It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New 911 Evidence Solves Unanswered Questions

page: 4
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54

if you really want to learn something about nuclear weapons, rather than parroting stupid YOUTUBE videos from conspiracy loons, then read over this

nuclearweaponarchive.org/

I had several online discussions with the author concerning various aspects of nuclear weapons

Special Atomic Demolition Munition

foreignpolicy.com...

The WK 54 formed the basis for a family of nuclear weapons : Davy Crockett recoiless launcher. Special Atomic Demolition Munitions, warhead for FALCON Air to Air missile (AIM 26) Yields varied from 10 tons to kiloton




posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54

RIGHT …….

The author of this piece of garbage claims that found number of rare elements in dust from WTC



Elements such as Strontium, Barium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum and Yttrium


Barium is used to coat electrodes of Fluorescent light tubes - care to guess how many fluorescent light tubes were in
2 110 story buildings?

Strontium is used in glass for TV and CRT screens to suppress soft X Rays

Cerium, Lanthanum and Yttrium are know as rare earths - used in phosphors for CRT and TV screens - care to guess how many of these devices were in the WTC complex



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54

You are ignoring there is an absolute minimum amount of weapons grade material density and geometry required, or there is no chance of a nuclear detention.

Any nuclear explosion from a nuclear reactions is going to cause radiation that is going to make people at ground zero sick and die within hours.

There is no possible way to add enough moderator in a suitcase bomb that would create a nuclear fizzle fountain if it was even possible to create.

How do you incorporate enough blast shielding in a suitcase bomb to nozzle down a nuclear blast to nuclear fizzle?

You are starting to talk about such small blasts, the energy may not be enough to cause a collapse. How is shooting a blast straight up an elevator shaft that didn’t blow out windows cause the building to collapse top down? Without blowing the roof off the towers?

The collapse has no audio indicating a blast powerful enough to cut steel.

The collapse initiation of the towers was walls bowing inward at the areas of jet impacts and then down. Not up and out?

How are the claims mini nukes was the cause of the pile smoldering for 3 months even possible when it would require a disaster on the magnitude of fukushima accident?

The things conspiracists believe because of biased faith beliefs in pseudoscience.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

None the the links in my latest posts reference any stupid YOUTUBE videos.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

From the article:


So this finest dust was in its major part represented by steel dust accordingly. Though, it was not only "steel dust" alone - it was also a "furniture dust", "wood dust", "paper dust", "carpet dust", "computer parts dust" and even "human dust", since remaining in the Towers human beings were pulverized in the same manner as steel, concrete and furniture.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

That was all explained. It was a shallow underground blast. Read the article.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

If you don't believe it, fine. I'm not going to sit here all night giving you links you won't look at while you repeat the same (answered) questions over and over.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: neutronflux

That was all explained. It was a shallow underground blast. Read the article.


Put a blast that would cut steel would be audible. You cite articles when there is no evidence of a blast on video, in the audio, or the seismic data? The building fell top down. An underground blast would make the core move and give evidence in every floor from the ground upwards.

Is it a blast or a fizzle? Mini nukes that have the amount of radiation of fukushima to make the claim radiation was responsible for making the rubble smolder for 3 months? Then why bother to spray water while they dug on the pile? Water wouldn't stop heat production if it was from radiation?



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

W48 From Wikipedia




The W48 was 6.1 inches (155 mm) in diameter and 33.3 inches long. It came in two models, Mod 0 and Mod 1, which are reported to have weighed 118 and 128 pounds respectively. It had an explosive yield equivalent to 72 tons of TNT (0.072 kiloton), which is very small for a nuclear weapon.[1][2]




The W48 was a small diameter linear implosion nuclear fission weapon.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54

How does an underground blast do this? The link below has a video that captures the initiation of WTC 2’S collapse? Was it 80 stories above ground?



the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...



The outer columns where drawn in and bowed to the point the they buckled. The top of the building falls into the tower. Nothing indicates anupward or outward blast.

The floor system was stripped away from the vertical columns. The collapse rate was about 60 percent of free fall. Whole lengths of vertices columns remained standing on end after the complete collapse of the the floor system. After loosing lateral support, the vertical columns tumbled down. The collapse rate for the vertical columns was 40 percent the rate of free fall.

How does a shallow underground blast do that without a seismic record of the blast? With no audio of a detention with the power to cut steel?
edit on 9-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added 80 stories



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54

They still make a loud outward explosion that produces enough radiation everyone left alive at ground zero would be critically ill or dead within hours from radiation.

But the videos are not talking about normal nuclear detonations either? They talk about slowing and nozzling the blast in some way. That would make the fantasy bomb at least as big as a car.
edit on 9-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54

Forget nukes for now. What evidence is there the towers collapsed because of planted explosives? Evidence consistent with with the video, audio, and seismic record.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: toms54

They still make a loud outward explosion that produces enough radiation everyone left alive at ground zero would be critically ill or dead within hours from radiation.

But the videos are not talking about normal nuclear detonations either? They talk about slowing and nozzling the blast in some way. That would make the fantasy bomb at least as big as a car.


That post was to firerescue in resonse to his quote "The WK 54 formed the basis for a family of nuclear weapons : Davy Crockett recoiless launcher. Special Atomic Demolition Munitions, warhead for FALCON Air to Air missile (AIM 26) Yields varied from 10 tons to kiloton" The W49 "had an explosive yield equivalent to 72 tons of TNT (0.072 kiloton), which is very small for a nuclear weapon." It was a plutonium fission device.

I was not trying to state it was used in the WTC. It was just an illustration of how advanced the tech was in 1963 - 50 years ago.



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54

And what does that have to with there being a hard limit or threshold set by physics that there is an absolute minimum amount a bomb must have to create an explosion from:



that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or from a combination of fission and fusion reactions.

en.m.wikipedia.org...



Reactions that are going to release enough radiation that will make people very sick in close proximity of the detonation within hours?

If the amount of nuclear fuel is below the set threshold, or the geometry is not right, then there will not be nuclear fissions to sustain a nuclear explosion. The threshold of nuclear fuel is about 35 pounds? Then you still need conventional explosives to trigger the detention on top of that, and the actual trigger?

The only way to use less is to use more hardware, like reflectors or moderators?

And...


Forget nukes for now. What evidence is there the towers collapsed because of planted explosives? Evidence consistent with with the video, audio, and seismic record.
edit on 9-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54




I was not trying to state it was used in the WTC. It was just an illustration of how advanced the tech was in 1963 - 50 years ago.



Actually, the minimum amount of nuclear fuel that can be used and still achieve an explosion through fission was established in the 1950’s from testing many different bombs. Again, anything that changes that is the addition of hardware that will increase bomb size. And that can only do so much.

When was Newton’s laws of motion discovered? Maybe advances will change that too?



posted on Aug, 9 2018 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: toms54




I was not trying to state it was used in the WTC. It was just an illustration of how advanced the tech was in 1963 - 50 years ago.



Actually, the minimum amount of nuclear fuel that can be used and still achieve an explosion through fission was established in the 1950’s from testing many different bombs. Again, anything that changes that is the addition of hardware that will increase bomb size. And that can only do so much.

When was Newton’s laws of motion discovered? Maybe advances will change that too?


Has nothing to do with anything. You are completely irrational.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54

I am sorry that a nuclear bombs has to have a minimum of 35 pounds of nuclear material when it comes to the stable fuels like uranium and plutonium to ensure an explosion through nuclear reactions which by definition release radiation.

Like to state a nuclear reaction that produces no radiation?

What principles of nuclear physics has been used since the 50’s to make a working suitcase bomb smaller that 100 pounds in total weight, and release no radiation on detonation?

The videos in the opening post are not talking about suitcase bombs? The videos are talking about magical mini nukes that had the extra hardware to nozzle the blast, and the structure to make it fizzle? But had the energy equivalent of fukushima to make the the claim radiation alone was responsible for making 1,000,000 tons of WTC rubble smolder for 3 months? Is that a false summary of the videos?

And...

Forget nukes for now. What evidence is there the towers collapsed because of planted explosives? Evidence consistent with with the video, audio, and seismic record.
edit on 10-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 10-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Nukes don't cause rust.

Not to mention radiation sickness from ANY source capable of destroying buildings.

Hoax!



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

What evidence is there the towers collapsed because of planted explosives? Evidence consistent with with the video, audio, and seismic record.


We have no evidence of fires causing the initial collapses, first of all.

That's what the REAL evidence showed.

You have some gall to demand proof of anything!



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux

What evidence is there the towers collapsed because of planted explosives? Evidence consistent with with the video, audio, and seismic record.


We have no evidence of fires causing the initial collapses, first of all.

That's what the REAL evidence showed.

You have some gall to demand proof of anything!



Because the truth movement has a more likely cause?

Would you like to state the “real” evidence of planted charges that brought down the towers?

Then you explain what caused the inward bowing of the outer columns that lead to the columns buckling that initiated the collapse. The top of the towers above the buckling falling into the structure below. The moment of collapse initiation is seen in the video in the linked to thread below.



the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...


And the cause of collapse for you again. The jet impacts took out outer and core columns. The impacts knocked off fire insulation from the steel leaving it vulnerable to be heated and become pliable under load. The fires spread through the towers faster than what the towers were designed for. The remaining floor trusses became pliable under load and heat, and drooped. Upon cooling, they contracted and pulled on the outer columns. The pulling caused the columns to bow inward to the point the load above was not transferred to the foundation. The load was caught in the geometry of the bowing resulting in buckling leading to collapse.

Impact damage, heat, thermal stress, and contraction lead to the collapse of the towers. Do you have something that fits the audio, video, seismic evidence of the towers’ collapse better than inward bowing leading to collapse.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join