911 WTC rubble mystery. Mini-nukes?

The government maintains that the Twin Towers were each hit by aircraft
and the subsequent fires weakened the steel in the upper stories,
initiating a gravity-driven "pancake collapse," as illustrated in Figure
30. There are many problems with this hypothesis. The most obvious problem
with it is the near free-fall speed of the destruction of these buildings
A second problem is the paucity of remaining material. Where are the
concrete floors? Where is the office furniture? Where is the office
machinery? Where are the filing cabinets? Where is the wall board? Where
are the bookcases?

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/why/why_indeed.html

Where Did WTC3 Go?

Only part of the bottom three stories remain-- where did the all the
debris from the upper 15 stories go? This is especially odd, considering a
lot of debris from WTC2 fell on WTC3. But there's not even enough debris
to account for WTC3!

The odd thing is that despite the upper 15 or so stories being mashed to
nothing, officially by the debris from WTC2, the lobby of WTC3 was intact,
with pictures still hanging on the wall!

Here we have a massive weight (WTC2 debris) pushing down on a structure
(WTC3), and officially causing the collapse of the top 3/4 of the
structure. But the bottom floor has resisted this massive collapse of the
upper floors!

wtc3 was right there at the base of both towers.
if the towers had actually collapsed, as the official fairytale would have
everyone believe, then many many thousands of tons of massive pieces of
steel and concrete would have landed right on top of wtc3 and squashed it
into a pancake.
looking at the photo of the (total lack of) debris, we can only arrive at
the conclusion that there was no debris.
this leaves us with only two conclusions for the total lack of debris:

1) 99.9% of the material from wtc1, 2 and 3 was somehow blasted far
outside the scope of the camera's lens.
or:
2) 99.9% of the material that comprised wtc1, 2 and 3 was somehow
vaporized into non-existence.

THIS ANIMATED PICTURE:
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Pages/HTRHome.html

shows the conundrum graphically!!

look at this photo of wtc2 being destroyed

is it being blasted far outside the scope of the camera's lens?
hardly.
we are left with only one conclusion:
the towers were somehow vaporized.

The WTC Medical Monitoring Program is now studying a group of Ground Zero
workers, including cops, construction workers and volunteers, suffering
from cancers such as leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

"The kind of thing that worries us is that we have a handful of cases of
multiple myeloma in very young individuals... a condition that almost
always presents late in life," said Dr. Robin Herbert, co-director of the
program at Mount Sinai Hospital.

=====

The massive, rapid outward—as well as downward and upward—explosions of
the two towers, the toasted cars (but not paper), and popping ceiling
lights (Ondrovic—see below), the micron-sized dustification of tower
contents, the levels of tritium and heavy metals, the underground molten
steel and high temperatures weeks and months later, all can only be
accounted for by nuclear devices and their EMPs. The fact that the
explosions are simultaneously outward, downward and upwards means we have
a spherical blast wave, such as occurs with a nuclear device.

The anonymous Finnish military expert—- to whom all real 9/11 truth
seekers are indebted—- appears to believe that only one fusion device in
the 1-kiloton range was used in each tower. This may be so, but it should
be debated. I believe the evidence indicates several fusion bombs went off
during the destruction of the two towers.

In fact, the dimensions of the towers likely required several nukes. The
towers are much taller than their other two dimensions. A single large
nuclear, spherical blast wave large enough to destroy a tower's complete
height would have been too powerful to be contained in its other two
dimensions. The results would have been seen and (more) catastrophic. So
several smaller nukes likely were needed, and used. I believe also that
there is much evidence that WTC 3, 4, 5, 6 also were taken down with
internal nuclear devices.

WTC7 appears to have been imploded with conventional demolition methods as
videos show no concomitant vaporization, nor massive chunks expelled
outwards during "collapse," nor any internal spherical holes as in WTC6
and WTC3 (in between the "collapses" of the two towers)

The fission devices that went off at the Trinity/Alamogordo site, and
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were said to be of the order of 10-20 kilotons of
TNT. Such devices yield great fluxes of neutrons and gamma rays. Also
resultant are air pressure blasts, and tremendous heat of the order of 100
million degrees. Modern devices are "steerable" in terms of desired
percentages of these output parameters. The "radius of total destruction"
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was about one mile in each city. Total
destruction includes vaporization of buildings and people nearer to the
hypocenter or ground zero. The fate of buildings and people near the
hypocenter of a nuclear device is indicated by this: "The Shima hospital,
the hypocenter of the [Hiroshima] atomic bomb was vaporized, along with
all her patients." Farther away from the hypocenter, the so-called shadow
people left their shadows on buildings as the people vaporized, but not
the buildings. Other people still further away, but not vaporized, were
left in a charred condition. Farther away still, survivors had burned, or
torn away skin. Are all these reasons why we are not allowed to see any
photos of any human remains from 9/11? We cannot expect every single,
murdered person to have been completely vaporized. Photos of body parts in
morgues have also not been allowed to be seen by the public. Indeed EMT
Patricia Ondrovic has seen the body parts in the city morgue. Is this part
of the redactions to her statement?

Returning to the parameters of the nukes of 9/11, given the energy, the
destruction radius and other parameters of Hiroshima and its comparison to
WTC1 or 2, the Finnish expert concluded that a single 1-kiloton,
underground nuke was used. I conclude that likely several nukes per tower
were used—- but totaling 1/10th of a kiloton per tower. One key in my
analysis is the number of times we suddenly see massive chunks of building
expelled outwards like the trajectories of large chunks of earth seen in
(above-ground) photos of underground test nukes. Remember WTC 1 and 2
destruction events look more like the Nevada nuclear tests than the
Hiroshima bomb.

The similarity to underground test nukes means that any and all nukes were
set off at least several floors below any extant levels. A nuke per floor
was not needed or desired. Rather I see this tremendous outward exploding
of large chunks of WTC 1 and 2, about two or three times per tower. But
remember, what we see is soon obscured by dust/debris, and that other
buildings also prevent us from seeing much of the bottom half of each
tower's destruction. In discussing this aspect, it is important to realize
I write now of powerful outward explosions of massive chunks—- often
appearing to emanate from the center which indeed was the likely location
of the nuke(s). These outward explosions need to be distinguished from the
"peeling away"—- and then falling-- of the outer structure (sometimes in
very large chunks) of the towers. IMO, this peeling away occurred because
there no longer was any inside structure at that level at that time! (The
remaining, succeeding, inside top portions looked like the final photos of
the inside of WTC6.) There would still be some outward-vectored force all
along the outer structure at all times due to heat and over-pressure
inside, causing the peeling-away of the outer structure observed. But I
refer to the large chunks that suddenly were flung to great distances. The
videos seem to indicate that this happened 2-3 times per tower, and again
we do not see most of the bottom half.

However I note that the well-known collapse/vaporization of the remaining
steel core after WTC1 fell is seen at the same time that we see the
so-called "nuclear glow." Notice how this glow from the WTC1 (nuclear)
demolition (seen on the left side) causes the whole background to brighten
at one point, and then how the camera is panned to the right so as to no
longer video what they were showing in the first place! Was this a
"cleaner nuke"—see below—inadvertently captured because there was no
building to contain it? Again it would be good (from the perps' viewpoint)
to vaporize any remaining people and building contents (evidence) just
after final "collapse." So I believe about 4-6 nukes per tower were used.
Each one would have a radius of about 10-15 floors, or a diameter of about
20-30 floors. Nukes would be placed strategically (centrally?) to try to
vaporize the strong 47 beam steel core—- the sturdiest and most
heat-resistant part of the towers' structure—- and therefore likely the
last to get vaporized. However I now make the assertion that completely
doing away with the 47 beam steel support core was not necessary! Why?
With a nuclear device that vaporizes most of the inside [which will soon
be micro-particles floating around outside], there would be little left of
the inside to need support! While preferable to do away with as much of
this 47 steel beam support as possible without "over-nuking" everything,
it was therefore not essential for its entirety to be vaporized. Indeed we
may see that some of this support--up to about the 60th floor (the
"spire")-- remained after "collapse" of WTC1-- and was then itself likely
nuked/vaporized, during the "nuclear glow". Why was there a need to
vaporize the left-over support beams? Because, as my argument above
asserts, 100% obliteration of these beams is more necessary for the bogus
"collapse" mechanism, than for the actual, nuclear destruction mechanism!

The perps would want maximum use of each nuke for its full diameter.
Pre-planted conventional explosives (thermite/thermate/other, or very tiny
nukes) were used to initiate each tower's visible collapse, at the
appropriate floor (where earlier conventional, shape charges had simulated
plane dimensions, and provided initial shock and awe in their fireballs)—-
for public consumption. A properly, pre-placed nuke subsequently went off
in each top part, centered in each separated top part after initial
demolition began at the appropriate floor. Remember the floors that were
"hit" were in fact just exploded as part of the plan, so nukes were
pre-placed in the centers of the pre-known dimensions of the top tower
parts for their subsequent vaporization. These nukes and top vaporizations
were initiated shortly after the demolitions began at the "plane-hit"
levels. This could explain the kinking noted by Spooked in the WTC2 top
corner. The nuke has caused some loss of integrity (from neutrons or even
direct heat) in the structure at that point (and other less visible
points), shortly before vaporization. Kinking is also a sign of wave
interference as wave energy builds up at corners, and the kink is near a
corner. The fact that there was a 30 story part of the tower that was
tilted and about to fall "badly" is part of the "beauty" of the nuking of
the towers (from the perps' viewpoint). This was not likely supposed to
happen. But they simply vaporized their error! This is also analogous to
the dipping of the radio tower of WTC1 before the top piece accordions
into itself, then vaporizes.

The radio tower is in the center, and a centrally placed nuke's spherical
blast wave (causing loss of structural integrity) will reach a point
directly above it before it would reach all around the building to start
the "accordioning" of the entire visible circumferences. This is part of
what I call the inside/out effect which occurred along with the top/down
effect. Now the two tower tops had vertical lengths of about 18 and 30
floors, not counting the radio tower (very little of which was found at
Ground Zero, like a great deal of the towers). A key factor is that the
nukes (not counting any underground ones) are always several floors
beneath remaining building levels when they go off. Otherwise—if the nuke
was at the surface of the remaining building at that time—- building parts
would have been expelled to great distances, perhaps many miles away. Also
we might have seen more visual evidence of the nuking. Perhaps this is
consistent with the "nuclear glow" seen at the end of WTC1 "collapse", as
there was little or no building left (only debris clouds) at that time to
obscure this. Was the glow from a final nuke that also collapsed/vaporized
the remaining/standing steel core? A decision as to whether, or not, to
use more nukes towards the end of each tower's destruction—- when smoke
and debris would shield the state of the remaining building could have
been facilitated by helicopters, planes, even satellites overhead, which
could have scanned the site—- using wavelengths that see through smoke—-
and directed more nuclear (or conventional?) explosions (especially at the
lower levels or ground), as needed.

Because there was no plane crash excuse for WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6, probably
"underpowered nukes" were used inside these buildings. WTC 4, 5, and 6
were each 7-9 stories high. The PTB wanted to claim that these edifices
were damaged by falling parts of the two towers. So these buildings were
not vaporized in near total fashion, as were the two towers. Their outer
shells were left over. But the large, nearly, spherical hole in WTC6, and
its deep underground hole, are indications of a likely internal, nuclear
spherical blast. In particular, I think that on-scene, EMT, Patricia
Ondrovic's statements to Killtown and her heavily redacted interview with
the WTC task force indicate that she saw—- right next to her—- EMP
[Electromagnetic Pulse] effects from a nuke set off in or near WTC6. I
refer to her observations of ceiling lights popping in the lobby of WTC6,
and the cars just outside catching fire at this same time. Indeed the
EMP-induced heat on one car door near her, caused it to rapidly expand and
explode off the vehicle and hit her. Her interviews indicate that the
overheard, commencing, rumbling collapse of WTC2 (further away from her)
occurred just as she saw WTC5 and 6 start to explode ("collapse") right
near her. The timing Ondrovic states here indicates that WTC2, WTC5, and
WTC6 had nukes go off inside each one simultaneously. Fortunately for her,
as I noted above, these (WTC 5, 6) explosions were "underpowered," and
left much outer structure standing, and she was far enough away from WTC2
to be able to run away from the area and survive.

WTC7, the possible planning/command center with its plethora of federal
agents, was special. No nukes, at least not above ground. I suggest that
it was NOT a faux pas that Silverstein, on public TV, admitted they
"pulled it" with conventional demolition! But the regime tried to "take it
back" when a public outcry began over that admission!

WTC3, the 22-story Marriott Hotel, may have also had a nuke vaporize most
of its top floors, or this one may have been destroyed by falling debris?
Let us analyze this. A picture of WTC3 after the first WTC2 collapse, but
before WTC1 collapse, indicates WTC3 had its own "underpowered" internal
nuclear spherical blast wave damage it, a la WTC6:

The final state of WTC3 reveals about three floors remaining and does not
show the massive parts of WTC2 that allegedly fell on WTC3:

Did the nukes going off in WTC 2 vaporize these chunks before they hit
WTC3? Did the nukes of WTC1 cause the outer shell of WTC3 to later
vaporize? Did after-collapse nukes do this? Should we call these "cleaner
nukes" in analogy to how the regime sends in its "cleaners" to remove
evidence after one of their agents has performed some nefarious deed?

Now I must include some related and important issues. Were deep
underground nuces set off a few seconds before the start of visible
"collapse" as audio and video indicates? Included herein is the supposed
vaporization of the underground 50 ton steel press. Some of the testimony
on this however comes from William Rodriguez who I cannot trust because of
his apparent deep background. He was a TV magician cum janitor cum press
agent cum janitor—cum hero! And he was not in his usual place (high up) at
his usual time that morning.

What happens if a large flux of neutrons, gamma rays, pressure, heat etc.
reaches another, unexploded mininuce? Will the latter still go off
somewhat as planned—- i.e., have its own chain reaction-- or will it
fizzle? If it goes off, what percentage of its maximum potential will be
realized? Would it at least be interfered with and compromised, probably
to a significant level? Or could it have been sufficiently shielded? Is it
not likely that only non-interfered, or "virgin" nukes would be used? The
perps would want to have things go as much as possible exactly the way
they want. This would be unlike conventional charges which could have one
trigger the next etc. I would imagine that the placement of mininukes
would be such that one would be out of the range of affecting the next
one. But I cannot know this for sure. But this is what I have assumed in
this discussion.

However we need to examine this matter of "left-over" nucular bombs that
may have been "compromised." What if some nukes, maybe even one or more
final "cleaner nuclear bomb(s)" destroyed the integrity of the shielding
of "left-over" nukes? It is indeed possible that sub-critical components
subsequently interacted and would then release significant energy for some
time! They could well act like the nuclear reactor proposed by William
Tahil (above). This idea seems to be far more likely (and feasible) than
his hypothesis that the perps had surreptitiously built two underground
nuclear reactors there. One or more compromised nuclear fusion (or
possibly even fission—if Tahil's take on the government's report is
correct)—- bombs, with their sub-critical, but now interacting, components
releasing significant amounts of energy and heat at their locale(s) could
indeed be responsible for the high temperatures (and molten steel) seen at
the WTC weeks and months after 9/11. This also dovetails with reports of
"unexploded micronukes" being removed from the Oklahoma City bombing by
federal agents—after being placed there and used by other federal agents!
Bill Deagle, M.D. has reported that one military agent, and patient of
his, told him: "We removed two undetonated softball sized micronuclear
bombs [from the Murrah building]."

Perhaps even the "nuclear glow" seen in the CNN footage—which I note is
sustained for some time, as the camera pans away from it—- is the
initiation of a nuclear reactor-like event (caused by a "cleaner nuke" or
earlier demolition nuke, or even conventional explosives) and undergoing a
limited criticality event like the "tickling the dragon's tail"
experiments—performed at Los Alamos. Massive visible blue light emission
(as well as neutrons and gamma rays) resulted when criticality was
attained in this limited fashion. I believe that with all the other
materials exploding, some could even have acted as "control rods" yielding
a sustained, pseudo-nuclear reactor. And there could have been several
unexploded atombomb "left-over" in each tower. Or even a single nuclear
device could have had its components blasted to several locales. But never
forget, the massive heat released when a nuclear reactor goes awry is why
they called it the "China Syndrome." The heat released (in theory) could
melt all the way down to China!

The above discussion of possible interactions of pre-planted, mini atom
bombs leads to the matter of the outer structure demolition. With this
aspect, there may well have been interacting conventional (or other)
explosives. But before we delve into this, it must be noted that what
occurred, or was observed, in this regard was likely done for public
consumption. What happened inside was not directly observed—- with the
possible exception of some events like the "nuclear glow" that shone
through. We must also realize that the videos and photos promulgated of
the outer destruction of the two towers may be as doctored, as are nearly
all the videos of the two alleged "plane hits." The regime wanted to make
it "plausible" that a rapid, pseudo-free fall, pancaking occurred. People
who have analyzed the public videos of WTC 1 and 2 outer structure
"collapses"/demolitions report a 10 floor per second "collapse." This is
presumably for that first second. I note that this is much faster than
simple, gravitational collapse would allow in that first second (16 feet.)
After the initial "collapse" has started, dust and debris and other
buildings soon obscure things. Those right there videoing had to stop and
leave as fast as they could. But if the times for total collapse of the
towers are about 10 or 11 seconds, and we have about 100 floors involved
(as I am not counting separated top parts of the towers which seem to be
disappearing shortly after initiation of final events.) Thus we apparently
have an approximately constant outer floor demolition rate of about 10
floors downward per second throughout.

We need to examine the possible mechanisms for this and how this outer
structure demolition dovetails with the inner, nuclear demolition
hypothesis. Were pre-planted conventional (or even tinier nucular bombs?)
used to blow out the (visible) outer structure of each floor while the
inside was being vaporized with nukes? Did these presumably outer building
conventional explosives interact with each other, or the nukes? One
possibility is that an explosive in the outer structure of the floor above
reached, and then triggered, the explosive in the outer structure of the
floor just below it, and so on. Could these charges have been placed in or
at the outer structure soon before 9/11/01, or even when the buildings
were erected–- for those who know "ultimate truths"? There are so many
possibilities—- including a visible (yet "disconnected") "standard"
demolition for the outer structure. But always remember, my central
hypothesis here is that the towers were demolished primarily by hidden,
internal, nuclear devices. The outer structure demolition events were
created-- or faked-- for public consumption and "plausibility." One could
even argue that this issue is a side-show to distract from the nuking of
the towers, and likely several other WTC buildings. There may even have
been precedent for this. Dr. Deagle's military expert's revelation to him
even indicates that the OKC bombing may have been, in a way, the blueprint
for the WTC bombing, as follows: The expert indicated that the truck's
conventional bomb went off at the same time the micro-nukes were
detonated, and acted as cover for the micro-nukes. Numerous explosives
experts had separately stated that the truck bomb could not have had
sufficient explosive power to do the damage observed. My hypothesis for
the WTC tower bombings also has conventional explosives being used as
cover for more massive damage done by simultaneous nuclear devices. I
assert that what was happening inside—- nuclear detonation(s)—- caused the
collapses, regardless of what any outer explosions did, or were faked to
appear to have done. This may even be consistent with the towers'
demolitions actually beginning with the large explosions-- apparently in
the sub-basements of the towers-- recorded several seconds (see above)
before the visible "collapses" began near the tops. In the final analysis,
I assert—- as per the above detailed nuclear mechanism—that even if there
were no outer structure explosions, the outer structure would have "peeled
away" anyway because of what was occurring inside.

Finally in writing this WTC nuke hypothesis, I have left it somewhat in
the chronological order that it was written. In this light, I have seen
video evidence that appears to clearly supersede some of the ideas above.
However, I will leave those in, as it is still possible that numerous
things were used by the perps to confuse the issue, or for later release
when the time suits them, and for completeness for future researchers. But
this video—- which also fits the geometry of the situation—- is one of the
clearest of the initial destruction of WTC1, and appears to fit a nuclear
demolition only—- i.e., conventional explosives appear not to have been
needed or used

See the text with PICTURES and LINKS here:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2007/05/wtc-nuke-thesis-from-anonymous.html