower fell first, the impact zone of WTC 2 was holding up just shy of double the weight of the impact zone on WTC 1. No mystery or conspiracy needed to explain the timing of the collapse.
    (more)
  • irish -... jamesmi... 2010/09/26 11:44:25
    irish -liberty or death!
    seconds,only seconds.
  • jamesmi... irish -... 2010/09/26 17:53:20
    jamesmitchem7
    Is that the best you can come up with? I just unequivocally proved you wrong and your response is to say that you were only off by "seconds"? LOL.

    Just admit it for once Irish, I got you and there is nothing you can do about it.
  • irish -... jamesmi... 2010/09/27 11:53:37
    irish -liberty or death!
    you have nothing sock puppet. as usual your ego gets in the way. compensating?
  • Dave**Gay for Girls** 2010/09/22 11:42:33
    comment
    Dave**Gay for Girls**
    +2
    OMG, this is dragging things beyond the point of credibility. Nuclear explosions....stay away from ground zero or you'll die from radiation poisoning. Good grief........

  • irish -... Dave**G... 2010/09/22 11:49:32
    irish -liberty or death!
    +1
    again ,dave. its for consideration!
    http://forum.nasaspaceflight....

    not necessary to have radiation.
  • DJL 2010/09/22 06:17:54 (edited)
    comment
    DJL
    +2
    The city of New York would be a nuclear hot spot if a nuke was set off there 9 years ago.
  • irish -... DJL 2010/09/22 11:36:41
    irish -liberty or death!
    +1
    did you read what was in the article?? read it carefully.
  • DJL irish -... 2010/09/22 23:06:25 (edited)
    DJL
    +1
    I did read it carefully and it says there wasn't any steel left at the site. This is a lie. If a nuke had been detonated the radiation would have spread to a much bigger area than what could have been covered with dirt.

    http://www.nowpublic.com/uss_...


    Do you remember the ship that was made from the 9/11 steel?
  • irish -... DJL 2010/09/23 12:09:02
    irish -liberty or death!
    +1
    apparently you aren't familiar with the fissionless fusion ,are you?
  • DJL irish -... 2010/09/23 22:31:26 (edited)
    DJL
    +2
    What you are talking about still requires more energy in than the amount of energy produced.






    I believe what is being brought up here is the 'Hirsch-Farnsworth Machine' method of inducing fusion electrically and this is not a bomb at all but rather a method used to produce neutrons for laboratory nuclear experiments. As far as I can tell the method has not yet been able to achieve 'break-even' performance IE produce more energy from fusion than the energy input (electrical) required to induce fusion within the chamber but the proponents of it have great hopes for it.

    Basicly it works by producing a very high voltage potential 'well' within an evacuated container and introducing suitable material to be ionised and subsequently the ions are electrically accelerated together fast enough to overcome the 'coulomb barrier' allowing nuclei to be driven together achieving some fusion at the centre of the evacuated spherical chamber without the super high temperatures normally associated with fusion. The flux of neutrons is evidence of successful operation (nuclei being smashed together with neutrons thrown off as 'debris').

    Some info on the history of it here and here

    Fascinating reading if you're interested in this sort of experimentation and developments like the Tokomak etc.

    However, it's a huge stretch to try associating this in any way with the WTC events.
  • irish -... DJL 2010/09/24 11:21:48
    irish -liberty or death!
    why is it a stretch?? do we really know what the govt has at its disposal? of course we don't. but what we do know is that this was not a normal collapse. so any theory can be put forward.
  • DJL irish -... 2010/09/25 00:11:03
    DJL
    What is a normal collapse for twin towers brought down with airplanes? There isn't any others to compare it to so there is no way of knowing if the collapse was normal.
  • irish -... DJL 2010/09/25 01:17:40
    irish -liberty or death!
    you attempt to use 2 different scenarios in your answer. a "normal " collapse would not pulverize the building. what happened to the wtc buildings defied physics.
  • DJL irish -... 2010/09/25 01:30:23
    DJL
    You keep saying the building was pulverized but the you don't show any proof.
  • irish -... DJL 2010/09/25 01:33:30
    irish -liberty or death!
    sigh,i have and you keep denying it. look at the videos. concrete into dust?? what do you call that?
  • DJL irish -... 2010/09/25 01:36:08
    DJL
    Crushed concrete.
  • irish -... DJL 2010/09/25 01:53:22
    irish -liberty or death!
    and how would that happen? other buildings fall and are not crushed. they may pancake but they don't turn to dust. can' t post media with new sh.
  • DJL irish -... 2010/09/25 02:44:59 (edited)
    DJL
    Wasn't most of the dust in the pictures from all the fluoresent bulbs being broken. I have broken one and there was dust everywhere. How many were broken in the attack. dust pictures fluoresent bulbs broken broken dust broken attack



    You can still post media.
  • irish -... DJL 2010/09/25 11:58:05
    irish -liberty or death!
    no i can't post media,you can but i can't.
    light bulbs?? seriously??LOL LOL
  • DJL irish -... 2010/09/25 23:09:02
    DJL
    You can post media,there is a glitch that sometimes doesn't let you do it the regular way. When the Search Web option of adding media doesn't work you can still use the Upload Image option. There were enough light bulbs and sheetrock walls in the building to account for the dust.
  • ASithLordsPoet/angelpoet17/ 2010/09/21 22:41:31
    comment
    ASithLordsPoet/angelpoet17/
    well not possible it wasnt a inside job
  • irish -... ASithLo... 2010/09/22 11:37:05
    irish -liberty or death!
    +1
    wanta bet?
  • ASithLo... irish -... 2010/09/22 19:51:49
    ASithLordsPoet/angelpoet17/
    yeah a box of twinkies i want to bet a box of...twinkies
  • irish -... ASithLo... 2010/09/23 12:09:30
    irish -liberty or death!
    +1
    amazing how incredibly dumb most americans are!
  • ASithLo... irish -... 2010/09/23 15:40:52
    ASithLordsPoet/angelpoet17/
    i know right. well how was it mini nukes? jw
  • irish -... ASithLo... 2010/09/24 11:22:33
    irish -liberty or death!
    its just a theory because the collapse and susequent damage to cars blocks away is unexplained.
  • ASithLo... irish -... 2010/09/24 16:20:14
    ASithLordsPoet/angelpoet17/
    well the miterals of the building could have damage the cars it call splash damage
  • irish -... ASithLo... 2010/09/24 16:22:26
    irish -liberty or death!
    blocks away??? from a building that fell straight down?
  • ASithLo... irish -... 2010/09/24 16:31:53
    ASithLordsPoet/angelpoet17/
    well other buildings around it did got damage too ok just say its mini nukes why didnt people report radiation sickness after the attack?
  • irish -... ASithLo... 2010/09/24 16:51:43
    irish -liberty or death!
    +1
    http://www.serendipity.li/wot...

    1. This is a kiloton KT (1,000 tons) bomb, not a megaton MT (1 Million tons) bomb, and it's not even 2% of a kilo (18 tons).

     

    2. "
    In November 1972, the following sentence was declassified: "The fact of existence of weapons with tailored outputs, e.g., enhanced x-ray, neutron or gamma-ray output, that we are hardening our weapons to enhanced weapon outputs and that high-Z materials are used in hardening nuclear weapons against high-energy x-rays." Note - the date is the declassification date, not the development date.

    How small can a nuclear reaction be? Through hydrodynamic experiments for triggering fusion, extremely lows yield nuclear explosions have been generated on the magnitude of "
    several Pounds of TNT." As noted above, in 1961 .01 kt was unveiled in 1961. In 1956, the Tamalpais with a yield of 0.072 kt was declassified.

    This
    program produced (partial list) the following information for a regular 0.01 kt yields, air ignition: Fireball max light radius = 25.4 meters, Max time light pulse width = 0.011 seconds, Max fireball airburst radius = 10.6 meters, Time of max temperature = 0.0032 seconds, Area of rad. exposure = 0.12 sq. miles; Blastwave Effects: Overpressure = 5 lb/sq. inch (160 mph) radius = 0.09 km, 1 lb/sq. inch ...





    http://www.serendipity.li/wot...

    1. This is a kiloton KT (1,000 tons) bomb, not a megaton MT (1 Million tons) bomb, and it's not even 2% of a kilo (18 tons).

     

    2. "
    In November 1972, the following sentence was declassified: "The fact of existence of weapons with tailored outputs, e.g., enhanced x-ray, neutron or gamma-ray output, that we are hardening our weapons to enhanced weapon outputs and that high-Z materials are used in hardening nuclear weapons against high-energy x-rays." Note - the date is the declassification date, not the development date.

    How small can a nuclear reaction be? Through hydrodynamic experiments for triggering fusion, extremely lows yield nuclear explosions have been generated on the magnitude of "
    several Pounds of TNT." As noted above, in 1961 .01 kt was unveiled in 1961. In 1956, the Tamalpais with a yield of 0.072 kt was declassified.

    This
    program produced (partial list) the following information for a regular 0.01 kt yields, air ignition: Fireball max light radius = 25.4 meters, Max time light pulse width = 0.011 seconds, Max fireball airburst radius = 10.6 meters, Time of max temperature = 0.0032 seconds, Area of rad. exposure = 0.12 sq. miles; Blastwave Effects: Overpressure = 5 lb/sq. inch (160 mph) radius = 0.09 km, 1 lb/sq. inch radius = 0.26 km; Underground ignition: Crater diameter = 56 feet with a Richter magnitude of 3.52. Thermal radiation damage range is significantly reduced by clouds, smoke or other obscuring materials. Surface detonations are known to decrease thermal radiation by half. A neutron bomb produces much less blast and thermal energy than a fission bomb of the same yield by expending its energy by the increase in the production of neutrons. Even the older neutron bombs produce very little long term fallout, but made considerable induced radiation in ground detonations. The half life of induced radiation is very short and is measured in days rather than years.

    3. Don't believe me, check out the governments admitted need for a nuke that will allow them to use their enemies 'fortresses' against them... the Neutron Bomb. Part of the big benefit was 3 to 5 days = CLEAR. However, stable isotopes formed by neutron activation will be there for centuries.

    4. See the Ivy Flats video (also in the article) where they show the needed 'decontamination' for running around the ground zero site in jeeps and patrols. A good dusting with a broom was all that was required per official government statements. HOWEVER, some were just ate up with radiation, they had to be hosed down with SURPRISE.... WATER.

    5. Tritium is Radiation and is the only form of radiation that was semi adequately tested for - provided one only wanted data on WTC6.
    (more)
  • ASithLo... irish -... 2010/09/24 17:06:48
    ASithLordsPoet/angelpoet17/
    +1
    yeah atom bombs need to destroy the atoms(million times) to make its energy and hydrogen bombs combine two atoms(million times) to make its energy. im not saying we might not have the tech to make smaller nukes just saying we might just have a few of them in the world know how much money that would cost i doubt we going to waste them that simple bombs could do the job. any who i know that yeah a government would do such thing i jjust saying i doubt it was inside job maybe but i doubt it was mini nukes
  • irish -... ASithLo... 2010/09/24 17:18:04
    irish -liberty or death!
    +1
    why doubt it was an inside job? the most glaring fact that it was was the fact that the air force did not intercept even one of the planes.especially the one that flew into the pentagon.
  • ASithLo... irish -... 2010/09/24 17:22:58
    ASithLordsPoet/angelpoet17/
    +1
    yeah that is odd. i would have blow them out of the sky yeah would have kill the people in the planes but would have save alot more people that is one main detail to the "inside job" thing. i know they say they did (inside) to keep fear and to start a war over oil to have the escapegoat to start it. plus they say the flames didnt burn hot enough to destroy the infrastucter to the buildings but the war started already and even if they did confess it was a inside job it already tolate. but i think it was still a attack
  • irish -... ASithLo... 2010/09/24 17:34:43
    irish -liberty or death!
    +1
    it was an attack by the powers that be to gain acceptance for more war. remember congress must declare war,it has not done so. yes it was about oil and controlling the middle east. look at the aftereffcts. how many oil options were given to american companies?? its a sick situation that they are trying to repeat again with iran. they don't care that millions have died in other countries since then .
  • ASithLo... irish -... 2010/09/24 17:39:18
    ASithLordsPoet/angelpoet17/
    +1
    yeah thats true. it is a sick way to get what you want like the death star was ainside job somewhat i guess like predicting the 911 attacks but when did you start to believe that 911 was a inside job?
  • irish -... ASithLo... 2010/09/24 17:41:27
    irish -liberty or death!
    +1
    here ,watch this! i have posted it again!
    http://www.sodahead.com/unite...
    me?? the more i read,the more facts i found,the more i studied from many ,many sites.
  • ASithLo... irish -... 2010/09/24 17:57:11
    ASithLordsPoet/angelpoet17/
    +1
    crazy vid didnt know about all that stuff i did know about the neo roman empiror. should have but the inside job of the deathstar but any ways where did you find that vid?

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/21 11:03:24

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals