• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NUKES at the WTC[W:20]

It's plausible because such technology exists, there was increased radiation, the cars that were burned, and a few other pieces of evidence...

So far as I can tell it's nothing really conclusive though, as there are other explanations.


Not enough radiation for any sort of nuclear reaction, weapon or meltdown.

Cars can burn due to the fires. You DO know there were fires that day... Right? It is not indicative of nuclear activity.

What other pieces of evidence?

On the other hand...

No blast consistent with a nuke, no heat consistent with a nuke, no EMP, radiation not consistent with nuclear activity...

Ergo, not plausible for use on 9/11.
 
Not enough radiation for any sort of nuclear reaction, weapon or meltdown.

Cars can burn due to the fires. You DO know there were fires that day... Right? It is not indicative of nuclear activity.

What other pieces of evidence?

On the other hand...

No blast consistent with a nuke, no heat consistent with a nuke, no EMP, radiation not consistent with nuclear activity...

Ergo, not plausible for use on 9/11.

Right, if we are assuming a Several megaton bomb.

You misinterpret the issues raised, if I have the time and inclination, I'll look for some of the pictures.
 
Right, if we are assuming a Several megaton bomb.

You misinterpret the issues raised, if I have the time and inclination, I'll look for some of the pictures.

No... Assuming ANY SIZE weapon....

Not enough radiation for any sort of nuclear reaction, weapon or meltdown. The report that is intentionally misinterpreted shows MINIMAL tritium...

No blast consistent with a nuke, no heat consistent with a nuke, no EMP, radiation not consistent with nuclear activity...

Ergo, not plausible for use on 9/11.

Your understanding of nukes is on par with your understanding of explosives.
 
Look at the chart a little more than half way down...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions

A 1KT weapon causes:

Urban areas completely levelled for 0.2 Km....

Lethal total dose (neutrons and gamma rays) 0.8 Km...

Conflagration - 0.5 Km....

Not plausible a nuke was used 9/11
 
I really don't understand how "plausible" fits with "nukes at WTC" and BmanMcFly isn't doing a good job explaining.

In the same way that "plausible" fits in with "herds of pigs flying over my house".
 
In the same way that "plausible" fits in with "herds of pigs flying over my house".

Nukes are every bit as plausible as my hypothesis the Twin Towers were destroyed by locomotives.

Remember, credible witnesses heard "sounds like trains".
 
Look at the chart a little more than half way down...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions

A 1KT weapon causes:

Urban areas completely levelled for 0.2 Km....

Lethal total dose (neutrons and gamma rays) 0.8 Km...

Conflagration - 0.5 Km....

Not plausible a nuke was used 9/11
Yes, and 0.15 kT device would produce about more than 1/10 of the effects.

Devices as small as 20 tonnes (0.02 kT) have been developed.

So, again, it is plausible, and it's not like there's no evidence that COULD be interpreted as supporting the hypothesis.

Your denials not withstanding, the explanation is plausible. I don't believe it to actually be the case, but it's not like this came out of nothing.
 
Yes, and 0.15 kT device would produce about more than 1/10 of the effects.

Devices as small as 20 tonnes (0.02 kT) have been developed.

So, again, it is plausible, and it's not like there's no evidence that COULD be interpreted as supporting the hypothesis.

Your denials not withstanding, the explanation is plausible. I don't believe it to actually be the case, but it's not like this came out of nothing.

Not enough radiation for any sort of nuclear reaction, weapon or meltdown. The report that is intentionally misinterpreted shows MINIMAL tritium...

No blast consistent with a nuke, no heat consistent with a nuke, no EMP, radiation not consistent with nuclear activity...

Ergo, not plausible for use on 9/11.

Your understanding of nukes is on par with your understanding of explosives.

You really can't accept reality, can you?
 
Yes, and 0.15 kT device would produce about more than 1/10 of the effects.

Devices as small as 20 tonnes (0.02 kT) have been developed.

So, again, it is plausible, and it's not like there's no evidence that COULD be interpreted as supporting the hypothesis.

Your denials not withstanding, the explanation is plausible. I don't believe it to actually be the case, but it's not like this came out of nothing.


Urban areas completely levelled for 0.02 Km.... DIDN'T HAPPEN

Lethal total dose (neutrons and gamma rays) 0.08 Km... DIDN'T HAPPEN

Conflagration - 0.05 Km.... DIDN'T HAPPEN
 
Not enough radiation for any sort of nuclear reaction, weapon or meltdown. The report that is intentionally misinterpreted shows MINIMAL tritium...

No blast consistent with a nuke, no heat consistent with a nuke, no EMP, radiation not consistent with nuclear activity...

Ergo, not plausible for use on 9/11.

Your understanding of nukes is on par with your understanding of explosives.

You really can't accept reality, can you?

Right, because you are looking for a blast between 50 to 500 times larger than the types of blasts that had been proposed.

Also, the tritium and other isotopes found were far greater than normal background levels.

I'm done with this... I'm not even arguing the point that it was the case, I'm only arguing that the claims were not just random speculation.

But even that much seems to scare you, or you would not engage in these contrarian tactics.
 
Yes, and 0.15 kT device would produce about more than 1/10 of the effects.

Devices as small as 20 tonnes (0.02 kT) have been developed.

So, again, it is plausible, and it's not like there's no evidence that COULD be interpreted as supporting the hypothesis.

Your denials not withstanding, the explanation is plausible. I don't believe it to actually be the case, but it's not like this came out of nothing.

It is totally implausible and you know it but like all truthers you cannot admit to a mistake.
 
Right, because you are looking for a blast between 50 to 500 times larger than the types of blasts that had been proposed.

Also, the tritium and other isotopes found were far greater than normal background levels.

I'm done with this... I'm not even arguing the point that it was the case, I'm only arguing that the claims were not just random speculation.

But even that much seems to scare you, or you would not engage in these contrarian tactics.

Your "1/10 of the effects." DIDN'T HAPPEN

Urban areas completely levelled for 0.02 Km.... DIDN'T HAPPEN

Lethal total dose (neutrons and gamma rays) 0.08 Km... DIDN'T HAPPEN

Conflagration - 0.05 Km.... DIDN'T HAPPEN


Ergo, not plausible for use on 9/11.

And I am not scared by the claims of someone who cannot understand explosives and/or nukes. And that is all I am facing here.
 
I'm done with this... I'm not even arguing the point that it was the case, I'm only arguing that the claims were not just random speculation.
It wasn't random, truthers are quite selective about the nonsense they post. Now, are energy beam weapons plausible? I am using the word plausible in its accepted meaning.
 
Urban areas completely levelled for 0.02 Km.... DIDN'T HAPPEN

Lethal total dose (neutrons and gamma rays) 0.08 Km... DIDN'T HAPPEN

Conflagration - 0.05 Km.... DIDN'T HAPPEN

Lmao...

20 meters (contained within the structure)
80 meters escape the structure not hitting the next structure
50 meters barely escaping the structure

You don't put much thought into scale?
 
It wasn't random, truthers are quite selective about the nonsense they post. Now, are energy beam weapons plausible? I am using the word plausible in its accepted meaning.

Do such weapons exist? In a manner consistent with the effects witnessed?

I know you'll say no, regardless of reality, because but that's the type of questions you would have to ask to determine if it's plausible.
 
Lmao...

20 meters (contained within the structure)
80 meters escape the structure not hitting the next structure
50 meters barely escaping the structure

You don't put much thought into scale?

You have put zero though into the facts....

Read the words...

Urban areas completely levelled This DID NOT HAPPEN within the structure. DID NOT. Fact.

Lethal total dose (neutrons and gamma rays) This DID NOT HAPPEN within the structure or external to the structure. DID NOT. Fact.

Conflagration - This DID NOT HAPPEN within the structure or external to the structure. DID NOT. Fact.

Not to mention the NON-EXISTANT EMP

Not to mention the NON-EXISTANT FALLOUT

No plausible argument can be made for nukes in the WTC.
 
You have put zero though into the facts....

Read the words...

Urban areas completely levelled This DID NOT HAPPEN within the structure. DID NOT. Fact.

Lethal total dose (neutrons and gamma rays) This DID NOT HAPPEN within the structure or external to the structure. DID NOT. Fact.

Conflagration - This DID NOT HAPPEN within the structure or external to the structure. DID NOT. Fact.

Not to mention the NON-EXISTANT EMP

Not to mention the NON-EXISTANT FALLOUT

No plausible argument can be made for nukes in the WTC.

Again, look at your scale. 20 meters, 50 meters, 80 meters. What's the area of the towers?

Allow me to explain something for you : 0.001 km = 1 m.
 
Again, look at your scale. 20 meters, 50 meters, 80 meters. What's the area of the towers?

Allow me to explain something for you : 0.001 km = 1 m.

Read the words...

Urban areas completely levelled This DID NOT HAPPEN within the structure. DID NOT. Fact.

Lethal total dose (neutrons and gamma rays) This DID NOT HAPPEN within the structure or external to the structure. DID NOT. Fact.

Conflagration - This DID NOT HAPPEN within the structure or external to the structure. DID NOT. Fact.

Not to mention the NON-EXISTANT EMP

Not to mention the NON-EXISTANT FALLOUT

No plausible argument can be made for nukes in the WTC.
 
Read the scale :

20 meters cubed is smaller than the area of the tower and 2 floors up and down.
 
Do such weapons exist? In a manner consistent with the effects witnessed?

No and no.

I know you'll say no, regardless of reality, because but that's the type of questions you would have to ask to determine if it's plausible.


I say no because of reality. Is there any daft 911 truther theory that you don't regard as being plausible? What about the invisible Godzilla theory?
 
Read the scale :

20 meters cubed is smaller than the area of the tower and 2 floors up and down.

Read the effects....

The effects that DID NOT HAPPEN.

On ANY scale.

DID NOT HAPPEN.

What part of DID NOT HAPPEN does not compute?

DID NOT HAPPEN.

As in DID NOT HAPPEN.
 
Bman,

Read the words...

Urban areas completely levelled This DID NOT HAPPEN within the structure. DID NOT. Fact. = NO NUKE

Lethal total dose (neutrons and gamma rays) This DID NOT HAPPEN within the structure or external to the structure. DID NOT. Fact. = NO NUKE

Conflagration - This DID NOT HAPPEN within the structure or external to the structure. DID NOT. Fact. = NO NUKE

Not to mention the NON-EXISTANT EMP = NO NUKE

Not to mention the NON-EXISTANT FALLOUT = NO NUKE

No plausible argument can be made for nukes in the WTC.
 
Back
Top Bottom