Let us remember that commenter Iris in the Unz Review claimed that the towers came down with underground nuclear explosions. I have already three times looked at the issue and every time discarded the nuclear alternative because there was not enough measured radioactivity and there are no craters 100 m below the ground level, but I have been rethinking of this and maybe these are not sufficient reasons.
The main problem I had with the nuclear explosion was that there was no nuclear fallout. True, an underground explosion does not give so much fallout, but it should give some, measurable amount. And this explosion could not be so deep underground as there is no such deep crater, or no information of the existence of 3 craters about 100 m deep.
But then again, maybe there is no radioactive fallout. A pure fusion process (hydrogen to helium) will not give long term radioactive results, but usually in a hydrogen bomb the fusion reaction is started by a fission reaction. Or that used to be so, but before 2001 there was 50 years of fusion research, nominally for peaceful use of fusion. In that application you do not use a fission bomb. In some way plasma is heated to a very high temperature, I guess with high power lasers, and kept in high pressure with magnets. They can start a fusion reaction but when it starts, they cannot keep it together. It kind or blows up. Does this not mean that they can make a hydrogen bomb, which is indeed expected to blow up? I would say, probably yes. So, no fallout. Next we may ask if chemical explosives can start the fusion reaction. I doubt it, but I do not know these things.
The second problem was the crater. If the crater was to be very deep in order to keep radioactive fallout there, then there is no such very deep crater. But if there was no radioactive fallout, then the crater can be much shallower. There was a huge crater in the bedrock, claimed to be a geological formation from the Ice Age. It was not in the place under any of the WTC buildings, but it could be a result of three small craters, each under one of the three buildings. Rock would fracture between these small craters and maybe they would form this larger crater. Naturally, the explosions would have been relatively small.
Is the existing crater a geological formation? Nowadays how much can you trust if some scientist claims it is. Based on what? Ice and water can make formation to bedrock, and there are some impressive examples in North America, but why this should happen just at the site of WTC towers? To make such a crater by water needs some circulating torrent and stones moving round very fast. It is not so common for water to make so large craters. If there were three rather small hydrogen bombs (no fission bomb as a starter), the craters made by them may have fused into one bigger crater, the one that is claimed to be a geological formation.
How to check this hypothesis? Assuming that the bombs were similar to present trial fusion reactors, they must have required very much energy to get the fusion started: lasers raising the temperature to very hot plasma, high power magnets. That is not a small equipment and it takes lots of electronic power. Thus, we would expect that all lights went out from the WTC buildings just before the explosion happened. Because where else to get this electronic power. Well, did the lights go out? Then there is the possibility, which I do not believe, that a fusion reaction could be started by a chemical reaction. (If it were so, why is it so difficult to make nuclear weapons for some countries. No, it must be possible only with very high technology.) I will have to think about this sometimes.
3 Comments
It would be much easier to consider and easier to explain the detcord/c4/gellignite/nano-thermite theory than the nuke theory. The explosive theory makes much more sense and one can clearly see timed explosives running down the core of the towers ahead of the collapse sequence.
WTC7 was a classic demolition, however, the two towers are interesting in that they were a top down demolition. My only question would then be this: if planes/drones hit the facade of the towers would they not then dislodge demolition wiring. It makes no sense to crash planes into buildings if you have them rigged for demolition because the explosive impact of the plane could cause the plan to go wrong.
Maybe the breakup of the planes never really reached the core columns where the explosives were situated.
You need to remove critical pillars that support the building. This can be made in the basement. In order to
start the collapse from a middle floor, as the structure is no longer supported by the core steel frame but only
by the outside steel frame and concrete, you can collapse one floor where you want with explosives and the whole building does come down. You may still have to kick some standing steel frame parts with explosives. If the planes did hit the buildings,
I do not think they would have done any special harm to explosives. The wiring was wireless and planes do only limited damage only on the way they pass. However, it is not so certain that there were any planes. The video shows a plane nose coming undamaged from the other side, which is impossible.
My objections to nano-thermite is that it really is not a high explosive. It does explode, but is a weak explosive. Huge amounts of it had been needed. Today I am quite open to all kinds of proposals, the only thing I am sure of is that it did not happen like in the official story.
May I recomend a book? “SOLVING 9/11” by Christopher Bollyn is surely the most respected book on the horrors known as 9/11. He covers many aspects of the case all pointing to very powerful elites.