Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear demolition


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   redirect to Peaceful nuclear explosions. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 01:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear demolition

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Hoax or fantasy, apparently constructed as part of a 9/11 conspiracy theory. No verifiable sources, patently nonsensical assertion that Controlled Demolition, Inc. patented such a technique. Appears to be related to this.  Acroterion  (talk)  05:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as eh... what is this? Not a real and verifiable topic for an encyclopedia, that's for sure. Drmies (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:MADEUP Ugh! It was ugly to read. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. We already have an article related to this subject insofar as it is verifiable. WillOakland (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a hoax, or made up, or original research, or... god knows --L. Pistachio (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Complete ridiculousness. Tall buildings are torn down via deconstruction and the NRC (along with almost every citizens group ever to exist) would never approve this process for demolition.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 08:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. My goodness, that's an imaginative theory. Also, a completely unverifiable and patently ridiculous one. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 09:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The topic of using ND to bring down buildings is imaginative to be sure. The term, moreover, is used by the military to refer to specific types of small nuclear devices. An article based on that usage would be correct. Collect (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor has, in fact, contributed such an article, on Atomic demolition munitions. However, I removed the part about CDI as not verifiable. The remaining stub is appropriate and gives links to more detailed articles on ADMs.   Acroterion  (talk)  13:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've edited it further to remove the bizarre implication that the so-called "suitcase nukes" were intended for use for peaceful building demolition. Ten-kiloton weapons are kind of impractical for use in a city, unless you're trying to kill the people in it. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 22:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In the context of the article, I assumed a military emergency, but I doubt the creator was thinking along those lines.  Acroterion  (talk)  22:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, I meant "military emergency", what do you think of me? You better put it back what you have removed, because otherwise it will have no sense. If "mini-nukes" were initially intended as "weapons" they would never be dubbed "demolition munitions" in the first instance. The point was they were never intended to kill enemy soldiers, but exclusively to demolish some large objects of infrastructure (more often your own, than that of your enemy), so by this logic they can't be called "weapons". That is why "mini-nukes" initially were a kind of engineering devices - akin to conventional explosive charges designed to the same effect (i.e. for "demolition"). That was from where they got their sticky name. It was much later - at the end of 60s - when it was found out that "mini-nukes" could also be successfully used in various sabotage operations. Then only they had to be formally elevated to "weapons" status, but, still, their former name "atomic demolition munitions" proved to be so sticky that it survived even until today. I don't want to offend anyone but it seems to me that in pursuit of observing "political correctness" you could even sacrifice elementary logic (don't take is a personal offense, please, it is just a constructive observation – and a call for improvement). For those who might think that I meant that "mini-nukes" could be used for "civil emergency" - please, re-read the first part of my main article "Nuclear Demolition" (I mean re-read its part that is about "Atomic Demolition"). And then - think again, if a person who wrote it could really think in that direction you imply here or not. I also would like to remind you that I am a bit specialist in nuclear weapons, unlike many of you. It was my profession for several years. Thanks for your kind understanding.--DKhalezov (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This article, as with its source, www.nuclear-demolition.com/, has to be seen to be believed, and I'm saving it on my computer for further read before its inevitable deletion. It would make a great topic for an article in a technical journal, or for a science fiction magazine, and if it's ever published in a peer-reviewed journal of architecture or physics, then it would be welcome here.   For those who get here too late to see it, the article asserts that the World Trade Center towers were collapsed (after the planes hit) by a controlled detonation of a small (several kilotons) nuclear weapon that had been placed there as a contingency; that there's one underneath the Sears Tower, if need be; and that there is a company that "patented" the process (lucky us-- it'll be available to everyone in a few more years).  All it would require is for your local demolition company to have access to atomic weapons -- hopefully, they will have to be bonded in order to use those, kind of like a locksmith.  Mandsford (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd really like to know what building code requires us to implant a means of destruction in a building. My copy of the International Building Code seems to be missing this section. If it's there, I need to have a long talk with my insurance agent concerning a) my liability for neglecting to specify Section 99999 - Atomic Demolition Munitions in the project manual, and b) my liability for the loss of a medium-sized city if I screw up the calcs. Come to think of it, the architect's licensing exam was curiously remiss on this subject as well.   Acroterion  (talk)  18:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.3truth911.com/what-is-ground-zero-definition-ground-zero-meaning.html http://www.3truth911.com/john_walcott_fbi_agents_and_haz-mat_suits_.html Everyone is welcome to visit these links and so to educate his- or her- self in regard to post-9/11 manipulations with English language. In fact, it is quite an interesting matter - to consider what "ground zero" used to mean before the 9/11, and what they made out of it today - it is especially significant when you contrast this manipulation with English language against background of "ground zero" responders who suffer from evident chronic radiation sickness and many of whom suffer so severe conditions that even require bone marrow transplanations... --DKhalezov (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion It seems that this topic goes to practicalities - the WTC nuclear demolition on 9/11. Please, note that the actual Wikipedia article that is debated here was very polite in this sense. It did mention neither the WTC, nor the 9/11 and it did not even imply anything of this kind. But it seems that many people got its point anyways. Well. For those interested in "encyclopadic" matters, here is something to think about. Here are all possible pre-9/11 meanings of the "ground zero" term from the biggest possible English dictionary: Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (pre-9/11 edition, of course): PICTURES CAN NOT BE SEEN HERE, BUT YOU CAN SEE IT HERE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Websters_English_Unabridged.jpg And about the last joke (about building code). It is not an international matter in this particular case. It is only local - in the United States. They did not allow at the end of 60s any skyscrapers to be built unless a satisfactory demolition scheme is provided (not necessary an emergency one, but just any one - one had to explain to the Department of Builidngs how he is going to demolish his structure in the future, otherwise, its construction would not be approved). And this exactly the matter with all modern tall steel-frame skyscrapers - such as the WTC or the Sears Tower. I guess after the 9/11 disaster they have modified that particular approach (quietly, of course, without informing people) and may be today it is not the same as it was before 2001. And don't forget also that when at 09.59 AM the South WTC Tower collapsed, the Sears Tower in Chicago was evacuated only 2 minutes later - i.e. at 10.01 AM, while the Empire State Building in New York was not evactuated. Just think about it before throwing your accusations at something you don't even know. It is always good to use brains a little bit. Especially for "encyclopedians". I agree that this article might violate some technical requirements for the Wikipedia, since it might sound to many like "original idea". But it does not mean that this "idea" is wrong itself. In fact, the WTC nuclear demolition idea was not even secret. I remember in the 80s I have even encountered mentioning of it in some American newspaper, but, unfortunately, I can't recollect which newspaper was it exactly, and to search through all newspapers is an impossible task. But in any case don't hesitate to review all various "ground zero" meanings at the link above. It might help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKhalezov (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comments on "ground zero" indicate that you are making a synthesis based on a single term. Your comments on evacuation times are of a similar nature. I should also point out that the International Building Code is the primary building code for the United States, and represents a combination of the BOCA, SBCC and UBC regional codes. New York has its own codes that are similar in scope, as does Chicago. The current NYC code was just updated in 2008, replacing the1968 code. Neither contains a provision that requires anticipation of demolition. As to the suggestion that any city would countenance the use of nuclear devices in the city limits for the efficient, convenient and comparatively inexpensive removal of inconveniently tall buildings, I have a certain amount of trouble taking that seriously.   Acroterion  (talk)  22:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I've deleted the photo from Webster's as a copyright violation. It does indeed reflect the primary definition of a nuclear aim point, but applying that to the popular term for the WTC site is a tautology.   Acroterion  (talk)  22:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am surprized that you deleted that picture I took of my dictionary. It was actually my own dictionary (that I bought with my money) and my picture that I took of my own dictionary using my own photocamera... I thought it was self-evident right: if you possess a thing you have right to photograph your possession, isn't it? I guess I don't have a right to re-print this dictionary, but it does not seem to me that I am so devoid of any legal rights in regard to my property, that I can't even make a photocopy of one of its pages, not to say about photographing only of three dictionary's entries in a row... Doesn't it seem ridiculous to you, dear Acroterion? What about taking pictures of your own house - considering that your house might be a typical project created by some architect who secured his right as to its design? Is it prohibited too, using the same kind of logic? Actually, I am quite new to Wikipedia, so you might know more than me about legal matters, but I am amazed at to how little rights was left to me in regard to my own dictionary... Anyways, I respect your decision to remove the picture and so to prevent a potential copyright violation, since I consider you being more experienced than my humble self. But just to make sure that no one would miss the point due to absense of the removed picture, I provide here two links that lead to the same pictures published on my own website - there are all pre-9/11 definitions of "ground zero" in various dictionaries available there. Here are the links:
 * Without going into excessive detail, you clearly misunderstand Wikipedia's copyright policies. You may not post pictures of copyrighted material on Wikipedia. A dictionary is copyrighted, and you do not own the copyright, so you may not post that here, and it will be deleted on sight. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand (I understand your point about the definition), but your possession of a printed dictionary does not mean that you have the right to republish the copyrighted material under GFDL here (or anywhere else, for that matter). Quoting it (with attribution) would be fine. See WP:COPYRIGHT for all of the relevant policies.   Acroterion  (talk)  13:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, there is some logic to this article. And I too recall certain newspapers commenting on a nuclear demolition. Perhaps someone could find some credible references and add them. Otherwise, this article should be merged into 9/11 conspiracies.Smallman12q (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, there is already an article on the only "nuclear demolition" program that ever existed in the US (which was just a propaganda job anyway). WillOakland (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have trouble believing this is serious. I think the website linked by Mansford above and this page are meant to be a joke. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there any proof to this? As I mentioned on the article's talk page, I Googled around, but found nothing other than 9/11 conspiracies.  When you Google for "nuclear demolition" -"9/11" -"world trade center" -"wtc", then not much else comes up.  I remember a documentary about how they tested nuclear explosions for land moving purposes, and considered it for that purpose(before all their radiation test convinced them otherwise), however I don't recall anyone considering using it for taking out just one building at a time.   D r e a m Focus  16:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Then redirect to Peaceful nuclear explosions. The concept of nuclear demolition isn't completely implausible, though using it in a city is. — FIRE!  in a crowded theatre...  18:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man. You noticed something positive in this article. You said: that "concept is not completely implosible". Please, note now that his article describes a "CONCEPT" only. It does not say that it must be necessarily the WTC in New York or the Sears Tower in Chicago. It does not even say that it must be in America, or in Russia, or in China, or in India; and it does not say that it must be within city limits or outside of city limits. All this article actually does - it describes a principle on how to use a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge (which is 8 times as much compare to a Hiroshima bomb) to demolish a single structure without incinerating entire surroundings and nothing more than this. The rest of awful conclusions (such as attributing it to the particular WTC case) you apparently did on your own, without any invitation from my side. I did not even hint it in the article. Just think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKhalezov (talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not just describing a "principle." It's saying specifically that something was developed in the 1960s and that there is a patent on it. Those are claims that have to be verified. If the rest of the article describes your principle or someone else's unpublished principle, then that does not belong here. WillOakland (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, this is a concept that has yet to be put into action. I don't quite understand what the reason for deleting this article is other than it is poorly sourced.Smallman12q (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a concept the article author made up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Again I have to agree that this article is not sourced, however thousands of others are not sourced either and the people at Wikipedia have no problem with them. Why is this one particular article so offensive to everyone's sensibilities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsxr1100 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 is. However a seismic pressurevawe 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. The energy required to produce that amount of steel dust is exclusively consistent 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)