Fledermaus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 120,586
- Reaction score
- 32,138
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
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.