>be me 4 days after 9/11
>reading Spanish newspaper El Mundo (Check wayback machine for https://www.elmundo.es/cronica/2001/309/1000709525.html )
>says Osama's boys bought 3 suitcase nukes in Ukraine
>RA115 and RA116 models
>700 made in USSR, 100+ lost according to Russians
>ohshit.jpg

>government already panicking about plane attacks
>think planes might have nukes onboard
>worry about above-ground detonation being worse than underground
>Pentagon gets hit by P-700 Granit missile (nuclear capable)
>same type lost when Kursk sub sank in 2000
>Putin lied about it obviously
>only 6 minutes warning before impact
>NORAD puts President on Doomsday Plane immediately

>meanwhile back at WTC
>USA and USSR had Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty from 1976
>150kt devices approved for "peaceful" demolition
>Soviets used them for gas storage cavities
>Americans used them for building demolition into underground holes
>government had these stored under WTC7

>first tower gets hit
>government freaks about suitcase nukes on planes
>quickly move 150kt devices from WTC7 to under towers
>detonate to bring them down "safely"
>destroy WTC7 later to remove evidence

>Ground Zero fires burn for 100 days straight
>Guardian reports acrid smoke reaches Brooklyn and Manhattan ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/20/september11.usa )
>that's not jet fuel, that's nuclear fire
>Victor Bout gets arrested later for selling the suitcase nukes
>mfw the whole thing was a nuclear false flag to cover nuclear false flag

>>509307362 (OP)

Must watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1N1JGXBmhQ [Dimitri Khalezov. 9/11]
https://archive.org/details/911thologyThirdTruthV4Full
Page 336:

[As it is known, any real deep underground nuclear explosion will create a cavity beneath the Earth’s
surface – by vaporizing rock or soil from among its immediate surroundings. Considering that Manhattan
was built on granite rock, demolition engineers calculated that this particular 150 kiloton explosion would
create an underground cavity of about 100 meters in diameter (ideally, the cavity should extend itself by
50 meters to any direction from an actual underground position of the nuclear charge – in a professional
nuclear jargon called “zero-box”).

The cavity was supposed to reach to the end of its upper sphere, the lowest underground level of the
Tower only, but without reaching the Earth’s surface. In such a case, there was not supposed to be any
radioactively contaminated soil thrown away to the surface as a result of such a nuclear explosion. Thus,
the radioactive contamination of the surroundings would be limited to only that caused by some
radioactive gases escaping the cavity to the earth’s surface. Of course, there was supposed to be neither
any air-blast wave, nor any radiation, in either visible or in invisible spectrums, nor any Electromagnetic
Pulse – since all these well-known destructive factors belong only to an atmospheric nuclear explosion,
but not to one conducted deep underground.]

>>509307362 (OP)
Hey schizo retard, even a mini nuke would have not only leveled the towers but the whole financial district of Manhattan and blinded everyone who was looking at the towers.

>>509308122
This is why multiple intelligence agencies knew and warned each other about these stolen nukes and Granit missiles being sold in the black markets.

What I want to know is who launched the Granit. Was it a sub off the coast of USA and ABM defenses are north facing expecting projectiles from the north pole, plus the excessive military exercises kept NORAD busy, and they let it happen? Who launched the Granit to pentagon though?

>>509308465

Sorry I cannot wake up people pretending to be asleep. I can only wake people up if they are truly asleep.

>>509308674
>>509307362 (OP)

dose it change the dancing part? or dose it not change anything sice same people did dance...
/distraction tdread

>>509307362 (OP)
I have family that worked in/with OEM and did counterterrorism training and drills with the NYPD and FDNY, including the big one in '97.
There were no nukes, and there was no nuclear fallout detected.
Literally from the get-go (minutes after the first impact) they were checking to make sure there was no dirty bomb or other material using gamma ray spectrometry.

>>509309570
No. Interesting that you are scared to read it.

>>509309674
Agreed. It was just a fear that suitcase nukes were on the plane. It wasn't . The fear was enough.

>>509309674
Cont: I know for a fact that they searched extensively in the rubble, for days and even weeks, for any depleted uranium, because it was known that older aircraft sometimes used that as ballast, instead of more expensive tungsten.

>>509309843

Well the higher ups cannot ask your folks to find proof for 150kt underground nukes cavities, so yeah they will ask your folks to looks for any depleted uranium. Had they found any it would be interpreted by the management differently than how your folks would interpret it.

>>509309776
>Agreed
Here, you wrote:
>>that's not jet fuel, that's nuclear fire
I'm telling you, I have first-hand knowledge that there was no radiological, let alone nuclear, incident associated with 9/11.
While the was some Tritium discovered at Ground Zero, which may seem thunk-provoking at first given its use in nuclear weapons, you have to realize it's also used for radioluminescent purposes, and in the case of 9/11, it was probably just from self-illuminting exit (or other) signs on the doomed aircraft.

>>509310394

Fear of suitcase nukes in the plane made them use the 150kt underground nukes. I think you are afraid to read the original post. It is OK.

>>509310394
Based on what? You are surely aware that underground nuclear detonations produce zero above ground fallout, right? So unless you were IN the deepest part of the foundation, you’d have no idea whether or not nukes had been used.

Further care to explain the trinitite found at ground zero? Was NYC built on a nuclear war zone?

>>509307362 (OP)
The most retarded take appears in the wild...WTF is even this? Nothing makes sense, complete autistic fantascience diarrhea

>>509308465
this.
no blinding flash, no massive shockwave, no nuke.

>>509310583
>they feared a 1 kton nuke
>so they used a 150kton nuke
>they just happened to keep in a hidden basement nearby.
Yeah, no. That story is cover for the Jewish nuclear terrorism that happened on 9/11. Because the ONLY group with access to the trade center buildings (and probably so given the Israeli art students) was the Shin Bet. Israel’s intelligence service. And this to drill the 50m through the foundation took days and then the 150kton nukes were pre positioned.

The whole thing was planned and none of it was last minute fear and improvisation.

>>509311170

Bush was afraid the planes had suitcase nukes so he used underground nukes to avoid the suitcase nukes from exploding on top of the skyscrapers, which would have been much more damaging.

>>509310394
>it was from exit signs goy!

>>509311369

Good that you finally read it.

>>509311312
>they feared a 1 kton nuke
>so they used a 150kton nuke
>they just happened to keep in a hidden basement nearby

Good summary from the other guy. So no flash I agree.

>>509310583
>>509310993
>Based on what? You are surely aware that underground nuclear detonations produce zero above ground fallout, right? So unless you were IN the deepest part of the foundation, you’d have no idea whether or not nukes had been used.
Then why didn't it take out the pic related slurry wall and foundation?

>>509311312
>no flash
>no shockwave
>no nuke
Lmao, you shills are so retarded. You are surely aware that the entire reason we shifted to underground nuclear tests was to get rid of those right? Can you see through 100m of granite?

>>509311170
Ad hominem with not a single specific counterpoint. Pretty clear from the number of shills that the nuclear hypothesis is right.

>>509307362 (OP)
You believe in nukes?

>>509311516

The cavity was formed much deeper. Soviets used similar nuclear underground cavities to store natural gas. It is similar size and shape

>>509311516
Explosions always have and always will take the path of least resistance. The minute it gets into the slurry wall the blast becomes directed straight upwards through the tower. Just like a shaped charge.

This is basic fluid dynamics bub.

>>509311535
>there was an explosion 150 times larger than pic rel, i swear
FUD schizos are really phoning it in nowadays

>>509310339
>Well the higher ups cannot ask your folks to find proof for 150kt underground nukes cavities, so yeah they will ask your folks to looks for any depleted uranium. Had they found any it would be interpreted by the management differently than how your folks would interpret it.
To clarify: the fission products a nuclear blasts produces can absolutely be picked up using gamma ray spectrometers, individually.
These machines will tell you, e.g., you have Iodine-131 (a major, and deadly fission product), not just that you have above-background radioactivity.
You'd have to assume that the fallout was 100% confined to below ground, below the WTC basement and PATH train tunnels, because otherwise, they would have detected it.

>>509307362 (OP)
Only thing you are wrong about is it was Israel who acquired and planted the bomb

>>509311842

Underground nukes are a thing. For example try finding a mushroom cloud in north Korean nuclear test, you can't because it is underground

>>509311789
there are videos from the basement floors of the towers as they collapse taken by firefighters. nobody got giga fucked by a nuclear explosion, so that alone is a massively damning piece of evidence against the nuke idea.

>>509312117

Never said anything about who did the Granit. 150kt underground nukes was part of 1976 treaty for skyscraper demolition

If so, just fucking go with geiger counter to the ground zero, radiation might still emit some doses.
Also, check health data for cancer increased throughout the years.

>>509312128
>underground nukes are a thing
yeah, but evidence for one or two being used in the towers isnt a thing, unfortunately for you.

>>509311383
>>it was from exit signs goy!
Given the quantity and the absence of other radioisotopes, yeah, probably.
Radioisotopes have been used in signage for over a century, for safety purposes:
https://nuclear.duke-energy.com/2016/03/16/lighting-the-dark-with-tritium
and for decorative (usually Radium) purposes:
https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactivity-antiques

>>509307362 (OP)

>>509312236

Try that in Hiroshima /Nagasaki for their above ground nukes and tell me how weak an underground nukes 24 years ago that has been concreted over would be. It would be pretty livable. Banana tier radiation

>>509312548
>banana tier
sorry stinkapoor, youre punching at the air at this point.
nukes 24 years ago were just as massive as the ones today, and nobody felt, let alone died from an upthrust of earth/building in the one place youd expect to see such an upthrust, which was in the basement floors of the towers.

>>509312236
why do you think there are 2 pools of water covering the spots at "GROUND ZERO"? are you people retarded?

>>509307362 (OP)
I've heard the mini nuke theory before. Just not with the supporting criteria you've provided. Interesting.
There's a lot theories circulating. Everything from nukes to thermite to jewish space layers. Who's to say what really went down? The only thing I can say with a certainty is that there is definitely foul play at work. The official narrative doesn't make a lick of sense.

>>509313214
>that i have no evidence for my assertions is proof positive that im right
kek, you fucking DONKEYYYY

Conspiracy slop

If you believe in the no planes idiocy or nuke idiocy unironically you’re a double digits IQ cretin and should not have access to the internet.

>>509313214

Pools of water.

>>509313554

You are too scared to read the original post. There were planes. Planes did crash into skyscrapers.

>they feared a 1 kton nuke on the plane
>so they used a 150kton nuke
>they just happened to keep in a hidden basement nearby

>>509313350
>molten steel
molten aluminum

>>509313350
This is not necessarily molten steel.

>>509313740
Why would you put up with the planes, if you could you made it a 1993 WTC bombing again? You can clearly see that the Twin Towers buckled at the tops first.
>https://math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
You don't need explosives in the basement, had the planes dislodged the columns inside of the center of the Twin Towers. This has been known for a long time.

>>509314414

> Why use planes
The planes were by Osama's boys.
Bush used the underground 150kt nuke because he knew about the black market 1kt nukes Bush thought Osama had (but probably didn't )

> The columns
The columns collapsed into the cavity created by the 150kt underground nukes by Bush.

>>509307362 (OP)
retard theory. nukes in the basement wouldn't blow the buildings apart from top to bottom. anyone that thinks nukes were used on 9/11 is an actual retard. same with space lasers.

>>509315035

The buildings fell into a cavity created by the 150kt nuke (not the suitcase nukes which was just a fear). Hence the free fall. Hence the orderly burial. Hence the lack of significant debris. Hence the 100 day fires. Cancer deaths of firefighters etc

>>509307362 (OP)
This is retarded on so many levels. No one would store nukes under NYC, nukes dont have black fire that smoke for days what the fuck are you on about? The smoke is from an entire building filled with office inventory, computers, chairs, desks, paper etc. Why would a nuke create smoke? Are you legit retarded or something? What downs syndrome understanding of the world do you have and how the hell did you manage to make this post with that brain of yours?

>>509314786
Then why not disclose it? Would have been a good pretext for the WMD plot for Iraq. In any case, you never needed explosives in the basement to begin with. As explained, here:
>https://math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
Also you can clearly see on the videos from that day that the towers collapsed from the top.

You're making the plot more complicated than it has to be.

>Imagine one of the hijackers crashed the plane, missed the towers or chickened out at the last minute
>and then you blow up the tower from the basement, anyways
Awkwaaard

>>509315315
The twin towers did not free fall. The firefights were more likely to have gotten sick from the asbestos in the buildings.

>>509315579
>https://math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

To prove to you that I am open minded here is the summary of this paper you provided
> Stage 1: Aircraft fuel creates sustained fires exceeding 800°C
> Stage 2: Steel columns lose load-carrying capacity due to heat
> Stage 3: Upper portion begins falling with enormous kinetic energy
> Stage 4: Impact creates dynamic loads far exceeding structural capacity
> Stage 5: Progressive collapse continues to ground level
> The paper provides quantitative analysis showing that the dynamic loads from the falling upper sections exceeded the structural resistance by at least an order of magnitude.
> The overload ratio due to impact was calculated as approximately 31 times the design load capacity
> Alternative calculations showed ratios of up to 64.5 times the design capacity
> The Bažant paper demonstrates that no additional energy source beyond gravitational potential energy was needed to explain the collapse
> The paper notes that the observed collapse duration of 9 seconds was consistent with free fall calculations from the tower height, supporting the gravity-driven collapse theory rather than requiring additional explosive energy
> The paper specifically addresses the aircraft impact, showing that while the planes caused initial damage, the buildings were designed to withstand such impacts
> The collapse was caused by the subsequent fires, not the initial impact or any explosives.

Most of the claims made by the paper aid the 150kt underground nuke (not suitcase nuke in plane which was just a fear). 150kt nuke can also cause free fall. It can also create most of the above effects.

>>509315798
https://math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

This paper the debunkers cite in this thread support free fall.

>>509316574
You used chatGPT to summarize the paper. And now? Am I supposed to be impressed?

No, the paper does not corroborate your "nuke in the basement" theory. That is false.
>The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a *single floor* to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed
You don't need explosives in the basement. You're being disingenuous, because you know that you lost the discussion.

>This paper the debunkers cite in this thread support free fall.
It does not. It speaks of *almost* free fall. Which is true. It almost free fell. But not quite, as you can clearly see on the videos that the captured the collapse on that day.

>>509315579
> Then why not disclose it?
Admit that Bush used a 150kt underground nukes to bury 1kt nuke atop a plane that crashed into a skyscraper so as to bury 3000 people with the buildings instead of a larger number of deaths from 1kt nukes that could have gone off mid air atop a skyscraper from the planes?

>>509317562
Say it was the terrorists.

>>509317740

Don't second guess a live decision made from your armchair. The US government had to make a tough decision. Whether to bury 3000 people alive using a 150kt underground nukes or burn millions alive using a 1kt mid air nuke on the plane. They chose the 3000 burial route. Won't get any Nobel peace prize for it like some other presidents did.

>>509318053
I'm not gonna entertain this. You're pivoting, because you know that you lost the discussion on the collapse. Which is what matters.

>>509315403

> No one would store nukes under NYC

All buildings in Manhattan need to provide a demolition plan before construction approval. WTC was so huge only a nuke could bury it cleanly. The 1976 treaty allowed its use and Soviets monitored it. Plenty of peaceful uses for nukes like storing natural gas in underground cavities for example.

>>509307362 (OP)
Interesting theory but how does it explain this?

>>509318402
you are gayer than aids and more retarded than a potato