• 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]

Why is this plausible?

What is the evidence?

Nukes?

Whats that supposed to mean?

There was no little boy or fat man detonated at the wtc.

What do you mean by nukes?

Nuclear reactors that exploded thousands of transformers?
 
Jeff Prager ebook alleges mini neutron bombs were used. They were used in the upper floors at multiple levels. Prager did not mention nukes in the basement.

A Russian nuclear scientist stated it was a nuclear bomb in the basements, yet did not mention mini neutron bombs.

Are they both correct?
 
Dr. Evil: We need to make sure the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapse completely for reasons I can't explain, how do you propose we do this #2?

#2: We could stage a terrorist attack where they hijack commercial airliners and crash them into the buildings at very high speed. That way even of the towers don't fall down they will be completely ruined and unusable.

Dr. Evil: I like the crashing planes bit but its not good enough. If the towers don't collapse completely the whole plan will fall apart.

#2: Why?

Dr. Evil:
It just will.

#2: I know, why don't we fill the fake hijacked planes full of explosives to ensure the impact is enough to bring down the towers? After all, they are just giant hollow tubes so we could get hundreds of tons of explosives in there if we needed to and the impact would explain the explosion.

Dr. Evil: Too complicated. But we need something that looks exactly like crashed airliners destroyed the buildings, yet is easy to get a hold of and install in the towers ahead of time, won't be disturbed by the impacts so we can wait for an hour to set it off and won't arouse any suspicion.

I know, lets use nuclear weapons.

Nobody will ever notice.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Prager ebook alleges mini neutron bombs were used. They were used in the upper floors at multiple levels. Prager did not mention nukes in the basement.

A Russian nuclear scientist stated it was a nuclear bomb in the basements, yet did not mention mini neutron bombs.

Are they both correct?

well mike no one was was in the basement, nor in the top sections that I am aware of so who do you think is going to answer a first hand witness question like that?

Are you searching for evidence is that it? Do you believe they both cant be correct at the same time.
 
Dr. Evil: We need to make sure the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapse completely for reasons I can't explain, how do you propose we do this #2?

#2: We could stage a terrorist attack where they hijack commercial airliners and crash them into the buildings at very high speed. That way even of the towers don't fall down they will be completely ruined and unusable.

Dr. Evil: I like the crashing planes bit but its not good enough. If the towers don't collapse completely the whole plan will fall apart.

#2: Why?

Dr. Evil:
It just will.

#2: I know, why don't we fill the fake hijacked planes full of explosives to ensure the impact is enough to bring down the towers? After all, they are just giant hollow tubes so we could get hundreds of tons of explosives in there if we needed to and the impact would explain the explosion.

Dr. Evil: Too complicated. But we need something that looks exactly like crashed airliners destroyed the buildings, yet is easy to get a hold of and install in the towers ahead of time, won't be disturbed by the impacts so we can wait for an hour to set it off and won't arouse any suspicion.

I know, lets use nuclear weapons.

Nobody will ever notice.

but it doesnt look like that, they made so many screwups its laughable


TRANZ.gif


Any wonder people are looking at other possibilities?




So the only choice is a nuclear weapon is that it?

Which NUCLEAR 'WEAPONS' do you think they used?
 
Last edited:
Nukes?

Whats that supposed to mean?

There was no little boy or fat man detonated at the wtc.

What do you mean by nukes?

Nuclear reactors that exploded thousands of transformers?
We are discussing this type of lunacy, as you very well know.
Mini Nukes Used on 9/11: Our Weapons are all 80's Junk Say Nuke Weapon Makers! | Agriculture

Proven 9-11 Nukes = US Government Involvement

Open Letter to Steve Jones: Hard Evidence Supports the 9/11 Mini-Nuke Hypothesis | Veterans Today
 
what type of lunacy are you discussing?

Nuclear WEAPONS, reactors what?

No one has answered my simple question.

Ask your TRUTHER buddies.

HD has flip flopped between nuke weapons and a nuke reactor meltdown.

As to the plausibility, ask Bman or Bob.

Btw - I agree with the lunacy statement.
 
Sigh usual suspect is pretending that truthers haven't made claims about nukes on 911, instead he's trying to pretend it's the people trying to get the truthers to explain their BS.
 
Sigh usual suspect is pretending that truthers haven't made claims about nukes on 911, instead he's trying to pretend it's the people trying to get the truthers to explain their BS.

Nukes?

Really?

What kind of nukes?

green ones? pink ones maybe?
 
Ask your TRUTHER buddies.

HD has flip flopped between nuke weapons and a nuke reactor meltdown.

As to the plausibility, ask Bman or Bob.

Btw - I agree with the lunacy statement.

well since you have taught me not to believe anything you post, quote it.
 
Quote what?

Ask HD for his current stance on the, as you called it, lunacy pertaining to nukes.

So you are making claims about people that you cant even quote? sounds fishy to me.
 
Sigh usual suspect is pretending that truthers haven't made claims about nukes on 911, instead he's trying to pretend it's the people trying to get the truthers to explain their BS.

No non-truthers have ever claimed that there were mini-nukes. They are all in full possession of their faculties.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cut out the trolling, and discuss the topic civilly. If you resort to the usual personal insults, you will be thread banned.
 
well mike no one was was in the basement, nor in the top sections that I am aware of so who do you think is going to answer a first hand witness question like that?

Are you searching for evidence is that it? Do you believe they both cant be correct at the same time.


I was pointing out what two different people stated happened. You can accept what they say or not.

I asked a question, which to no surprise , you answered with a question. It would be interesting to here what some think of the two different takes on the use of nuclear weapons.

Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
I was pointing out what two different people stated happened. You can accept what they say or not.

I asked a question, which to no surprise , you answered with a question. It would be interesting to here what some think of the two different takes on the use of nuclear weapons.

Have a nice day.

Thats fine mike, but I dont want your interpretation of their opinion, I want to see what they actually posted if thats ok with you?
 
By all means do so.

Have a good day.

well mike the way it works is if you claim somone said something you must quote it before I can read what you are talking about.

I am forced to conclude your post is made up without a quote.

I had a great day and evening thanks!
 
Why is this plausible?

What is the evidence?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom