• 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]

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.

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.

Ok, I'll tell you this one last time:

In that scale, even if it DID happen, it would have gone effectively unnoticed, because anyone that would have been close enough to those effects would have been killed by it, and we know that the body parts that were found were more or less shredded.

Urban areas levelled... The tower was levelled within 20 sq meters, from the area the collapse started. 50 meters away and you are just outside the building. 80 meters (the dose of radiation) dosed the other building and would have dissipated long before the 150 or so meters to the ground.

But there was radiation detected...

Then, given how there was a search only to prove that fire collapsed the buildings, again it's on faith your position.

The huge cancer cluster is typically attributed to the concrete dust and asbestos, but who knows for sure if that's the whole story.

That said, that's not what I actually believe happened, just that to say that's not what happened is not as cut and dry as you are trying to suggest.
 
A mini-nuke only taking out one building? That is in the realms of fantasy. The thread has taken a hilarious turn.
 
Ok, I'll tell you this one last time:

In that scale, even if it DID happen, it would have gone effectively unnoticed, because anyone that would have been close enough to those effects would have been killed by it, and we know that the body parts that were found were more or less shredded.

It WOULD NOT GO UNNOTICED....


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

Urban areas levelled... The tower was levelled within 20 sq meters, from the area the collapse started. 50 meters away and you are just outside the building. 80 meters (the dose of radiation) dosed the other building and would have dissipated long before the 150 or so meters to the ground.

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

But there was radiation detected...

Not enough for ANY NUCLEAR EVENT.

Then, given how there was a search only to prove that fire collapsed the buildings, again it's on faith your position.

Borscht, Bman and you know it.

The FBI investigated and found no explosives.

Your continued denial of that fact does not change reality.

The huge cancer cluster is typically attributed to the concrete dust and asbestos, but who knows for sure if that's the whole story.

Lethal total dose (neutrons and gamma rays) = IMMEDIATELY LETHAL. Not months or years down the road....

And it is attributed to the concrete dust and asbestos (and other contributors) because there WAS NO NUKE.

That said, that's not what I actually believe happened, just that to say that's not what happened is not as cut and dry as you are trying to suggest.

No NUKE is correct. And the ONLY conclusion given there is NO PLAUSIBLE argument for NUKES.
 
It WOULD NOT GO UNNOTICED....


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



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



Not enough for ANY NUCLEAR EVENT.



Borscht, Bman and you know it.

The FBI investigated and found no explosives.

Your continued denial of that fact does not change reality.



Lethal total dose (neutrons and gamma rays) = IMMEDIATELY LETHAL. Not months or years down the road....

And it is attributed to the concrete dust and asbestos (and other contributors) because there WAS NO NUKE.



No NUKE is correct. And the ONLY conclusion given there is NO PLAUSIBLE argument for NUKES.

I suppose you have evidence supporting your opinions?
 
It is complete and utter ignorance of what a nuke would do....

Now he is suggesting a nuke could go off and no one would notice....

Holy crap... You don't get the idea of scale, whatsoever? Do you?

Yes, when you are talking about a 1 kT device., that's one thing...

However, devices a fraction of that size would naturally have a fraction of that effect.... So, a 0.15 kT (or 150 T would be drastically smaller), a 0.02 or 20 tonne device, would be 1/50th the effect...

God I hope you are just playing this dumb....
 
I am NOT the one making the CLAIM that nukes are plausible.

And you have no clue how nukes work.

since you have no idea what scale means, I doubt your knowledge of nukes to be much better.
 
Holy crap... You don't get the idea of scale, whatsoever? Do you?

Yes, when you are talking about a 1 kT device., that's one thing...

However, devices a fraction of that size would naturally have a fraction of that effect.... So, a 0.15 kT (or 150 T would be drastically smaller), a 0.02 or 20 tonne device, would be 1/50th the effect...

God I hope you are just playing this dumb....

Ah, the ever shrinking nuke... Now you are positing a micro nuke.

So, this micro nuke that does nothing a real nuke would do?

Complete and utter ignorance of what a nuke would do....

Blast - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Heat - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Shock Wave - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Ionizing radiation - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

EMP - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Fallout - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Maybe next you will try a 0.0001 KT nuke. A mini-micro-nano-nuke.

Or maybe a 0.000001 KT nuke that is only seen as a sputtering flash of light akin to a match flaring up....

You have no clue and what is worse you have no clue that you have no clue.

You believe a nuke can be set off and NO ONE NOTICED.

This makes sense to you?
 
Yet you can't or won't support your "counter claims"?
 
Yet you can't or won't support your "counter claims"?

Why would I have to support claims?

I AM NOT the one CLAIMING nukes were PLAUSIBLE.

Reality is not a claim.

The numbers I gave for damages is not a claim.

Blast radius is not a claim.

Blast - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Heat - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Shock Wave - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Ionizing radiation - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

EMP - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Fallout - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.
 
Why would I have to support claims?

I AM NOT the one CLAIMING nukes were PLAUSIBLE.

Reality is not a claim.

The numbers I gave for damages is not a claim.

Blast radius is not a claim.

Blast - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Heat - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Shock Wave - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Ionizing radiation - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

EMP - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Fallout - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

It's easy not to find stuff not looked for...

Beyond that I'd be repeating myself again, I even used the numbers you provided.

So, at this point is either playing dumb, or not thinking through what you are saying.
 
It's easy not to find stuff not looked for...

Beyond that I'd be repeating myself again, I even used the numbers you provided.

So, at this point is either playing dumb, or not thinking through what you are saying.


NO ONE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK... A NUKE WOULD HAVE MADE ITSELF KNOWN.

Blast - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Heat - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Shock Wave - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Ionizing radiation - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

EMP - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Fallout - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.
 
Unless of course your NEW claim is that there is a STEALTH NUKE that exhibits none of the blast, heat, ionizing radiation, shockwave, EMP or fallout of a regular nuke.....

In other words a NON-NUKE NUKE....
 
We went over the rules, I applied those rules to the scale (re: relevant sizes) and showed how the explanation remains plausible.

You can repeat your defunct nonsense until your fingers bleed, does nothing to change that I have made my point and you simply maintain your delusions.., hell, I doubt you could even accurately describe the position I'm trying to explain. So, please, just put me on your ignore list...
 
We went over the rules, I applied those rules to the scale (re: relevant sizes) and showed how the explanation remains plausible.

You can repeat your defunct nonsense until your fingers bleed, does nothing to change that I have made my point and you simply maintain your delusions.., hell, I doubt you could even accurately describe the position I'm trying to explain. So, please, just put me on your ignore list...

What is "defunct"?

Are you using TRUTHER DEFINITIONS AGAIN?

And "delusions"?

I suggest your 0.01KT stealth nuke that no one would notice is as close to a delusion as one could get on this side of serious hallucinogens,

There are NO stealth nukes.

NONE.

Only someone who knows nothing about nukes could declare nukes plausible at the WTC.

Blast - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Heat - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Shock Wave - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Ionizing radiation - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

EMP - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.

Fallout - None at WTC consistent with a nuke = NO NUKE.


You cannot understand nuclear weapons and still claim "plausible". It is not possible.
 
" the smallest yield version of the W54 (10 tons) is two to four times as powerful as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing "

W54 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

0.01KT = two to four times as powerful as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing

And no one would notice the blast, heat, radiation, shockwave, fallout and EMP?
 
Unless of course your NEW claim is that there is a STEALTH NUKE that exhibits none of the blast, heat, ionizing radiation, shockwave, EMP or fallout of a regular nuke.....

In other words a NON-NUKE NUKE....

That isn't a new claim HD has already made it several times before
 
That isn't a new claim HD has already made it several times before

Where can I get one of these tiny nukes? I need to knock a hole in my living room wall to build an extension.
 
Where can I get one of these tiny nukes? I need to knock a hole in my living room wall to build an extension.

Pakistan, the size of a tennis ball, they are way ahead of the US in the miniaturization process. Thats about all they would do too! lol
 
" the smallest yield version of the W54 (10 tons) is two to four times as powerful as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing "

W54 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

0.01KT = two to four times as powerful as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing

And no one would notice the blast, heat, radiation, shockwave, fallout and EMP?

aparently not

 
Pakistan, the size of a tennis ball, they are way ahead of the US in the miniaturization process. Thats about all they would do too! lol

No proof, as per usual.
 
Back
Top Bottom