Talk:Peaceful nuclear explosion

message: User:DV8 2XL added: "Germany at one time considered manufacturing nuclear explosives for civil engineering purposes. In the early 1970s a feasiblity study was conducted for a project to build a canal from the Mediterranean Sea to the Qattara Depression in the Western Desert of Egypt using nuclear demolition. This project proposed to use 213 devices, with yields of 1 to 1.5 megatons detonated at depths of 100 to 500 m, to build this canal for the purpose of producing hydroelectric power."
“Death Stands at Attention” - theTrumpet.com, published in February 2001, says: "It is known that Germany has considered manufacturing fusion bombs for “civil engineering purposes.” In the early 1970s, a feasibility study was conducted for a project to build a canal from the Mediterranean Sea to the Qattara Depression in the Western Desert of Egypt using nuclear explosives. This project proposed to use 213 bombs, with yields of 1 to 1.5 megatons, detonated at depths of 100 to 500 meters, to build the canal for the purpose of producing hydroelectric power."
Edward 09:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible copyright violation

message: "The best known of these in the West was the Chagan test in January of 1965 as radioactivity from the Chagan test was detected over Japan by both the U.S. and Japan in apparent violation of the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT). "
No, it did not violate the treaty because it was an underground test. It's basically a copy of Sedan test.
154.5.61.233 (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It violated the treaty because the venting of the fallout materials to the surface was an intended result of the explosion; it is what is known as a cratering test.  The reason why it was not prosecuted was because it did not scatter lethal levels of fallout on other nations, though it was detectable.  It seems that PNEs got a bit of a free ride as cratering charges, as the US exploded four such tests: Palanquin, Cabriolet, Buggy, Schooner, as did the USSR - #231 Chagan, #242 Sary-Uzen, #291 & 295 Tel'kem, #335 Tiaga.  SkoreKeep (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Chagan test

message: http://www.nuclear-demolition-wikipedia.com/
Heres a link explaining the censorship of nuclear demolition articles written by Dimitri Khalezov on Wikipedia, it includes the censored articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madivans (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Link gets error 404.  2014-04-03  SkoreKeep (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.sott.net/article/220802-9-11-Nuclear-Demolition-Theory-Censored-Wikipedia-Article Here is another uncencored website, with original information. 
Why would Wikipedia censor this valid information?
Because it is what happened. Except they were no "mini-nukes" but the regular 150kt nukes detonated 75m underground at all 3 towers. The infrastructure for it was built in in the 60's, and was required by building officials, since there were never built anything that strong in the history. The nuke weakens the inner structure of the tower i.e. the inner columns by a seismic shockwave. A regular explosive cannot pulverize steel, it can only cut or melt it and the required amount would have been upractically huge. However a seismic pressure vawe produced by a nuclear explosion CAN. Then the tower inner structure falls into a cavity created by the bomb and the outer walls follow hence the near freefall speed, and very little debris pile and minimal damage to surrounding structures. (only one of the arguments is enough to prove that not conventional explosives were used, [not to talk about planes lol] The energy required to produce that amount of steel dust is exclusively consistent only with a nuclear blast, the other explosives were auxiliary only and by far not enough to bring the towers down. The alleged planes were also for theatrics only, postfabricated into the newsfeed videos. No planes hit anything.--Dmitri 152 (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue Censorship regarding Nuclear Demolition Article  previous written by Dimitri Khalesov 

message: It's incorrect to talk about "detonation", because it refers only to chemical explosion. Nuclear devices doesn't work this way. 15.195.185.77 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explosion, not a detonation