Sunday, July 11, 2010

35 Reasons for Many Small Fission Nukes at the WTC?

With evidence destroyed and no real investigation of 9/11, the idea of unconventional explosives being used for the demolitions of WTC 1 & 2 seems a valid avenue of debate. The use of 'micro nukes' is a taboo subject in the mainstream truth movement where the nano-thermite thesis is not often questioned. The points below should also be questioned but not dismissed just because some of the 9/11 truth 'leaders' think they have the answer market cornered.     You decide.

From Facts Not Fairies

2) inability to quench ground zero heat with water
3) red hot/molten steel at ground zero
6) washing of steel recovered from pile consistent with radiation decontamination
9) extreme pulverization of WTC concrete into very fine particles
10) disappearance of over one thousand human bodies from WTC debris
13) several floor fragments fused together in meteorite object
14) bone fragments sprayed into Bankers Trust upper floor during destruction
15) multiple blast waves during destruction of tower
16) large fireballs during initiation of WTC1 destruction
17) small backpack-sized fission nukes exist
18) fission-nuke technology well-established
21) Heat in WTC blast cloud
22) Extensive cover-up of ground zero air by EPA
32) Pyroclastic debris cloud during WTC destruction
34) Small bright flashes during destruction of both towers
35) Extremely compacted ground zero debris

The Rothschild's Mormon's Thermite Distraction
9/11 Truth Red Herring: Neoliberal BYU Has Financed, Staffed, and Peer-Reviewed Prof. Jones’ Flawed Thermite Distraction Since Day One
How and why WTC had to be nuked

9/11 Burnt Vehicles -  photos

 WTC Relics - photos


  1. Hey Kenny,

    We had a discussion not unlike this over at my place. What I wrote didn't amount to much but the comments were brilliant. The direction they took that I really got into were along the Judy Woods / Hutchison effect lines.

    It's whacky shit but that doesn't mean that it isn't real. Besides which, if we run with that old chestnut about a thing being ignored in proportion to its likelihood, then its stakes rise considerably. Hardly anyone has heard of Judy Woods. I hadn't. But everyone has heard of micro-thermite.

    Otherwise, there's the cold hard reality of 911 following a single rule - It must not fail. Which is to say there is no way those buildings were going to be brought done by way of a single means. A fail-safe back-up would have to have been a deadset certainty. Hell, why not a back-up for the back-up? Remember, It must not fail.

    On top of that, imagine you had some kind of Hutchison effect energy weapon. Where are you going to test it? Why not on the twin towers where so many other effects are taking place that no one will be able to figure it out except for the fellow pushing the button?

    Otherwise do nukes explain the weirdness of the Deutsche Bank Building? Not forgetting that they didn't merely remove a layer of contaminated soil. They'd bring in a truckload and remove. And then another and then remove that. And then another and remove that. And another and another and another. If it was mere radioactivity, one would suffice surely?

    The only thing we know for sure is that there's no way thermite was the be-all-and-end-all.

  2. All of the speculation is interesting. Some of it is designed to keep us spinning in circles. I keep going back to the burnt vehicles and the fused materials, some of which are still in storage, as the anomalies that conventional demolition techniques and thermite can't explain.

    Still, as always, too many questions.

  3. "... as the anomalies that conventional demolition techniques and thermite can't explain."

    not actually true...

    PETN creates temps over 7,050 deg F. when it ignites.

    The RJ Lee report points out multiple examples of evidence in the Ground Zero dust of massive temps affecting EVERYTHING... not just the steel

    In a "conventional" controled demolition, they don't use that much PETN because the idea is to create as LITTLE dust as possible (because the company is responsible for cleaning it up) but in this case, they needed to get those 220 floors the hell out of the way of the demolition process AND they didn't have to pay to clean it up.. (in fact, the more that was pulverized into dust, the LESS they would have to clean up)

    The cars were burned with falling debris that was still molten... the witnesses said the dust was "hot"... 7,050 deg F will tend to do that.

    Though I don't claim one thing or the other is definately "out" (well, except for "nanothermite" only because their own study couldn't determine if it was a "high or low explosive")... don't rule out conventional high explosives. Some of them get very, very hot (even hotter than "thermite")

  4. I don't rule out anything. Everything we think we know is basically educated speculation or disinfo.

    There are a number of people who know what techniques were used but it's like the JFK assassination where no one was forced to talk. And possibly they never will.

  5. Why is it important to determine the exact means of destruction? The proof that it was controlled demolition is the proof that we need. It shows there was complicity to this horrendous act, regardless of the exact way it was done.