It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: woogleuk
originally posted by: douglas5
originally posted by: woogleuk
Ok, this has to be the worst theory involving the attack on 11/9/01.
You need a minimum yield on an atomic explosion to achieve critical mass, 10-20 ton is as low as they can get it right?
Are the loons who came up with this nuke theory honestly trying to tell us no-one noticed an explosion of that size on that day?
To the hoax bin, or 404, anything, this is just stupid.
The lightest nuclear warhead ever acknowledged to have been manufactured by the U.S. is the W54, which was used in both the Davy Crockett 120 mm recoilless rifle–launched warhead, and the backpack-carried version called the Mk-54 SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition). The bare warhead package was an 11 in by 16 in (28 cm by 41 cm) cylinder that weighed 51 lbs (23 kg). It was, however, small enough to fit in a footlocker-sized container.
And those W54 projectiles were EXACTLY what I was referring to...with a 10-20 ton explosion...which would have been noticed had they been used in the towers.
originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: AmenStop
Here we go the ordinary man in the street who has only typical demolition videos to base what he saw happen on.
Do YOU personally have any experience designing structures or day to day dealings with the terminology used, do you have any idea of the loadings on a structure of that size, when major components fail.
Have you every seen or used equipment to test various building materials/components to destruction to see how they behave.
Or is everything base on what other mistakenly think should happen
originally posted by: sled735
a reply to: sheepslayer247
I haven't really kept up with all the other threads on this subject, so I can't help you with what's new... sorry.
Someone else?
Oh, and I don't like to ask for flags, but could someone get me off the 66? I don't like that number.
originally posted by: douglas5
In the aftermath of the collapse, a team of scientists from the US Geological Survey
collected samples of dust from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan where it had come to rest
from the enormous pyroclastic dust cloud that enveloped the city.
In the dust, they found high levels of chemical elements that had no business being there.[/QUOTE]
Please show us the actual report by US Geological Survey. Unless......
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Tedgoat
Doesn't matter if it was Nuclear, Plasma, Alien, Nano Thermite or TNT.
Yes it does matter.
That's the crux of the conspiracy.
Without proof of something else causing the collapse the OS stands.
originally posted by: Lightworth
a reply to: wmd_2008
Someone please cite the source in either the 9/11 Commission or NIST reports where anything other than HEAT alone caused the Twin Towers to "buckle and pancake." I've never heard of the planes' impacts having anything to do with the collapses, but even if that's wrong, it's just what a REPORT says, and my challenge/question stands unscathed.
originally posted by: Entheogenic
The only thing I have to say on this topic right now is that roughly three out of four people who I have spoken to about 9/11 believe that the government lied to us about what actually happened. Half of THOSE people outright believe the government played a part in the actual destruction of the WTC. All kinds of people. Veterans, elderly and young people, from different walks of life.
originally posted by: AmenStop
originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: AmenStop
Here we go the ordinary man in the street who has only typical demolition videos to base what he saw happen on.
Do YOU personally have any experience designing structures or day to day dealings with the terminology used, do you have any idea of the loadings on a structure of that size, when major components fail.
Have you every seen or used equipment to test various building materials/components to destruction to see how they behave.
Or is everything base on what other mistakenly think should happen
You are joking right? Hahhahahaha. Ok lets see you give me another example of a steal building falling in its own footprint and it wasnt a controlled demolition.....
Waiting......
Oh it only happens in fairy tale land where all laws of physics are suspended.
Your argument is poor at best, utterly stupid and knowingly false at worst.