WTC Nuclear Demolition - New Video

Google Video Link

A 15 minute video that takes a look at some of the evidence for nuclear demolition at the World Trade Center, check it out. I feel it raises some good points and I don't think its been posted here before. (uploaded 25-Apr-2007)

Wait a minute.... it just hit me.. OMG, I can't beleive I didn't think of this before.

Controlled demo... don't they bring a building down from the bottom...
meaning... they blow the bottom floors and the building falls on itself?

WTC clearly started collapsing just below the impact area and where the fires where at...

no controlled demo in my opinion...

A nuke in the basment doesn't mean taking the building out from the bottom.. the idea is that the energy would be focused upwards, getting absorbed by the concrete, steel, humans and anything which can absorb neutron radiation, and causing the the building to fail at the impact zone/where the cone of destruction finally meets the outside perimeter walls.

Havent you wondered how the entire contents of the buildings seemed to just be pulverized completely, yet paper and select materials survived?

Fires are irrelevant, because its already been established that theres no way the fires could have made the building fail. If you still believe fires did make the steel fail, you need to reexamine the data. Even NIST said that there was a low probability that fires caused the collapses..

Good video, thanks for posting; it pulls together graphically all the various threads here re: 4G mini-nukes at the WTC.

Very interesting also the 3D map of elevated tritium levels and also the on-site video of the clean-up and the witness testimony.

Originally posted by elevatedone
Wait a minute.... it just hit me.. OMG, I can't beleive I didn't think of this before.

Controlled demo... don't they bring a building down from the bottom...
meaning... they blow the bottom floors and the building falls on itself?

WTC clearly started collapsing just below the impact area and where the fires where at...

no controlled demo in my opinion...

I'm getting so sick of this arguement. The outer facade (if the core was taken out first) would fail in the exact manner it did. I.E. the damaged zones. When the main support structure of the building fell, where do you think the failure would be in the outer shell? The undamaged portions or the damaged portions? Please people, stop and think about this and quit using this as a measure of controlled demolition or not.

I challenge anyone to find an engineer that disagrees with me. Ask whether if the core was taken out as a controlled demolition if the facade would fail anywhere else but the damaged area.

Nice video man. Im always intresting to see more and more evidence on this subject. Only kind of strange that it is 2007 right now and it happend in 2001. Yet it is still conspiracy.

Originally posted by elevatedone
Controlled demo... don't they bring a building down from the bottom...
meaning... they blow the bottom floors and the building falls on itself?

So you're arguing semantics?


In regards to what Griff said, the perimeter columns don't fall together evenly from any floor.

Check out this video: www.youtube.com...

You'll see that some perimeter columns start falling down into areas of missing columns while their neighboring columns, with columns below them, don't.

This suggests the core failed first, like Griff says, and the outer walls came down as they would with less control.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by bsbray11]

A new version of this video just came out, you can watch it here. The other 3 parts haven't been released yet. You can watch the old version in 3 parts on youtube though.

I still can't fathom how any thinking person watching these videos of the towers falling can seriously believe they are gravity-driven collapses.

Gets right to the heart of the matter. (And even Judy Wood asks a very good question!)

that is a fantastic video....really really good.

It really does make sense when it is put that way, and there are a lot of similarities.

reply to post by elevatedone


How can you dispute the Thermite evidence at sub basement levels, and survivors who themselves claim of explosives in the sub basement before, and after the planes hit?

reply to post by Insolubrious


If it was a nuclear demolition then there would be Radiation poisoning and mutation evidence to support that theory. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there is any evidence of that.

I don't dispute the fact the building's were brought down by a controlled process, however if it was a "mini-nuke" wouldn't there be a noticeable matter of EM pulse as well as the effects mention in the above post?

Yea, I gotta say, I'm not even a structural engineer and it makes sense to me that if you remove the inner collumns the origin of failure on the facade would appear to be at the impact zone.

Whoa, run on sentence anyone? Beer for the win.

I have been trying to find any of those fireman that described the explosions in the video, especially the guy that animates the "boom boom boom" noises. Are there any testimonials of these guys outside of that day, and where are they now? I believe they are actual eye witnesses to the crime, and I have never understood why we haven't heard from them in a more vocal and open investigation of 9/11.

watchZEITGEISTnow

I'm still waiting for any proof of a nuclear detonation, there is absolutely none in this video. What's even more laughable is comparing Chernobyl to the WTC, that is nthe most ridiculous thing I've seen. He obviously doesn't understand teh difference between a meltdown and nuclear explosion. It was the heat from the meltdown prousing too much steam which blew the lid off the reactor.
There are all sorts of inconsistencies in this video, deomnstrating a lack of knowledge of what a nuclear explosion is. Espcially the farcical claim of being able to focus a nuclear explosion upwards without it escaping the sides of the WTC. Complete bollocks.

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
I have been trying to find any of those fireman that described the explosions in the video, especially the guy that animates the "boom boom boom" noises. Are there any testimonials of these guys outside of that day, and where are they now? I believe they are actual eye witnesses to the crime, and I have never understood why we haven't heard from them in a more vocal and open investigation of 9/11.

watchZEITGEISTnow

They said it sounded like a controlled demolition, they never made the claim it was, they knew better, lol.

mad scientist, or Galactic Engineer Otherwise known as God as you like to tag yourself up as - I agree the first video is inaccurate watch the second one. There are also another 3 parts on youtube covering various other issues like EMP and radiation. I am sorry but until you can provide some proof of your claims this video champions your comment 10 fold.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
mad scientist, or Galactic Engineer Otherwise known as God as you like to tag yourself up as - I agree the first video is inaccurate watch the second one. There are also another 3 parts on youtube covering various other issues like EMP and radiation. I am sorry but until you can provide some proof of your claims this video champions your comment 10 fold.

There was no ionising radiation found, which is associated with fusion.

Other problems. Similarly no ionizing radiation has been detected at the site. OSHA has monitored for latent radiation with attention to a-radiation [8]. Metal dusts, including those of cadmium, copper, iron oxide, lead, arsenic, and mercury, are being monitored by OSHA at the WTC site[8].
aic.stanford.edu...

The video convinces people who have little or no knowledge of nuclwear weapons physics etc etc. There are many threads about this.

The main pont which is claimed is somehow the "micro-nuke" had it's balst directed upwards into the building somehow, without breaching the walls at ground level. Completely ridiculous. Any physiacist will tell you that it isn't possible to direct teh balst of a nuclear weapon.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by mad scientist]

good video- may be small hydrogen devices

the picture of post 9/11 collapse of fireman standing near zero zone pillars with obvious slant cuts from demolition 'thermite' devices keeps coming to mind
not mentioned too often is that the WTC's were white elephants for any owners with old silica insulation technology that need upgrading at immense expense
-how fortunate that Silverstien had put 5 billion ins on them a few months
before and they were 'attacked' that day
how brazen of 'perpetraitors'
may god hold them in judgment
y