How about this possibility of the extra power needed to demolish the Twin Towers:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htmDid anyone made a study if this is possible or not? We know that there was some sort of uranium found into the dust, but what about the radiation?


On the left the WTC1 explosion and on the right an undeep nuclear explosion. The idea came from a Finnish military expert who also investigated the use of conventional explosive devices.
| QUOTE (ron1872 @ Dec 8 2007, 03:55 PM) |
How about this possibility of the extra power needed to demolish the Twin Towers:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm
Did anyone made a study if this is possible or not? We know that there was some sort of uranium found into the dust, but what about the radiation?
 
On the left the WTC1 explosion and on the right an undeep nuclear explosion. The idea came from a Finnish military expert who also investigated the use of conventional explosive devices. |
I agree that it looks a lot like a nuclear event but so far the proof has been too sketchy to pursue.
Of course we have no idea what top secret nuclear devices might exist the arsenal of the U.S. military.
MM
You're comparing single frames. A nuclear explosion and the WTC collapse look different.
| QUOTE (tower @ Dec 10 2007, 09:25 AM) |
| You're comparing single frames. A nuclear explosion and the WTC collapse look different. |
Yes I think so.
But what I'm trying to find out is the extreme heat under the debris at Ground Zero, weeks after 9/11. Can thermite of thermate cause that so may weeks later? Thats the problem. A thermal nuclear divice probably might explain that.
| QUOTE (tower @ Dec 10 2007, 09:25 AM) |
| You're comparing single frames. A nuclear explosion and the WTC collapse look different. |
| QUOTE (ron1872 @ Dec 11 2007, 01:55 PM) |
Yes I think so.
But what I'm trying to find out is the extreme heat under the debris at Ground Zero, weeks after 9/11. Can thermite of thermate cause that so may weeks later? Thats the problem. A thermal nuclear divice probably might explain that. |
To me, the long lasting extreme heat at Ground Zero suggests the employ of TOP SECRET demolition technology.
MM
| QUOTE (ron1872 @ Dec 11 2007, 05:55 PM) |
| QUOTE (tower @ Dec 10 2007, 09:25 AM) | | You're comparing single frames. A nuclear explosion and the WTC collapse look different. |
Yes I think so.
But what I'm trying to find out is the extreme heat under the debris at Ground Zero, weeks after 9/11. Can thermite of thermate cause that so may weeks later? Thats the problem. A thermal nuclear divice probably might explain that.
|
all nuclear fission is thermal... the reason the word "thermal" is tacked to the end of "nuclear" is to remind people that massive amounts of heat is unleashed when the reaction occurs.
the heat underneath ground zero is due to trapped molten metal. what caused it to melt is up for debate, but keeping it hot was due certainly to insulation from the slurry walls, earth surrounding them and beneath, and the debris on top.
unless you are saying that a nuclear heat source was constantly being applied to the rubble during the recovery efforts and digging, then it stands necessary that the insulation was the cause for keeping it hot/molten, which automatically makes it unnecessary to use nukes. we have very clear evidence that some thermite was used. how much is unknown, but if massive amounts were used (remember they needed to at least cut 47 massive core columns), then who knows how much molten metal that might produce, and how long that material might take to cool, if insulated by the elements mentioned above.