Were nukes used on 9/11?

[Anonymous No.3719799]

[Anonymous No.3719802]

2/10

[Anonymous No.3719808]

3/10

[Anonymous No.3719812]

Sigh.

[Anonymous No.3719811]

4/10

[Anonymous No.3719816]

>>3719799
>thinking nukes were used in 9/11
HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.3719814]

5/10

[Anonymous No.3719819]

6/10

[Anonymous No.3719821]

7/10

[Anonymous No.3719824]

8/10

[Anonymous No.3719826]

>>3719799
0/10

stop posting, its embarrassing

[Anonymous No.3719829]

OMG SMOKE

[Anonymous No.3719830]

9/10

[Anonymous No.3719836]

10/10

Please have an intelligent discussion

[Anonymous No.3719846]

>>3719836
There can be no intelligent discussion in the face of such derp.

[Anonymous No.3719848]

>>3719836
>Intelligent discussion
>says nukes caused the collapse of WTC
Tell me you're trolling, please.

[Anonymous No.3719856]

>>3719836
make an intelligent argument

[Anonymous No.3719862]

>>3719846

If you are unwilling to counter the undeniable facts presented, then you admit it is a possible theory

[Anonymous No.3719869]

NYC would be an interesting place for anyone with a geiger counter.

[Anonymous No.3719872]

It would be extremely easy to know if nukes were used since there would be tons of radiation in the area afterwards.

[Anonymous No.3719875]

> implying nowhere in the tri-state area has a radiation detector.

[Anonymous No.3719891]

>>3719872
see
>>3719819

[Anonymous No.3719910]

Why would they use nukes if they could just use conventional explosives and accomplish the same thing much easier and cheaper.

[Anonymous No.3719920]

>>3719910

Because the aliens who did it only had nukes.

[Anonymous No.3719921]

>>3719819
How can anyone make mini-nukes, let alone terrorists?
Also you don't provide good sources

[Anonymous No.3719923]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7RQJyt-BzM
related
if OP is going to peddle his horse shit I'd like to hear what he says about this.

[Anonymous No.3719933]

>>3719819
a few news articles and studies do not account for the vast amount of radioactive material that would be spread.

[Anonymous No.3719937]

>>3719891

The words "hot spots" and "concern" are inadequate to describe the radioactive contamination from such an event. Try "exclusion zone" and "evacuation."

[Anonymous No.3719948]

>>3719921
resident of /jp/ here.
I'd like you to know of the wonder that is "small bombs"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPp1xsYXEAY
enjoy

[Anonymous No.3719962]

>>3719948
I lol'd

[Anonymous No.3719978]

Intelligent discussion eh? Alright.

Picture 1: Column collapse is a well understood phenomenon. The caption is incorrect; those are just the most common causes.

Picture 2: Hooray for pareidolia and baseless conjecture! Explosions look like other explosions.

Picture 3: I don't really know enough to comment on the upper image but the lower one is clearly deliberately misleading. It actually shows dust left behind as the debris falls away. Try coating an object with flour, throwing it in the air then hitting it with another object. A dust cloud will remain while the object falls away.

Picture 4: Paint gone: abrasion by airborne particulate debris. Instant rusting: probably just charring. Door handles and engine blocks missing: Impressive that you can make that out on that grainy image. Also how did you see through the trunk to figure out that the engine blocks were gone? Strange fires: Nothing strange about it. Something on fire landed on that part of the car and hasn't yet spread further. Fire isn't magic; the paper just hasn't reached its combustion point yet.

Picture 5: Mysterious holes? Airborne debris, pressure waves, you name it. Marble is not a structural stone in that kind of building, just decorative. It probably just came loose and fell forward. The paper doesn't burn because fire isn't magic. Air is actually a pretty good insulator. Lower paragraph: Baseless conjecture.

[Anonymous No.3719983]

Picture 6: A bunch of titles, no actual information.

Picture 7: Yes, we get it. Explosions look like other explosions. Nukes aren't magic they are just really big explosions. An equivalent energy release from a giant pile of TNT would look pretty much the same.

Picture 8: As the upper parts collapse they push air down through the building's structure forcing air out from the floors below. Also you are assuming that the collapse front on the interior is at the same height as the collapse front we see on the outside, which is an unjustified assumption.

Picture 9: More baseless conjecture. Just because you say that is happening doesn't make it true. I say: here's a picture of steel columns surrounded by dust and debris, nothing more.

Picture 10: Radioactivity in the air creates shades of brown: You don't seem to know what radioactivity is. Also, debris and smoke in the air creates shades of brown. In the picture of the underground test explosion tons and tons of DIRT in the air create shades of brown.

What you have here is a big pile of pareidolia and baseless conjecture.

[Anonymous No.3719992]

>>3719808
The antenna part of this image made me laught.

I mean, just look at it, no one can be that stupid

[Anonymous No.3719996]

>>3719862
THEORIES DO NOT WORK LIKE THAT

What you have posited is a baseless conjecture with an immediate contradiction in the fact that nukes of all sizes emit an EMP, and the smallest would have an area of effect that would cover all of Manhattan.

The End

[Anonymous No.3719998]

WTC was NOT a pyroclastic flow, or else all that were cought in the cloud (basically all of southern Manhattan) would have burned to death. Also, BTW, if it had been a nuke, the fallout would have ended in the clouds, leading to radioactive rain in all the state of NY and the surrounding states. plus, not even the smallest nuke would have done that, 'cause the thing with fission (if you say it was fusion you are fucking retarded) is that you either have it all, or you have none.

[Anonymous No.3720003]

>/sci/ doesn't realize this is a spoof of truthers
facepalm

[Anonymous No.3720004]

>>3719996
>nukes of all sizes emit an EMP
only if they are in high atmosphere faggot

[Anonymous No.3720015]

>>3720003
i didnt actually read anything the op posted past
>"Were nukes used on 9/11?"

[Anonymous No.3720022]

>>3720004
lolno, that just increases the area of their effect.

>>3720003
It uses a point too easily refuted. A good parody would have chosen different subject matter.

[Anonymous No.3720044]

I wonder how far you can push /sci/ before they start having a fit.

>The sky is green

Let's see how you /sci/bots handle that one!

[Anonymous No.3720060]

>>3720022
well, you half win, they need to be above ground to affect it, and the OP implies that if anything happened, it was underground

[Anonymous No.3720086]

>>3720044
My blue could look like your green. Your green could look like my purple. ect ect

[Anonymous No.3720105]

>>3720003

The funny thing is if this thread wasn't a spoof and there was some serious science discussions taking place you'd have posters complaining that their /sci/ was being turned into /x/ and /new/ by conspiritards and the thread would then be derailed and deleted.

[Anonymous No.3720128]

>>3719978
>>3719983
i love you.

[Anonymous No.3720138]

I don't understand how anybody can believe the official story... you'd have to be either stupid or ignorant.

The WTC towers were built to withstand the impact of a 707 jetliner. Get it? Crashing a jetliner into the towers is like piercing a screen door with a pencil.

So how come the towers crumpled (disintegrated) to the ground despite being designed to withstand multiple jetliner impacts? Obviously explosives were used. Many witnesses heard multiple explosions going off even before the planes hit.

The truth is that 9/11 was a setup. It was an inside job.

[Anonymous No.3720168]

>>3720138
>Crashing a jetliner into the towers is like piercing a screen door with a pencil.

i never realized the wtc was made out of diamonds

[Anonymous No.3720182]

>>3720168

lol, do you even know what a screen door is? It's a mesh, a screen to keep out bugs. What do diamonds have to do with anything? I said a screen door, not a glass door.

[Anonymous No.3720200]

>>3720138
>>3720182

Protip: a person doesn't have to believe the official story in order to promote it. Do you seriously think every anon that you ever argue with is always saying what he sincerely believes rather than pushing a point he knows is seriously flawed?

[Anonymous No.3720221]

>>3720138
>So how come the towers crumpled (disintegrated) to the ground despite being designed to withstand multiple jetliner impacts?

The burning jet fuel weakened the steel support, causing (with the use of gravity) the buildings to fall from the point of failure straight down to the ground.

[Anonymous No.3720234]

>>3720060

What if it were a type of mininuke "shaped charge" where the nuke or moab or faob or whatever was below basement level but placed inside a type of "barrel" which would direct 99% of the explosive force upwards through the central core of most of the building, demolishing the inner steel beams.

[Anonymous No.3720237]

>>3720138
It was hit with a 767, which is much larger and carries a lot more fuel. I just don't understand why you people think that's a compelling argument.

[Anonymous No.3720235]

no that's completely retarded

[Anonymous No.3720249]

>>3720221

>Fuel weakens steel in a small section on three or four floors
>100 floors simultaneously disintegrate 30 minutes later as a result

[Anonymous No.3720250]

The "9/11 was an inside job" hypothesis has been utterly and comprehensively debunked. I'd sooner believe that the Space Unicorns did it with their Marshmallow Lasers, and I don't trust the US government one fucking bit-I'm perfectly aware of the Gulf of Tonkin. People desperately want to believe that it was the US government, because that way they can at least reassure themselves that it was a shadowy, well-financed cabal of white people, rather than a couple dozen Arabs working with a few thousand bucks.

[Anonymous No.3720254]

>>3720138
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pusSNjBd8do#t=110s

This is you.

[Anonymous No.3720271]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M

Truthers get fucked

[Anonymous No.3720316]

>>3720221

I don't think you understand that the towers were designed for a jet airliner impact. Obviously burning jet fuel (a weak argument anyways) is taken into consideration by the designers. Get it?

>>3720237

>It was hit with a 767, which is much larger and carries a lot more fuel.

Much larger? A lot more fuel? Nope, they are nearly identical, with the 767 slightly larger. Pic related.

The designers of the WTC towers overcompensated a certain degree when they designed the building to withstand a 707 airliner. That overcompensation means the towers could have easily withstood a 767.

Easily.

[Anonymous No.3720323]

>>3720316
http://www.science-writing.org/id29.html


Derp.

[Anonymous No.3720387]

>>3720323

>The most consequential designs that were not included in the Twin Towers were sufficient fire-suppression systems and fireproofing

Not true. All the steel was fireproofed and there's no evidence or citations given which point to fireproofing not being able to withstand dohhh fire. I mean wtf is this guy even trying to say? It's part of safety regulations I'd bet. I can't believe this individual writes such obvious lies into his bubbleheaded essay with just some biased citations, no science and very little logic.

>The fire-suppression system consisted of water sprinklers that were useless because water, at this temperature, would vaporize almost instantly.

The water isn't just supposed to go to the fire it's there to soak the carpets and furniture so that they don't spread the fire. He's saying all the water turned into steam instantly?

[Anonymous No.3720398]

>>3720387
>I can't believe this individual writes such obvious lies into his bubbleheaded essay with just some biased citations, no science and very little logic.

You might want to turn that very same criticism inward.

[Anonymous No.3720434]

So if nukes were really used at 9/11 than why hasn't the Government done anything about it? Why are they ignoring theproof?

[Anonymous No.3720437]

>>3720398

No how about you defend him. Prove to us that all the water from the sprinkler systems turned to steam and was rendered useless a fraction of a second after it left the sprinklers. Prove to us that soggy wet carpets and furniture spread fire and absorb heat just as easily as when they are dry.

[Anonymous No.3720455]

>>3720437
The fire was already burning across a wide area. It doesn't matter if the carpets were soaked, it was already out of control. Are you seriously so devoted to your delusions that you reject common sense and science? Did you even bother reading the primary sources?

[Anonymous No.3720461]

>>3720434

Nukes weren't used. OP was just trolling. You don't need a nuclear bomb to demolish a building, you just need conventional explosives such as those used by demolition companies for controlled demolition.

I've also read in a couple of places that most buildings are constructed with eventual planned demolition in mind. In other words if that is true then they probably designed the towers to be brought down one day and built special cavities to place explosives in. I'm surprised points like this aren't discussed in these types of threads as opposed to mininukes.

[Anonymous No.3720471]

>>3720437
Proof: If you use a small amount of dry tinder and kindling, you can eventually ignite and burn large waterlogged pieces of wood. I know this is possible, because I've done it numerous times.

[Anonymous No.3720496]

>>3720455

I've seen pictures of the point of impact with a woman waving from the hole in the wall. If the fire was out of control she wouldn't be standing there casually. The sprinklers should have soaked the upper floors with water, preventing the spread of this fire upwards. Pic related

[Anonymous No.3720523]

>>3720471

>you can eventually ignite and burn large waterlogged pieces of wood

You still have to throw a ton more thermal energy at the whole deal because the water makes it significantly harder to burn wood when wood is wet. You first have to evaporate the water and then you can burn the wood. That's the whole freakin idea of firefighters spraying water on fires derrrp. This is also why we have sprinklers in buildings.

[Anonymous No.3720532]

Y'all niggers need to learn how a forge works.

[Anonymous No.3720530]

>>3720496
Impressive anecdotal evidence. Oh no wait, it isn't.

You should look up the definition of the word conjecture.

[Anonymous No.3720546]

>>3720523
>You still have to throw a ton more thermal energy at the whole deal because the water makes it significantly harder to burn wood when wood is wet.

And you don't think a large jet loaded with fuel has sufficient thermal energy to do this. Amazing.

[Anonymous No.3720598]

>>3720323
lol, a weak article from a no-name website.

hurrr durrr... fire... achilles heel... herp derp

I don't think you realize that the burning temperature of jet fuel is nowhere close to bring down a steel frame building.

In fact, if fire were the cause, it would be the first time in the history of history, that fire brought down a steel frame building.

The official story is ridiculous and you are stupid/ignorant for believing it.

[Anonymous No.3720623]

>>3720598
Again, the fact that you ignore the primary sources cited in that piece is evidence that you care less about the truth, and more about supporting your own confirmation bias.

[Anonymous No.3720667]

>>3720546
>And you don't think a large jet loaded with fuel has sufficient thermal energy to do this. Amazing.

No I think what's amazing is that Edna Cinton is standing right at the point where the plane impacted and there's no "thermal energy" on that floor. At all. No fire.

[Typical Idiot Fan !Z63j8csJyY No.3720683]

>>3719836

I'll give you one bit of credit: this is new... definitely definitely new...

[Anonymous No.3720685]

>>3720530

This is solid visual evidence. It's a pretty famous picture in fact of a woman unharmed by the supposed inferno caused by jetfuel from the plane.

[Anonymous No.3720695]

Will you people quit with the mininuke theory? If there had been a nuke then someone with a geiger counter would have known it. In fact thousands of people with geiger counters would have been all over ground zero and surrounding areas. There was no radioactivity.

Why does it have to be a nuke rather than a FAO for example?

[Anonymous No.3720706]

>>3720685
Many people were burned alive by the jet fuel, including people who emerged from the service elevators burning at the ground level, you giant twat.

[Anonymous No.3720743]

>>3720685
the plane is loaded with over 20000 gallons of fuel.

NOT EVEN REGULAR FUEL. FUCKING JET FUEL.

You ever seen what happens when you light a few gallons of typical gasoline on fire? A HUGE FIREBALL EXPLOSION. NOW IMAGINE THAT, TIMES 10000, TO THE POWER OF 8.

THAT IS WHAT WAS BURNING

[Anonymous No.3720745]

>>3720598
science time

>I don't think you realize that the burning temperature of jet fuel is nowhere close to bring down a steel frame building.

The tensile strength of steel is based heavily on temperature. Structural steel has a tensile strength of around 36,000psi at room temperature. At room temperature the molecular structure of steel is crystalline because the atoms have a low amount of energy.

Once you raise the temperature of steel from 70F to 560F(low end of the fire temp) the tensile strength drops to around 10,000 psi. As more energy is put into the steel the structure changes from crystalline to amorphous. Engineers don't overbuild structures enough to make up for the loss of tensile strength.

The loss of tensile strength led to failure of several of the support columns in the towers. The load was transferred to the remaining columns. The load was too great for the columns to carry and they all rapidly failed which led to the pancake style collapse

This weakening would have been prevented by the fireproofing if was there. The impact of the aircraft stripped any fireproofing from the structure. Again engineers don't intend fireproofing to stand up to a 500mph impact.

[Anonymous No.3720775]

>>3720745
Alright, I'll buy it. But who was building 7?

[Anonymous No.3720781]

mfw people falling for this

[Anonymous No.3720789]

>>3720743

>A HUGE FIREBALL EXPLOSION. NOW IMAGINE THAT, TIMES 10000, TO THE POWER OF 8.

There was a fireball visible to all when the plane sliced through the corner of the 95th floor. This fireball for the most part seemed to dissipate outside the building. After that there were no other fireballs or rapidly rising flames visible near the exterior point of impact. In fact, that woman can be seen alive and well right there and there is obviously no fire on that floor where she is standing.

And doesn't jetfuel need to be atomized in order to blow up in a big fireball? It's a slow burning fuel closer in flammable properties to diesel than gasoline afaik and diesel is a hell of a lot harder to burn than gasoline is it not? So why are you insinuating that jetfuel will burn easier than gasoline?

Also, the fire seen in the picture in this post >>3720496 appears one or two floors ABOVE the point of impact. Did the 20,000 gallons of jetfuel jump into the freight elevator, go up two floors, exit the elevator and spread itself out on the 97th floor or wherever?

To recap: why wasn't any jetfuel burning on the floor where the plane sliced into the building?

[Anonymous No.3720791]

>>3720775
falling debris from towers 1 and 2 took out enough supports that it could not stand forever with a fire burning uncontrolled.

Fireproofing is rated for 2-3 hours. WTC 7 burned until it collapsed around 7pm(8 hours) The fire heated the steel enough to weaken it until it could not support the building.

The Chinese building that went up a few years ago was fireproofed and the fire departments put out the fire in a timely manner. The steel was not weaken enough for it to collapse

[Anonymous No.3720796]

>>3720789
because it atomized and travelled upwards, where ignition followed. most of the fuel would've been blown away from the impact and mixed with the air where it became a hueg fire risk.
and what happens when metal grinds against metal? boom sparks that's what happens nigga

[Anonymous No.3720800]

>>3720775

ever heard the expression "hit by a ton of bricks?"

I think that applies well to Building 7

[Anonymous No.3720818]

>>3720745

>Structural steel has a tensile strength of around 36,000psi at room temperature.

>raise the temperature of steel from 70F to 560F(low end of the fire temp) the tensile strength drops to around 10,000 psi.

But this tensile strength was just lost on floors 95 through 97 or thereabouts. Floors one through 90 should still remain structurally sound for the most part since the fireproofing on their steel beams had not been compromised. So why would almost one hundred structurally sound floors crumble almost simultaneously just in reaction to the momentum from some office debris on the trusses allegedly falling down a couple of floors?

[Anonymous No.3720834]

>>3720796

>because it atomized and travelled upwards, where ignition followed.

So you're saying thousands of gallons of jetfuel atomized on floor 95 on impact and then sneaked up through the roof of floor 95 and crept up into floor 96th and ignited there while floor 95 was spared any fires even though that is exactly where the plane impacted?

>most of the fuel would've been blown away from the impact

If you look at the video of the plane most of the fuel, or at least a large amount of the fuel, went poof! in a fireball OUTSIDE the WTC building. The plane was travelling in a different direction than where we see the fire above the point of impact and I'm just surprised that fire is totally absent at the point of impact.

[Anonymous No.3722329]

>>3720818
Because the floors above had momentum. The impact of floor 95 and up hitting floor 94 imparted enough force to make the supports on floor 94 fail.

Stick a 30 pound weight on your leg and it won't break. Drop that 30 pound weight from 10 feet and you will have a broken leg.

[Anonymous No.3723214]

>>3722329

>Stick a 30 pound weight on your leg and it won't break. Drop that 30 pound weight from 10 feet and you will have a broken leg.

But every floor isn't being dropped from 10 feet above onto the floor beneath it through empty space. Each one of the trusses is horizontally secured to steel tubing both in the middle and the outer edges of each floor at multiple joints.

This means that if one truss gives way and it's located at an outer corner of the building then perhaps one quarter of the floorspace in a single story will collapse taking some heavy desks and sofas down with it. When it hits the floor underneath it those trusses would be stronger and the next floor down all the trusses should be at full strength. Heat rises upwards so there would be no weakened structure more than a couple of floors down from the point of impact anyway.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3723230]

>>3720818
Floors 95-97 would comprise about 45 feet. Try calculating the energy content of the top third of a skyscraper as large as the WTC having fallen 45 feet straight down, and then ask your self if any kind of steel skeleton structure in the absence of any concrete core (which none of the WTC buildings had) would be able to do fuck all to stop that momentum.

[Anonymous No.3723301]

kongregate.com/games/Leviathan278/never-mind-v0-1

[Anonymous No.3723323]

>>3723230

>Floors 95-97 would comprise about 45 feet

>Trusses in one corner of floor 95 weaken.
>Weak trusses on 95 can at most bring down half of floor95 through a chain reaction
>Floor 96 through 97 will remain unaffected but still mysteriously join the downward charge by 95 concurrently

Well played!

[Anonymous No.3723448]

>>3723323
Are you an imbecile? Half the vertical supports in the core were severed on those floors. Many of the external supports were also severed. When the remaining supports the held the top half of the building gave way, there was nothing left to prevent the top half of the building from falling straight down. By the time it hit intact floor structures, it would have been completely impossible for that structure to stop the momentum. The steel supports were not even connected to the top half. The only thing that could have prevented a complete collapse is if it had a concrete core (which most buildings today have).

[Anonymous No.3723543]

>>3723448

>Half the vertical supports in the core were severed on those floors

So you're saying half of the vertical supports "in the core" were severed on floors 95 through 97 for the sake of argument. If this were the case then the vertical supports on the other half of floors 95 through 97 were untouched. Right? So the remaining unsevered vertical support beams at most would have to carry twice the weight that they carried before. How can that make them collapse from double the weight since they were proven to carry at least 10 times the original weight they supported before this alleged "servering"?