As far as I’m concerned, the answer is yes. There are several features of the event that are typical of nuclear reactions, in some cases unique to them among all known phenomena, and are impossible to achieve from conventional explosives or thermite, let alone a simple collapse:
1) Extreme heat that kept steel in a molten state for weeks after the event, a phenomenon documented by more than 35 eyewitness accounts, which were corroborated by three independent dust studies. The intense heat also melted and bore out huge craters in the thick Manhattan Island bedrock that served as a sub-foundation of the towers. (1), (2)
2) Dust samples that show not just melting of steel but vaporization of steel and lead and melting of molybdenum, among other metals, demonstrating that temperatures of well over 5,000 degrees F were reached, higher than the maximum temperature of a thermitic reaction. (1)
3) Complete pulverization (turning into dust) of the building. Debris piles in controlled demolitions, made to be as low and compact as possible, are universally around 12.5% of original building height, but the twin towers were <2%, in most areas of the buildings’ footprints virtually 0%: the buildings simply disappeared. In a ‘pancake’ collapse that did not use explosives to break down material and disperse dust, the rubble pile should have been even higher than 12%. Firefighters reported finding few pieces of debris larger than a deck of cards: no furniture, no sinks or toilets, no large equipment. Similar pulverization and dispersal of debris was observed at Hiroshima. (1), (2) (3) In the clearest example of ‘dustification,’ a 60-storey section of steel box columns, still standing after collapse of the rest of the North Tower, instantaneously transforms to dust and blows away.
4) Ejection of debris more than 600 feet from the building at a 45-degree (upward) angle, including of large steel beam assemblies, impossible with conventional demolition explosives or in a collapse, and suggesting use of upward-facing shaped mini-nuke charges (see below) whose detonation was shrouded by the dust cloud. Non-dust debris was projected far from the towers. More than 700 bone fragments, many of them of firefighters and other non-plane-passenger victims who died in the North Tower (WTC 1), were found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building, a 40-storey tower over 600 feet away from WTC 1.
5) Huge incidence of cancer among first responders, and not only lung cancer caused from dust and asbestos, but also thyroid cancer as well as leukemia and myeloma, which are often caused by radiation exposure. So far there are over 2,500 and counting cancer cases attributed to 9/11, while in comparison there were only 1,900 cases thought to be related to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. (1), (2), (3), (4)
6) Off-the-charts proportions (over 50x normal) of rare elements and isotopes, such as tritium, barium, strontium, lanthanum, and yttrium, characteristic of a nuclear reaction, found in dust and water samples nearby. (1), (2), (3)
7) Testimony by building staff of skin hanging off bodies in sheets from the extreme heat, which was observed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (1), (2) (3)
8) Parking lots full of burned out, blackened, rusted cars in the vicinity, consistent with nuclear events and impossible with regular explosives or collapse. (1) (2), (3)
9) There is evidence of electromagnetic pulse (EMP), which occurs in nuclear detonations, in the vicinity of the towers at the time of collapse, including stopped clocks and watches and widespread cell phone and computer outages.
10) The code name for the FBI’s investigation of 9/11 is PENTTBOM, meaning Pentagon and Twin Towers Bombing. Not plane crash, a bombing, like the UNABOM case. No explanation on why they chose this name for a supposed non-bombing has been offered. (1)
That more were needed, ground zero has always been the term for a nuclear weapon point of detonation, including at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The term was coined for 9/11 by establishment news anchors. (1), (2)
Why destroy a building with mini-nukes (aka suitcase nukes) rather than conventional explosives?
1) Fewer people involved in placement, as few as one
2) Can be done on little notice or hidden long in advance
3) Can be achieved with easy placement of a handful of devices near the buildings’ center columns, compared to the mammoth, weeks-to-months-long task of placing explosives and wiring throughout every floor of both buildings
4) Equipment is small and very easy to smuggle into building
5) Leaves no evidence behind, unlike conventional demolition with thousands of yards of demo cable and hundreds of explosive charges
6) Pulverization of material prevents an accident such as building tipping over, which would blow the pre-planned ‘pancake’ storyline and risk unintended collateral damage.
7) On-site participants can be anyone and need little to no demolition technical know-how, and if the devices are concealed inside other objects, may have no idea they are even involved in the plot.
8) The shock and awe of witnessing a nuclear detonation and then associating it with an ordinary thing (airplane) greatly increases the psychological impact of the event, overwhelming cognition and facilitating even greater suspension of disbelief in future staged events.
How could it have been done?
The mechanics of the demolition, involving a combination of underground and above-ground charges, could have been as follows:
1) The conspirators were able to obtain mini-nukes and gain access to the towers with them. Normally the former can only be done, whether by theft, sale, or other transfer, via military or intelligence connections. There have been known instances of mass lost and unaccounted for nuclear devices and several national nuclear programs that have lacked transparency for long periods of time.
2) A device around 1 kiloton in payload was placed deep in the basement level of each tower near the base of the core columns, 6 to 7 storeys below ground, and detonated several seconds before collapse. Temperatures reached the 10s of millions of degrees at the epicenter, destroying the foundations of the buildings and melting the bedrock around them, and super-heating the core columns, which conducted steel-boiling-temperature (i.e., vaporization-level) heat to the tops of the towers in a matter of seconds and caused the buildings to begin to collapse. The dense, contiguous bedrock beneath the towers and their surrounding area prevented lateral damage to neighboring buildings.The reaction of the explosion with the 26-ton freon tanks in the basement refrigeration plant of each tower amplified the temperatures sent through the core and allowed for the long-lasting underground heat that was able to keep steel in a molten state for days. Whether or not temperatures were able to be transmitted from the basement through the core, the core would also have been super-heated and pulverized by micro-nukes placed in above ground floors. These initial blasts would also account for the seismic records of an earthquake just before each tower was destroyed and the dozens of reports of an earthquake from witnesses who escaped the towers in the moments before demolition.
3) As the cores were destroyed and the buildings started to collapse, several variable-yield devices from 0.1 to 0.5 KT that had been positioned in above-ground floors, and perhaps directionally charged aka shape-charged to explode primarily upward or in an upward and/or downward cone shape rather than horizontally outward, were detonated in a rapid top-to-bottom cascade to ensure complete destruction of the buildings and pulverize their enormous amounts of concrete, creating a massive dust cloud that would make for a more spectacular effect and shroud the telltale signs of nuclear detonation from the underground explosions and the lower-floor explosions soon to follow. Shape-charging is commonplace technology in demolition. Compare the explosion of a 1-kiloton nuclear bomb to what was observed on 9/11: (1) (2) (3) (from another video: ‘as powerful as 1,000 tons of TNT, this weapon can reportedly be carried by one man’). Nuclear detonations above ground, unlike underground explosions, would account for the above-cited totally pulverized building material, violently ejected debris, the parking lots of burned cars, and the EMP evidence.
The absurdity of the pancake collapse theory
1) The damaged portion of the North Tower represented less than 2% of its weight, due to the mass of skyscrapers gradually decreasing from bottom to top. Yet it is supposed to have not just overwhelmed but powderized the undamaged, sturdier, wider 98% below it. This is impossible and cannot be reproduced in any real-world experiment, regardless of the force with which the 2% impacts the 98%: ever hear of equal and opposite reactions?
2) The debris pile was more than 6x smaller than it should have been in a collapse. In conventional controlled demolitions, which use hundreds of explosive charges to make the debris pile as small and compact as possible, the pile is universally around 12.5% of the height of the building, or what would be 13 stories for the twin towers. Yet on 9/11 less than 2%, about 25 feet, in some places fewer than 10 feet, of the building remained. Assuming perfect, flat-contact ‘pancaking,’ there would be 2-3 feet of material between each floor (each storey was 12.5 feet), and therefore 220 to 275 feet of material from the building’s 110 storeys, or 18-21% of original height. Assuming some dust dispersal and a pile with a slightly wider footprint than the building, this figure could perhaps be reduced to 15%. If steel buildings ‘pancaked’ perfectly, as three identically did on 9/11, no one would spend months and pay huge sums to plant hundreds or thousands of explosive charges on every floor. They would simply take out the top few floors and let the magical pancake effect take care of the rest.
3) No steel building has collapsed from fire in any fashion, let alone at free-fall speed in its own footprint, before or since the three that supposedly did so (but obviously did not either) on 9/11. Additionally, no steel building has ever collapsed in its own footprint from any cause other than explosives.
The possibility of other weapons
Some 9/11 investigators have asserted that the extent to which the towers was ‘dustified’ could not have been achieved by nuclear devices, let alone a collapse or conventional explosives, and that demolition must have been performed using a directed-energy weapon or some other unknown weapon. While directed energy is a theoretically possible way to destroy a large building, it cannot replace mini-nukes as the leading demolition hypothesis since there are no known DEWs powerful enough to destroy the towers and their precise action on buildings and bystanders is not known, particularly whether they could generate heat intense enough for the aforementioned effects, cause cancer, and lead to the formation of rare elements and isotopes. The instantaneous transformation-to-dust of a 60 to 70-storey steel spire and section of box columns mentioned above may give credence to the argument that not even nuclear weapons could achieve the level of pulverization observed in the Twin Towers on 9/11. (1, 2)
What about the planes?
The above evidence rules out the official collapse theory, the conventional explosives theory, and the only-thermite theory. It does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that nuclear weapons were used, but to put it this way: if nukes were on trial for the demolition of the buildings, they would certainly be convicted. In any event, knowing the precise method used to bring down the towers is not crucial to understanding 9/11. The bigger ‘takeaway’ here is that some group had access to extremely sophisticated technology that is known to be in the hands of only three governments, had access to all areas of the towers long in advance, and had the ability to effect a cover-up of these facts by both the government and news media. For most, this conclusively eliminates Islamic terrorists as the culprits.