Pictures Prove Mini Nukes Caused 9-11 Devastation

September 17, 2010


There are only two events known to cause ground-hugging pyroclastic flows (pictured above).

  1. A volcanic eruption

  2. A thermo nuclear detonation

by "Dennis"

All research provided by: and

On the morning of September 11th, 2001, we were told a fairy tale. That wide body jets flew into the twin towers and completely destroyed them. Let me repeat that: Passenger planes (large hollow aluminum tubes) flew into industrial steel, marble and concrete sky scrapers, and caused them to turn into a pile of dust. And the worst part about this fairy tale is that we, the American people believed it. Now, nine years later, it's time to wake up from your slumber and take a good hard look at what did and did not happen on that fateful day. The conventional explanation we were provided, by government and media, for a top-down highly destructive gravitational collapse, in near-free-fall times, is physically impossible, and is thus about as worthy of discussion as is the belief that the Earth is flat.

FICTION: Passenger jets flew into the Twin Towers, and the burning jet fuel caused them to collapse.

FACT: The Twin Towers did not collapse. They suffered a mid-air pulverization due to an extreme unconventional energy source that caused the initial upward trajectory of so much of the towers' mass during the 'collapses' as (supposedly only) gravity was pulling them down.

FICTION: The burning jet fuel melted all of the steel beams causing the buildings to collapse directly onto their own footprint.

FACT: 80% of each of the towers 50 million ton mass NEVER hit the ground. The steel did not melt, but turned into nano-dust. Pulverization + Molecular Dissociation = Ground Zero Evidence. When matter is elevated to temperatures hotter than the surface of the Sun, molecular dissociation results. Molecular Dissociation (MD) is easy to understand once we realize that there are four (4) states of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Just as ice has trouble surviving in water or steam, molecules have trouble surviving in plasma, which is highly energetic (ie, extremely hot). When molecules dissociate, they leave behind loose atoms and fragments of molecules. In other words, extremely small particles. In this sense, it is correct to think of molecular dissociation as disintegration.

dennis1.jpg Dennis21.jpg

What do these two pictures have in common? They both represent a highly unconventional destructive release of energy, with temperatures much hotter than the sun.

So once we confirm evidence of widespread molecular dissociation having occurred at Ground Zero in New York City, we have a very strong indication that only exotic, unconventional weaponry could have released that much extremely -- unimaginably -- high intensity energy which suddenly appeared just as the towers disintegrated from top to bottom. This understanding means we cannot blame the highly unconventional Ground Zero devastation on thermite/thermate/super thermate and "controlled demolition" any more than we can blame it on "jet fuel" or "box cutters".

In a "pancake collapse" the rubble pile should be at least 1/8 of the original building height (12.5%). The actual rubble pile was no more than 2% of the original building height. Both towers went "poof."

So where did these 110 story tall 50 million ton sky scrapers go?


They were turned into nano-dust and 80% of the "dust" floated off into the atmosphere.


From left to right: A huge steel beam from the south tower falters, turns to "dust" and blows away.

Now that we've scientifically proven that only exotic, unconventional weaponry could have released that much extremely -- unimaginably -- high intensity energy to cause the pulverization and molecular dissociation of these buildings, let's look at some of the other unexplainable anomalies..



All of these cars have unexplainable similar damage: Paint gone, instant rusting, and all of their door handles and engine blocks are missing!

A squad car on FDR drive with wilted doors, burned paint, instant rust and no door handles or engine block.


Strange fires appear to be attracted to the engine blocks, while the gas tanks and nearby paper are not affected.


Buildings a few blocks away,had mysterious holes in the windows, and the front marble façade is completely gone, but no other damage.


Why doesn't the paper burn?

For months we witnessed trucks coming and going from Ground Zero and the media told us they were hauling away the steel. What steel? There was very little steel left in the rubble because it had been pulverized into nano-dust. So what were these trucks really hauling back and forth? Dirt! They hauled in dirt, spread it all over Ground Zero, then scooped it up and hauled it away, and this went on for years. Didn't they do that at Chernobyl? Yes they did!

So now you know what didn't cause the buildings to "vanish." Planes, jet fuel and thermite are irrelevant. So what kind of unconventional energy could have caused the Twin Towers to turn to dust? A fissionless fusion thermo nuclear event? Direct Energy Weapons? HAARP? A scaled up weaponized version of The Hutchison Effect? The investigation continues.........


Related: Dr. Ed Ward -- Mini Nukes Prove US Government Involvement

Comments for "Pictures Prove Mini Nukes Caused 9-11 Devastation "

Tony said (September 19, 2010):

My intuition tells me there is a really good chance nano-thermite alone was insufficient to produce the heat required for what took place on 9-11.

This article referred to nano-particles, but it never broached much less sought to support the hypothesis that among the nano-particles present was the very signature for nano-thermite and my intuition also tells me that silence with respect to this is quite telling and even deceptive.

So, while I have always been deeply convicted the government-backed story is a complete fabrication, I don't know what to believe save that nano-thermite was definitely involved. A molecular signature is just too compelling and (as said) silence on that matter is compelling to me as well.

Mark said (September 18, 2010):

Andrew's comments still show the willful ignorance of what the band Green Day rightfully called "The American Idiot," while another responder states the cheap "Henry I used to think you were smart" line. It is becoming increasingly embarrassing to be an American, given the company some of us have to keep. Switzerland is starting to beckon. No foreign wars. Peace. A modicum of control over the government. America is a garish joke.

Free inquiry always makes the buffoons who think they live in a free country uncomfortable; they proclaim how free they think we are and yet side with the government that wants to, and has, crushed genuine freedom.

But the cars were not crushed--any half-wit can see that the roofs of the cars and their structures are not caved in; they are charred and rusted. Can Andrew honestly believe these cars were close enough to the building for the just the fire-heat to uniformly affect all these cars in the same manner?

The only thing more disturbing than what happened on 9-11 is those who believe in any significant degree the "19 Muslims Gone Wild" story. The photographic evidence may not conclusively prove exactly what happened, but we know what did not happen. If the buildings pancaked, there would be a pile of pancakes; there were none -- so it did not happen. It does not take any more analysis than that, for that aspect.

The explosive plumes from whatever combination of substances and triggers are there for all to see, with the huge steel beams ejected laterally like missiles; and yet the fuddy-duds will still suck up to Uncle Sam (the mice among us always side with big brother for "protection) and say, "Islamo-Fascists with the Koran and a flying manual in one hand, and a box cutter and the steering wheel of the plane in the other, did this! Oh, how they hate us for our freedom! Such villainy!"

Good God, save us from our countrymen who see a pile of horse dung and think it a chocolate cake -- that is far more dangerous than an Islamo-Fascist.

Tim said (September 18, 2010):

I do think Judy Wood's billiard ball example is a must read for everyone. It is so simple and well explained that there is only 1 conclusion after reading it. The government is lying.

Perhaps that would be a better article to focus on. There is no debate on the points in it. The conclusion is that the government's story is a lie.

Another great site about the impossibility of the government's version of the collapse of towers 1, 2 & 7

And for those who think that Hani Hanjour could do a maneuver that commander Kolstad says he personally would have a hard time doing just compare the 2 resumes. Not possible in a billion years could Hani have done the Pentagon hit. A monkey with a typewriter would have better luck writing one of the works of Shakespeare.

We don't need to show what happened. All we need to do is show that their story is impossible and that they are lying. Done. Guilty. Fini!

Jerome said (September 18, 2010):

A Thermobaric effect must be brought in to consideration when reviewing the unfolding of the WTC collapse.
The gigantic amounts of kerosene, dropped, smeared and evaporated engulfed in such a huge chimney effect
i.e. along and within the emptied-out tower-shell structure, can easily combust
under the crashing down of the upper section of the tower, leading to a thermobaric explosion.

Russian mega thermobaric explosion:

Your article:

Larry said (September 18, 2010):

Thanks so much for posting this. It has been my suspicion as well. "Sublimation" is the process of a material going from a "solid" to a "gas" without passing through a liquid state. That is what I see in the pictures of the "spire" that was a huge steel beam that "evaporated" in seconds and blew away. That requires tremendous, almost instantaneous heat. A nuke is the only source of such heat available that I'm aware of. I think they used "cutter charges" as well but the main cause of the earlier explosion and heat injuries, as well as the unexplainable vehicle heat damage and pools of molten metal weeks later has to be a nuke. . Think of it as a "reverse bunker buster". It is further quite clear that the mass of the buildings did not return to earth as the debris piles are mathematically much too small. The answer there is that they simply "sublimated", turned to gas and ash and blew away. The only rubble left was that that was not heated to that degree and that is probably why they required the other charges to ensure they fell in their own footprint.

Those who believe that those buildings, including Number 7, simply "fell down" are willfully ignorant. The exact plan and how it was carried out, and by who, will probably remain a mystery. It was certainly an "inside job" requiring immense resources and planning. It is easy to forget that the pre-produced "news" coverage and other propaganda, as well as the "Patriot Act" and the whole orchestrated charade was part of the total operation. Of all the compelling images of this event that I've seen, the video of "The Spire" is the most disturbing. I worked with metals for years and it simply does not behave that way with the normal tools available for heating/cutting etc.. It is the first time (and hopefully the last), that I see steel turn to gas instantaneously.

The janitors in the buildings experienced the explosion and tremendous heat prior to the actual strike of the airplanes. Looking at the pyroclastic flow it is easy to see that the timing of this was critical. The disassociated bits went up with the energy flow and the cooler, harder bits came down. It is a study in how effective propaganda is. When you can do something this huge in plain sight and people will themselves to ignore the obvious.

Thanks again for posting this. There are very few, apparently, that share this opinion. I did not choose it, it chose me. It is the only theory that fits the observed phenomena. If there is some other "weapon" out there as yet unknown, I suppose that would also be a possibility. We do have enough science to know how nukes work and this fits the bill.

Ed Ward MD re. why no radiation said (September 17, 2010):

RE: Nuclear Radiation After A Nuclear Event.

All of this is covered in Mini Nukes Were Used on 9-11 linkage within the article - US Government Usage of Atomic Bombs.


1. This is a kiloton KT (1,000 tons) bomb, not a megaton MT (1 Million tons) bomb, and it's not even 2% of a kilo (18 tons).


2. "
In November 1972, the following sentence was declassified: "The fact of existence of weapons with tailored outputs, e.g., enhanced x-ray, neutron or gamma-ray output, that we are hardening our weapons to enhanced weapon outputs and that high-Z materials are used in hardening nuclear weapons against high-energy x-rays." Note - the date is the declassification date, not the development date.

How small can a nuclear reaction be? Through hydrodynamic experiments for triggering fusion, extremely lows yield nuclear explosions have been generated on the magnitude of "
several Pounds of TNT." As noted above, in 1961 .01 kt was unveiled in 1961. In 1956, the Tamalpais with a yield of 0.072 kt was declassified.

program produced (partial list) the following information for a regular 0.01 kt yields, air ignition: Fireball max light radius = 25.4 meters, Max time light pulse width = 0.011 seconds, Max fireball airburst radius = 10.6 meters, Time of max temperature = 0.0032 seconds, Area of rad. exposure = 0.12 sq. miles; Blastwave Effects: Overpressure = 5 lb/sq. inch (160 mph) radius = 0.09 km, 1 lb/sq. inch radius = 0.26 km; Underground ignition: Crater diameter = 56 feet with a Richter magnitude of 3.52. Thermal radiation damage range is significantly reduced by clouds, smoke or other obscuring materials. Surface detonations are known to decrease thermal radiation by half. A neutron bomb produces much less blast and thermal energy than a fission bomb of the same yield by expending its energy by the increase in the production of neutrons. Even the older neutron bombs produce very little long term fallout, but made considerable induced radiation in ground detonations. The half life of induced radiation is very short and is measured in days rather than years.

3. Don't believe me, check out the governments admitted need for a nuke that will allow them to use their enemies 'fortresses' against them... the Neutron Bomb. Part of the big benefit was 3 to 5 days = CLEAR. However, stable isotopes formed by neutron activation will be there for centuries.

4. See the Ivy Flats video (also in the article) where they show the needed 'decontamination' for running around the ground zero site in jeeps and patrols. A good dusting with a broom was all that was required per official government statements. HOWEVER, some were just ate up with radiation, they had to be hosed down with SURPRISE.... WATER.

5. Tritium is Radiation and is the only form of radiation that was semi adequately tested for - provided one only wanted data on WTC6.

Dennis (the author) said (September 17, 2010):

Sorry but planes and jet fuel are irrelevant as stated. Yes nano-particles can be achieved in our atmosphere and they were. In fact, the dust particles at ground zero continued breaking down for years after the event. The so called "smoke" that continued to rise out of ground zero for years was not smoke, but were visible fumes from the slow discharge of energy that had not totally originally detonated.

Radioactivity from here to Russia? Well, probably in the 1950's. The U.S. Navy has used, in the last decade "a krypton-fluoride (KrF) laser to produce thermonuclear burn in small spherical pellets" as the energy source for a commercial fissionless fusion nuclear power plant. And a high school student, Thiago Olson, has achieved 200 million degree (ie, certainly not cold) fusion, without fission, in his garage in 2006, using parts mostly found on eBay. Since then, that feat has been replicated by high school student Eric Foss.
Once the requirement (and tell-tale radioactive signature) of a fission trigger is eliminated, a fusion reaction needn't be large enough to destroy a city. Given that a high school student has non-destructively achieved a 200 million degree plasma ("star in a jar") in his garage, it is no longer impossible to imagine a fission less fusion-based tactical nuclear "hand grenade" (or a modern, fission-free H-bomb trigger) whose thermal output is capable of turning to plasma everything within a 10 foot radius. - Dennis (The Author)

Charles said (September 17, 2010):

Hi Henry,

Scraping the disso BS barrel today aren't we? And there was me thinking you were a smart fella. Still we all know what thought did!! LOL

Andrew said (September 17, 2010):

That's bullshit. Personally, I think that the forensic scientists proved they were jets. Not nukes.

And the alloy used in planes these days are stronger than they're believed to be in that article, they have to withstand HUGE amounts of airpressure from the outside.

If they were as thin as they're made out to be in that article, the speeds they reach would cause an air pressure so strong it'd crush the entire plane into a lace killing everyone.

Furthermore, the angle the planes hit caused the building's weight to collapse upon themselves. No NUKE could cause that (besides, the blast radius would murder loads more outside), burning jet fuel could've easily caught fire to the actual fibrous insulation in the walls, weakening the structure.

Nano-particles can't be achieved in this atmosphere, they can only be caused by man in extreme lab conditions, not by nukes...

Oh, and the pictures of the NUKE and the 9/11 being compared, well, that's the typical shape of an explosion, the mushroom shape on top is where the energy pushes itself out. The fuel in the NUKE and the aeroplane would have caused that shape.

The "nano-dust" is just debris from the rock and cement... any explosion will cause shrapnel and dust and nano-dust can't be seen by naked eyes.

The 1400 cars that "melted" were crushed by the debris, they'd have melted if there were discs of metal on the ground, not crushed bonnets and roofs. Paint gone from the heat. Instant rusting because the heat would act as a catalyst to the oxidation of aluminium. Door handles melted because they're usually plastic.

Any flame next to paper would react, you can't control fire, just where it's used.

Mysterious holes in the windows of nearby buildings caused by debris, shrapnel or blast radius.

"Why doesn't the paper burn?" Maybe it's just ash blocks that are wide enough to cause the illusion of paper?

Overall... that article is complete and utter bollocks.

Dan said (September 17, 2010):

Nuclear bombs shower radioactivity into the upper atmosphere which would have been detected all the way to Russia. and all over the East Coast. Think of Chernobyl. There's more to concealing evidence of NUCLEAR detonation than hauling off dirt before somebody happens to drop by with w Geiger counter.

The steel wasn't 'pulverized' or melted away. The girders and wreckage were hauled to land fill as quickly as possible because the debris was full of asbestos laying in a toxic pile in the heart of New York City. That's why it had to be moved to a land fill. The steel was sold off quickly for scrap to get rid of the evidence of thermite, not radiation.

The dirt is still in the land fill. If it were a nuke it would still be radioactive.

MK Ghandi said (September 17, 2010):

What the real issue here is summed up by the two pictures at the top of your article of 9/17/10. One is of one of the WTC towers collapsing, and the other is the Sedan Storax nuclear test in the Nevada Desert in 1962. The Sedan test was a nuclear device of about 100 kilotons exploding 600 feet--about 200 meters below the Nevada desert. The plumes coming out of the surface are results of the shock wave of the underground blast, which pulverizes everything within a certain distance from the center of the explosion. For a short distance beyond that, the force doesn't pulverize everything, but just tears it up into pieces larger than powder.

When we watched the demolition of the WTC towers, what we saw was the instantaneous effects of a large nuclear blast placed underneath each tower. When we saw the floors blowing outwards starting around the 75th floor of each building, we were looking at the part of the nuclear blast that was outside the pulverization zone. We saw pieces of steel being ejected, while leaving a trail of powder behind them. This ejection seemed to proceed downward from the around the 75th floor until it reached maybe the 60th floor below which everything had already turned to dust.

There is nothing we know of (and not likely that there are technologies we don't know of) that can do this other than a large nuclear explosion. Khalezov describes the entire nuclear demolition of the WTC in various places on the internet. He has a long explanation, but he summarizes it well enough to fit into the attention span of the modern American at his website here:

For many years, I looked at the videos of the WTC building collapse and asked myself 'What am I looking at?' What is this. Khalezov has convinced me that it was a 150 kiloton thermonuclear demolition device planted 50 meters below the bottom of each building in the NYC granite. The reason the trucks hauled away dirt was to clean up the radioactivity at ground zero. Interesting that in Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004, after the American assault on that city, there were trucks removing dirt there too. Gotta get rid of the evidence.

911 will be laid bare soon. After the dollar collapses.

Tom said (September 17, 2010):

FINALLY, someone has connected nuclear tests in dirt with the 911 collapses as indication that nukes were used on 911. Great!

Myself, I opine these were micronukes, not mininukes, but that's just a minor difference. I do believe they used thermite too: thermite cutter charges on the large steel vertical beams an instant prior to the micronukes to aid in 'liftoff', and the building frame was both wired up with it the few weekends before while the building was closed to all and also impregnated with it to some extent over some period of time by putative 'renovations' of sprayed-on 'wall coverings', 'insulation', 'rust proofing', etc containing nanothermite. Recall the yellow molten thermite pouring out the aircraft-created gash down the side of the building--it had to have gotten all the way up there somehow.

They really wanted those suckers to come down for that insurance money and to get their Zio-American/Israeli 'WOT' started, so they made damn sure of it by using everything they could.

Karl said (September 17, 2010):

Hello Henry,

regarding your latest post, several comments that we have fleshed through long ago and many of the 9-11 Truth folks just do not 'get it'.

First two photos. The upward force of a blast and downward collapse forces are entirely different, different rate of velocity, look alike but are not.

The WTC event is not a pyroclastic cloud, is dust and pulverized lightweight concrete used as floors. Pyrochlastic clouds travel near the speed of sound and would have flattened other buildings in the area and I mean flattened.

The second pair of photos. Heat and dust rising from a controlled demolition are not same as atomic blast heat rising through free and open air. The collapse caused a column of heat and dust that then rose, not evidence of a nuke. (Same thing happened on WTC 7, but they never mention that while emoting over 'WTC nuke'.

The burning car photos. Anyone who has spent any time in NYC has seen those cars many times along Westside Drive and FDR drive. There are gangs that can strip a car bare in a matter of minutes. That is a lot where they put the dumps and then sell them as scrap. I have seen it many times. They set them on fire to erase fingerprints.

Nukes do not evaporate engine blocks and leave heavy duty rolled metal as the car body. Think that one through. Thieves take those engines out in less than 2 minutes. Has been that way in NYC since late 1970s. I have driven by some cars as they were being stripped. They have teams and they are fast and good.

The more likely explosives were nanopowder based, almost as powerful as a nuke.

I have attached a graphic of the Dad of All Bombs that Russia detonated, just shy of nuclear blast but is a conventional weapon. That is probably aluminum nanopowder and definitely ethylene oxide, special misting devices and a detonator.

best regards,


Dan said (September 17, 2010):

The Chrysler building took a direct hit from a collision with an Air Force bomber flying in fog in 1945 and failed to collapse. I believe WTC are the only known buildings in modern history to collapse due to “fire.” I disagree with the author when he states most people believe the official story of 911. I say most people do not. However if you count those who are afraid to say so and those who do not wish to say so and put them in the column of those who believe, well then I think that it could be safely said that most people believe the official story. As we all know WTC 7 collapsed in the same manner but was never hit.

Those who will truly believe the official story were being born on that day. As the story is for history sake and once it becomes words and pictures in a text book and combined with the apathy and short attention of an uncaring, pre-occupied teenaged mind it will be the truth, even if it is not truth.

Assuming that it is not truth what was the purpose? Probably multifaceted. To engage, let us say, people of Arab descent. To slow immigration of these peoples to western countries to control their populating these countries and taking over their governments and replacing their religions. To remove Saddam and implant a permanent military presence in a key region capable of engaging rogue states in a timely and effective manner. To enjoy oil revenues. To roll back the wealth of ordinary people living in the United States and Europe. To implement a broad range of control over western peoples that would ensure government dominance in all of their lives for generations to come.

And if it is the truth? With all that was known about these guys before, during and after and all that could have been done to prevent this or to stop it while in progress and was not…then they were the luckiest bastards ever in the history of the universe and with that kind of luck they should have played the lottery!

Kathy said (September 17, 2010):

As far as what caused the buildings to fall, why assume it's one thing or another, and not both? Whoever did it probably used multiple items just to make sure this mammoth task of pulling the buildings down would come off for sure and complete their foul deed.

Jeff said (September 17, 2010):

Thank you for this article. There is no doubt that 9-11 is not what we have been told, although there is considerable disagreement on exactly what did happen. Of all the various explanations I have seen, the one presented in your article seems to be the most plausible explanation for the events of that day, at least in my opinion. The damage to the vehicles and buildings around the towers, and the almost complete pulverization of the steel and concrete, suggests to me that something more than conventional explosives or even thermite was used to destroy and bring down the buildings. My own opinion is that traditional implosive devices and techniques were used to severely weaken the buildings (an opinion supported by the video, audio, and eyewitness testimony), along with some type of exotic high energy weapon (as suggested in the article) to pulverize and vaporize the buildings to the degree that they were. Whatever the truth, it is far from the fairy tale that is known as the official story.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at