Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Russia Opens Files on Nuclear 9/11 and Israeli Proliferation

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Skeptical of what? I'm confused.... People here aren't stating personal opinions of nuclear weapons and detonation effects. It's hard learned facts of physics from a couple thousand detonations of various types done in testing, from the Davy Crockett mini-nukes to the giant multi-mega town crowd pleasers.




posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And yet, even a refined jet engine has all the exact same features as the first jet engine. If I were to take an F119 engine from an F-22 back to the end of WWII, they could identify every part of the main portion of the engine, and it would work exactly the same as the engine in the first jet fighters.

Nuclear weapons have a signature that the people on the Manhattan Project could recognize because the physics are still the same.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Zaphod58

I suspect there are different qualities to different types of nuclear reactions and weapons. Different footprints, if you will.

That is, cold fusion devices may offer a different footprint. Piezofusion too.

And different types of fission devices probably produce different types of radiation and. Different elements used in a device might produce different effects.

It seems that in 50 years of research and development different weapon characteristics would have been refined.



Your actually correct they do have diffrent foot prints depending on say the purity of U235 if tritium is used etc. But they also all have similarities such Such as thermal damage caused seen as visible, infrared, and ultraviolet light.This causes the radiation burns all those people on the street would have instantly cooked with radiation burns out to about a mile. We would have seen retinal burning as well on anyone watching the tower. Than there would have also been an EMP pulse easily destroying the power grid in New York. Then comes the neutron and gamma rays killing anyone within a half mile of the blast. With easily 50 percent casualties out to about a mile. If you want to see what a small blast does look into Hiroshima and the number of deaths off the top of my head i think it was around 150000 people.

So if a nuclear blast went off in New York i think we would have noticed.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
They did the 9/11 job for money,it was an insurance scam,they use insurance companies to launder their money.

The owners of the Insurance policys on the twin Towers are the ones people need to be looking directly at.

Not just the Towers either but also ever policy payed out concerning the incident through any type of insurance.

This generated TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars for the criminal enterprise behind the scenes.

There are undoubtably elements of the Current government administration involved implicitly.

It isnt that hard to follow the money but you need to start with the payouts which is the impact these criminals were looking for , it was not a Terror attack purely it was a Terror Attack catalysed moeny bank and Insurance fraud,and more than one party was involved,someone with Government connections WANTED something destroyed,the Insurance scam was OFFERED to some greedy Humanitarian Criminal who took the graft payment and became a co-conspirator.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

As to jet engines, consider that in the early days most of them had centrifugal compressor sections. They functioned, but the design was improved to axial compressors, a far superior design, and today you won't find a modern engine with centrifugal compressors.

Just as the first mainframe computers required an entire room and a bunch of punch cards to make it work, today's computers fit in a wrist watch. You know what I mean.

I suspect similar advances have been made in nuclear technology. I would be my last dollar that similar advances have been made.

That, because what was observed at WTC was NOT the result of burning office furnishings, as the official reports said.

What was observed there is very consistent with a nuclear event(s) of some sort.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Same reply to your fine post. I think the product has been very much improved since 1945, and characteristics can be selected and engineered for.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

It. Doesn't. Matter. The physics and the parts are the same. You can't change the physics of the way nuclear bombs work. That means no matter how you refine them, some features are going to be the same, and the signature is going to be the same.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I understand what you're saying, and certainly that much is true.

But you seem to be assuming that systems cannot be refined, cannot be designed differently as new knowledge is gained. 50 years of secret R&D will show progress, whether manufacturing processes, radio technology, engine technology. It is disingenuous to suggest that there has been no refinement in systems and design in 50 years worth of R&D.

The larger point is, in this case, that the damage observed is impossible to have been caused by burning office furnishings, which is the official statement.

And that so much of that damage and evidence can be explained ONLY by a nuclear event of some sort. The epidemiology is rather the smoking gun.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

So somehow refining completely changes the laws of physics now? It doesn't matter if you refine the core to be the size of an acorn, instead of the size of your fist. The basic workings, and the laws of physics that govern how it works don't suddenly go "oh this is much smaller now, we need to change how we work now."

If you "refine" it into something that has a completely different signature then it's no longer a nuclear weapon and is now something totally different.

What you're saying is that they have refined cars from the early days into what we recognize as planes today, and they're the same thing.
edit on 6/6/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

No, I've already clarified that the rules of physics will always apply.

What I'm saying is that it seems most likely that since 1945 we humans have learned many more PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN rules of physics.

Just as the sound barrier seemed to be an impenetrable barrier in 1945, we learned that sweeping wings and other techniques allowed us to easily exceed the speed of sound.

Again, the epidemiology cannot be swept under the rug.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Then if it was a nuclear weapon certain effects should have been there. If those effects aren't there it's not a nuclear weapon. It's that simple.

There were effects that weren't there, therefore it couldn't have been a nuclear weapon.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Looks like a duck, if one looks at some of those photos taken from overhead showing a firework-type effect. It wasn't office furnishings, it was some sort of explosive device.

Quacks like a duck, if you look at those FEMA photos mistakenly released to the public early on by the few innocent employees at FEMA. Obvious blast damage in several places. Office furniture can't do that. I doubt they used C-4. Automobiles and trucks showing bizarre damage that could not have been caused by thermite or dynamite.

Walks like a duck if one considers the epidemiology.

It is a duck, and it was a nuclear event, or series of smaller events (I sure as hell don't know) that caused what we saw when the smoke cleared.



posted on Jun, 8 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Where's the flash? Where were the 50,000 people suffering radiation exposure? Where are the 90% deaths from untreated radiation exposure? It doesn't look, quack, or walk like a duck.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think it looks very much like a duck, but you see perhaps a Silk Purse.

We agree to disagree.






top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join