digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

See the original image at hidhist.wordpress.com —

Mininukes Used to Bring Down World Trade Center

hidhist.wordpress.com — This article, written by a Finnish military expert, looks at the evidence that a fourth generational, low-yield nuclear device (bomb) detonated in the basement of the WTC towers, together with 10,000 cutting charges (controlled demolition), brought down the Twin Towers. Indeed, cutting charges alone could not have destroyed the cores of the towers.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • woody313, on 07/17/2008, -3/+23Oh for Christ's sake...
    • brad3378, on 07/19/2008, -0/+7Why not just fill 2 airplanes with fuel and crash them into the towers instead?
  • Herkimer56, on 07/17/2008, -4/+24The mini-nuke idiots are back! I get to bury this ***** again!
    • ssn697, on 07/17/2008, -3/+24I am almost tempted to Digg this up, just so everyone can see the utter and complete ***** these "just want the truth" people spread...

      This is really high on the ***** nuts scale.
  • mmmmmbiscuits, on 07/17/2008, -4/+21ZOMFG! IT WUZ TEH JOOOOOOOZ WIT TEH MINI-NUKEZZ!!!
  • l0k0, on 07/17/2008, -2/+22To be fair, mininukes are used just as often as thermate in controlled demolitions...which is never.
    • Herkimer56, on 07/17/2008, -3/+17I love that they think that there were 10,000 cutter charges in the building despite all the evidence to the contrary and yet they still needed a mini-nuke to bring the buildings down. That's a whole lot of crazy happening right there.
      • dshPls, on 07/17/2008, -2/+16I just want to know how 10,000 charges went unaccounted for, and how they were all installed.
      • Herkimer56, on 07/17/2008, -2/+16And how they supposedly planted these charges without being noticed by anyone.
      • card51short, on 07/18/2008, -12/+2"I just want to know how 10,000 charges went unaccounted for, and how they were all installed."

        Exactly! So do I!
        That's why we want that new investigation ;)
      • onetimer, on 07/18/2008, -1/+12That is true herk. That aspect alone is all you need to see how ridiculous the CD "theory" is.

        "One of the fascinating things about the 9/11 "controlled demolition" theories is how much they take for granted. All the conspiracists' fuss about "squibs" and "explosion testimony" focuses on minutiae that glosses over some pretty big assumptions: if the WTC towers were destroyed by explosives, exactly where were these explosives planted, when, and perhaps most importantly, how come nobody noticed them before the disaster?

        It's a fair question. Once you sign on to the belief that the towers were destroyed by explosives, you necessarily sign on to an assertion that somebody, somewhere, got inside the towers before 9/11 and planted the explosives there. But that's a pretty big assumption. You're talking about enough explosives to bring down the two largest office buildings in the world. Realistically, how long would this take, and it it even possible that it could have been done surreptitiously?

        Destroying a building is no small thing. In real life, i.e., in non-conspiracy-land, controlled demolitions take months of preparation. Support beams must be carefully sawed through and explosives planted in exactly the right places so that the collateral damage to the site is minimal. In Seattle, the King Dome took months to wire before the trigger was pulled, and the same is true of various casinos in Vegas. So you're talking about a job of several months in duration. Exactly when was this supposed to have occurred in the case of the towers, then?

        Conspiracists claim that there was a mysterious "power down" in one of the WTC towers, as reported by a witness named Scott Forbes. I could not find any corroboration of this report. Even if it's taken at face value, there's some serious problems with it. First of all, it refers to a loss of power, from the 50th floor up. For starters I find it extremely difficult to believe that one-half of one of the two largest office buildings in the world could be dark for 36 hours. If it happened, it would have made headline news, with all the banking headquarters and other offices in the WTC. If that happened, wouldn't it be a lot easier to find witnesses to corroborate Forbes's claim?

        Secondly, what does a "power down" mean? OK, assume 50 floors are dark. Now a bunch of guys are going to come in and plant explosives? With no lights? No elevator power? How are they going to get the explosives on site? We're talking a lot of explosives. You're going to need trucks to get them to the towers, and certainly you need freight elevators to bring them 100 stories up. How are you going to get a freight elevator 50 floors up with no power? What, ropes and pulleys? Wouldn't somebody notice this massive operation? Wouldn't there be one witness? Just one?

        Thirdly, what about floors 1-50, and the other tower? There was no report of a "power down" in the other WTC building, or in WTC7 which conspiracists insist was also "pulled." When were these explosives planted? You would need some bombs in the basement, right? (Conspiracists love Willie Rodriguez as one of their own. If you believe his testimony indicates controlled demolition, there had to be explosives in the basement, right?) If you think the "power down" indicates strange goings-on at the high levels, why wouldn't they have "powered down" the lower floors too? Hmm, maybe it's because a 36 hour loss of power in the entire WTC complex might have been noticed by witnesses. No such witnesses have come forward.

        Fourth, 36 hours to do all of this: are you kidding me? You'd be lucky to do it in 36 days. What about the sawing through of the structural beams? The conspirators would be foolhardy to rely on explosives alone, unless they had so many truckloads of them to make it completely foolproof, which, as described in the above paragraph, is not likely. If it takes weeks to wire the King Dome, do you really think you can get the WTC towers, plus Building 7, all ready to go in 36 hours? While people are working their normal jobs all around you? While the people doing the wiring have to go about it surreptitiously?

        Does this make any sense to you?

        The most damning evidence that the towers were not demolished is the lack of any evidence of the explosives being discovered prior to 9/11.

        Consider it. The two largest buildings in the world, plus Building 7, all sitting there, chock full of explosives, with their structural beams carefully sawed through, just waiting for Larry Silverstein or George Bush or Justin Timberlake or whoever plotted it to pull the trigger.

        You've got 100,000 people going about their daily business in those towers--office workers, managers, security guards, janitors, electricians, IT staff, waiters, busboys, mail room clerks and maintenance guys. People opening closets and going into basements, cleaning bathrooms and unlocking storage cabinets in little-used offices.

        Not one of these 100,000 people notices a wire where it shouldn't be, or a block of plastique taped to the wall?

        Not one?

        Conspiracists love to trumpet misinterpeted and fraudulent descriptions of what happened on 9/11 as "evidence" of controlled demolition. Willie Rodriguez is a perfect example. But for every "eyewitness account" who describes what they call "explosions," I am aware of no single witness who says he or she discovered any of the explosives before the disaster, or who saw people going around planting them. This is the evidence conspiracists should be looking for. Not Willie Rodriguez.

        Think about it before you assume that the towers were wired. It's a major flaw in the conspiracy theory, and one which, six years on, has not yet been adequately addressed."
        http://signalsnoises.blogspot.com/2007/09/911-cons ...

        If the troofers ever want to prove anything, this is probably what they should start explaining.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/17/2008, -3/+21This is a plausable as any other theory forwarded by the truth movement. That is not at all.
  • onetimer, on 07/18/2008, -2/+15Wouldn't a...wouldn't a nuclear explosion, you know, leave a radioactive signature? Or at least some kind of massive seismic activity that would have shaken the entire city? Hell, even low ton nukes would have produced a blinding flash of light.

    This theory fits right in between "holographic planes" and "lasers from alien joos"
    • sugarazor, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4Clearly you haven't heard that alien joos now have holographic plane technology.
  • JohnReb, on 07/18/2008, -2/+10Perhaps the 9/11 fantasy believers would care to explain how those televised images got transmitted after the EMP from the "mininuke" fried all the television equipment in the area?
    • rexblade, on 07/18/2008, -4/+6I think emp bursts need to occur above ground. But not positive on that.
      • floatingorb, on 07/18/2008, -2/+6You are correct. The effect comes from the charged particles in the atmosphere {which can be detected or 'measured' as 300 volts/meter, as I recall} Displacing charge creates current thus magnetic field. -- The faster the displacement, the greater the 'power' of the pulse.
      • Hortnon, on 07/19/2008, -1/+6Dugg up because I learned something.
    • JohnReb, on 07/19/2008, -2/+9Yes, it takes an air burst.

      Like one about 800 feet above the ground.....right around where the towers failed.
      • floatingorb, on 07/19/2008, -6/+1The 'air burst' needs to be in air for most effect; not constrained inside a building. -- We are talking 'mininukes' here, after all.
      • JohnReb, on 07/19/2008, -1/+6"in air for most effect" doesn't mean there isnt any effect if it is surrounded by air on most sides.

        So you think the glass sides of the towers would have contained the pulse? Or do you think the towers were evacuated of air before detonation?
      • floatingorb, on 07/20/2008, -2/+1J'Reb, If we are talking about EMP from a nuke, then it would not occur in a building because of the lack of displaceable ions with height.

        The existance and variablility of such charge in the open environment is easily verified: get a 102 inch 'whip' cb antenna and attatch it to your car. Drive under the 'mantle' of a distant thunderstorm. Notice that 1/4 inch arch you can pull of the coax? It makes a nice increasing pitch 'wistle' when actually connected to a receiver with the bleed resistor cut and when the noise stops, lighting will strike within seconds!!
      • floatingorb, on 07/21/2008, -2/+1JohnReb, I was not very clear with my clarification. It is this:
        there are not going to be many free ions to displace within a building. Think of it as they were 'shorted out' and went to ground by the structure. Now there are other mechanisms to an EMP which I may wish to address later because it is interesting to me, but just bursting a nuke "in air" without charge is not going to do anything in the way of creating one.
  • floatingorb, on 07/18/2008, -7/+2You shills have jumped all over this so I just had to see what the 'buzz' was about. The idea of 'mininukes' actually fits very well with much observation that you guys don't care to try to explain.

    However the building was brought down, we still get the tyranny just as if it was an *inside job.*

    If I were given free access to the building, I could bring it down with standard-sized (though special casings) hot water heaters. {Explosions are not evidence of explosives, was it? Again, I say they can have the same effect.}

    The debunking site citing 'iron burns' is very silly. So no one argues that there was molten steel anymore. The very least nefarious explanation is that the 'tuned mass dampers' ( 2/3 up the building) were fashioned from depleated uranium (due to mass/volume constraints). That stuff would burn very hot for months without air and melt everything.
  • inobla, on 07/19/2008, -3/+9Yesterday's fun article was about lasers from outer space and holographic aircraft. Today it's a mini-nuke in the basement several hundred feet below where the collapse began.

    Yeeaaaaaaah.

    Oh, and look at the cute picture. It looks like a mushroom cloud. Again, nowhere near the basement. Time to check the "Who Dugg It?" link to see which folks are dumber than the average truther.
    • inobla, on 07/19/2008, -1/+10floatingorb!??! Nooooooh!
    • floatingorb, on 07/19/2008, -7/+2The 'mini nukes' would have been placed every 30 floors or so.
      • inobla, on 07/19/2008, -2/+7I think one 'mini nuke' would do the trick - and take out several surrounding blocks in the process.

        I'm surprised the people who dugg this crap didn't hitch a ride on Hale-Bopp back in '97 with the Heaven's Gate crew.
      • floatingorb, on 07/19/2008, -6/+2You need to read up on your 'mini-nukes' which can be less than .01 kiloton these days.

        Applegate: Well, I didn't like the Nikkis ... Doesn't always suck to be me; I just have a 'nose' for stupid ***** sometimes.
      • inobla, on 07/19/2008, -1/+8Riiiiight.

        With that 'nose' of yours, exactly how stupid does something have to be before you call *****?

        So, these mini nukes, placed every 30 floors or so - where do we see these fellas going off in the collapse footage? Would that be the little tiny 'squib' puffs that occasionally shoot out from a window a few floors below the descending collapse node?

        Come on bro, I can't wait to hear this. I need a good laugh this morning. In the absence of CarD and your buddy Cow I've got faith you can step in and deliver the goods.
      • Hortnon, on 07/19/2008, -1/+6If they're going to use a 'nuke' that small, why bother? Why not just use traditional explosives?
      • floatingorb, on 07/19/2008, -4/+2Ok Hortnon, since there are no 'stupid' questions, I'll try to answer that one. .01 kilotons is 1 ton of tnt. Now, if it is in 'mini-nuke' form then it can fit into a propane bottle, weigh 15 pounds, and be carried by the average couch potato. 4 tons of something in discrete packages that must be carefully placed and synched, on the other hand.....

        Inobla, I'm going to pull this straight out of my keyster without citing references just for your morning entertainment:

        Nuclear detonation is much different than chemical explosions. With conventional explosives, you get a tremendous expansion of the material that comprised the explosive (the velocity of which is a property called the "brazenness" -- kind of the ability to 'cut').

        In a nuclear reaction, a very small amount of material is directly converted to energy in the form of photons (E=mc^2). This includes light, gamma, and x-rays. Any "blast" is a secondary effect after some material (and air is not that good at it) absorbs these photons, heats up, and vaporizes expanding through the air. It is completely feasable to set off such a reaction inside a structure without one *seeing* "these fellas" going off from the outside.

        The arbitrary statement of "every 30 floors or so" is a consideration of a spherical 200 ft 'ablating illumination' radius so as not to vaporize the outer shell of the building thus making it 'visible'. That illumination falls off as R^2 from the center -- This parameter would determine the amount of the 'mini' in the nuke, of course.

        Well, glad to be entertaining; I'll be here all week (2 drink minimum please).
      • inobla, on 07/20/2008, -1/+4Zzzzz.

        Work on your grasp of classic Newtonian physics before spouting off any Einstein's formulas in attempt to justify these crazy fantasies.

        Your clue quotient is frighteningly low. Watch the footage again. Once the collapse began it was smooth without any drastic changes in speed.. Had periodic explosions large enough to take out the support columns occurred, you would see abrupt changes in the collapse velocity AND many of the windows would have blown out on the floor which the explosions occurred. There were neither. The only place you see any major action is at the collapse zone itself with all the debris ejecting outward because of the air forced out from between the floors.

        Here's a formula for ya:

        KE=.5mv^2
      • floatingorb, on 07/20/2008, -4/+1That is a nifty formula and one that applies in nuclear reactions as well.

        .5mv^2=1/(4*pi*epsilon(o)) X (q(1)*q(2))/r

        solve for v and that is related to the temperature needed for fusion using just the Newtonian considerations. Of course, 'r' would be the so-called 'Bohr radius'.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb_barrier

        But what gave the kinetic energy to powder the building at the top? Just that the concrete was very heavy? No. It depends on velocity.

        There has to be a certain energy/per unit of mass to powder it. two cinderblocks dropped onto each other won't powder any better than two peices of them {when dropped from the same height thus having the same velocity or 'energy' per gram)

        I keep meaning to find out this velocity some day by throwing a peice of concrete at a barrier from out the window of a moving vehicle -- but I suspect the speed required is rather high.

        Here is something worth considering; (the vaporization of water 'sink')
        http://911research.com/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_ ...

        It addresses the amount of energy required for the observed expansion of the car-flipping, fire-starting {redacted} flow.

        Of course, you know that my favorite *pet theory* is that the destruction was accomplished by bursting superheated water-heaters and that all the molten stuff may have been from the 'tuned mass dampers' which quite possibly were made from DU (superheated steam would have been hot enough to set them ablaze).

        Otherwise, "it's turtles all the way down."
  • floatingorb, on 07/19/2008, -7/+2Here's the thing: There was not enough gravitational potential energy in the towers to both powder the concrete and create the rapid-expanding, fire-starting, and car-flipping wind that chased people down the street. -- I'll call it "pyroclastic flow" just to set off Herky {please elaborate on how there was not a volcano involed, Jerky56}. I have not been 'rigorous' in my calculations but it appears that by the most conservitive of estimates that 8 times the energy available from 'pancake collapse' went into that dust-storm.
  • wpi97, on 07/21/2008, -0/+6So let me get this straight...
    Hypothesis 1: WTC were brought down by a controlled demolition using 10,000 (!) cutting charges.
    Conclusion 1: Would not have worked, Hypothesis 1 rejected.

    Hypothesis 2: ...Since 10,000 cutting charges would not have worked then it must have been... 10,000 cutting charges... AND a low yield nuke!

    William of Occam has just rolled in his grave!

    How about a simpler and a more probable hypothesis? A gamma ray burst from a distant galaxy hit exactly at the basement of WTC, making the foundation radioactive and starting a chain reaction, which resulted in a nuclear explosion, which brought down the towers. See, I can make ***** up too!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.