I am certainly no authority as to how nuclear devices might be employed for such a mission, but Dimitri Khazelov is studied, and offers a theory:
9/11 Nuclear Demolition of The WTC - by Dimitri Khalezov
Me neither to be honest. I've taken a look at the guys theories in the past, and wasn't impressed enough to continue.
I can speculate of course, and I would say that since there were 3 hot spots recorded by AVIRIS flown over WTC by NASA and JPL, perhaps 3 devices were employed.
Could it possibly be that there were 3 seperate low spots near bedrock that molten material flowed into ?
However my gut feeling is that more than that were employed. Maybe the hot spots were records of devices used in the ground? Something had to keep that iron molten for 90 days.
You ever seen a frozen river surface with water still flowing under it ? Think of that for molten iron. I believe that anything ground penetrating will go to the hotest spot to guage the temp.
The lateral ejection of massive pieces on the higher and middle floors, such as that impaled into the American Express building suggest that. Huge energy was required to move those pieces in that manner.
Absolutely. And if it were a nuke it wouldn't be directional, so wouldn't it exert the same force all ways and impart massive asymmetrical damage to the core at that height, and perimeter damage on at least 2, maybe 3 sides ?
Also the report issued by NYC medical examiner shows that only 293 bodies were found intact, and out of 19906 remains recovered, 4735 were identified, and 200 of those pieces belonged to the same person.
That means one individual was blown into 200 different pieces.
Disturbing fact that. Always bothers me when I hear it.
We can only speculate as to exactly how they were placed and what size they were, but what is certain is that a nuclear event(s) took place.
It's by no means certain. I tend to be open to all sorts of hypothesis, even Judy has to be debunked before her theories are rejected. TBH in my view the nuke theory doesn't hold up any better than Wood's does. But I think it's a belief you sincerely hold.
I think the biggest stumbling block for me is just the practicalities. Thermitics makes sense - it's immune to sniffer dogs so you can do the incendiery work long in advance, then just pop the dogs off site, or at least downstairs when you add anything smelly like C4.
So why would anyone want to go to the bother of using a nuke(s) when conventional explosives are more focussed, more common and way less tracable.
Imagine the WTC teams found the nukes on Tues 10th - game over, cos they didn't come from a cave in Afghanistan. Conventional explosives on the other hand would leave the perps an option of deniability if they're discovered.
As I say, I do believe you hold your views sincerely, and I'm not meaning to belittle them, but trying to point out the huge added risk involved in using a nuke where you don't have to.
