Mini-nukes verses micro-nukes.

[LARED]

Both are postulated as mechanisms for bringing down the WTC towers.

Can anyone explain the difference to me. I am thinking of writing the abridged version of truther vernacular and want to make sure I get it right. I also need help with a name for the book. :)

[MercutioATC]

1. Micro-nukes are smaller.

C'mon...EVERYBODY knows that "micro" is smaller than "mini".

:eyes:

[zappaman]

2. Mini-nukes apparently leave no trace of radioactivity.

They also won't register seismically and are very, very quiet.


THIS DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT TO ME: WHY EVERYTHING I DON'T UNDERSTAND MUST BE A CONSPIRACY would be a good title.

[LARED]

3. If that's the case micro nukes

must be used to propel the falling steel beams faster than freefall.

[ryan_cats]

4. You've got it all wrong, see...

It wasn't mini nukes and it wasn't micro nukes that electron microscopes could see evidence of. Clearly, it was mini-micro nukes.

Since it was clearly mini-micro nukes, we have to make sure that they don't get away with this in the future..

[spooked911]

5. they are more or less synonymous, though mini-nukes is more vague.

A micronuke specifically would be 1 millionth the power of a modern nuke, so equal to 1.2 tons of TNT = 1 millionth of 1.2 millions tons of TNT.

Interestingly, a nuclear weapon weighing 2,400 pounds (1,100 kg) can produce an explosive force comparable to the detonation of more than 1.2 million tons, so a mininuke would weigh much less than a pound.

[LARED]

6. Spooked, I always appreciate your usual "flawless" logic

:nuke::patriot:

[jberryhill]

7. So, you believe that nuclear devices scale linearly, do you?

[LARED]

9. Perhaps a manifestation of known

difficulties with spatial relationships

[jberryhill]

11. Good point

I forgot that large buildings scale to chicken wire.

[spooked911]

12. I didn't say it was linear

and I know the triggering mechanism can weigh quite a bit, even if the fissionable components do not, which is why I was quite vague.

But there were versions of the Davy Crockett mini-nuke that were clearly quite small (the M28):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

Undoubtedly, nuclear bomb technology has advanced since the 1950's and smaller nukes exist but are highly classified.

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. what part of "a mininuke would weigh much less than a pound" is "quite vague"?

Granted, "much less than a pound" doesn't differentiate between, say, 12 ounces and a few grams.

[AngkorWot]

8. A micronuke contains a core of enriched fictiontonium

Whereas a mininuke requires a pile of pure imaginarium.

[LARED]

10. +1 nt

[spooked911]

13. there is a micronuke described here

http://www.house.gov/jec/hearings/dualuse/leitner.htm

"Mix and hydrodynamics: These experiments involve the actual testing of extremely low-yield fission devices (as low as the equivalent of several pounds of TNT) within a confined environment . . . to study the physics of the primary component of thermonuclear warheads by simulating, often with high explosives, the intense pressures and heat on weapons materials. "

[sir pball]

15. Size constraints of weapons

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html

I won't get into fractional-yield (a few pounds to tons) subcritical tests or yield:weight scaling, there's too much knowledge required to spoon-feed it. Loads and loads of great and highly detailed info at the Archive...brush up on your physics first.