Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Dear Everybody:

I did not realize how few have actually heard of the proposition that hydrogen bombs were used to destruct the four world trade center buildings on 11-Sep-2001. The originator of this scenario is a Finnish scientist who — understandably — wants to remain anonymous. He is backed up by a thirty year veteran researcher at the CERN particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland. A lot of “darn good brains” (no I’m not talking about myself) have thought about this seemingly off-the-wall scenario — and concluded that this is most likely what happened. But being that we’re having a healthy discussion, we’re still “praying” for new ideas in the hopes of finding a new more pleasant reality.

All events of 9/11 are directly related to our whatever-it-takes quest for oil. Our lifestyle is non-negotiable — per our vice president. So, in a world of ever-increasing shortages we’ve taken the lead in the squabble over the remainder of this particular resource. And we feel that we are morally and godly justified to do anything we please as long as it’s in America’s strategic interest.

With this in mind it is only logical to deduce the following:

1. “Al Quada” never existed. It is strictly an invention of our U.S. government.
2. WTC1, WTC2, probably WT6, and WTC7 were brought down by hydrogen bombs (augmented with thermate cutting charges)
3. The damage at the Pentagon was done strictly with (conventional) bombs.
4. A passenger plane was shot down over Shanksville, PA but not at the “official site”.

The key links to the hydrogen bomb theory are:

1. www.saunalahti.fi...
2. www.saunalahti.fi...
3. arxiv.org...

Go ahead, melt those poor guys' servers!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods
There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth. We are all crew. ~Marshall McLuhan, 1964




posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I think I am missing something obvious here...

If a hydrogen device was set in sub-basement 3, focused up the freight elevator shaft, how did the destruction "Wave" start at the top? Did I miss where he explains this?



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   
If an H-Bomb was used anywhere in the WTC, there'd be no footage or anything because most of the NYC would have been evaporated.

Fusion bombs (such as the H-Bomb) are up to 1000x more powerful than conventional nukes. An H-bomb wouldn't be "augmented" with thermite, that's like augmenting a tank's 120mm cannon with a slingshot.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
If an H-Bomb was used anywhere in the WTC, there'd be no footage or anything because most of the NYC would have been evaporated.

Fusion bombs (such as the H-Bomb) are up to 1000x more powerful than conventional nukes. An H-bomb wouldn't be "augmented" with thermite, that's like augmenting a tank's 120mm cannon with a slingshot.



well put, someday soon I think we're going to run out of possible theories.
Theres another now saying the planes which hit the wtc were actually holographs!



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
If an H-Bomb was used anywhere in the WTC, there'd be no footage or anything because most of the NYC would have been evaporated.

Fusion bombs (such as the H-Bomb) are up to 1000x more powerful than conventional nukes. An H-bomb wouldn't be "augmented" with thermite, that's like augmenting a tank's 120mm cannon with a slingshot.


Absolutely NONE of what you say in this post is true according to many diverse sources.

mini yeild fusion devices are very real... sorry, but you are just wrong this time. I am NOT advocting this Fusion Bomb Theory as correct, just reading it like everything else.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
To expand on this...

A standard 1 kiloton warhead has an overpressure distance (OD) range of 3.81 miles. Overpressure is the force-pounds per square inch from the shockwave alone. A 1-kiloton blast has the following OD specs:

15 psi, 0.15 miles: Complete destruction of reinforced concrete structures, such as skyscrapers, will occur within this ring. Between 7 psi and 15 psi, there will be severe to total damage to these types of structures.

5 psi, 0.28 miles: Complete destruction of ordinary houses, and moderate to severe damage to reinforced concrete structures, will occur within this ring.

2 psi, 0.49 miles: Severe damage to ordinary houses, and light to moderate damage to reinforced concrete structures, will occur within this ring.

1 psi 0.73 miles: Light damage to all structures, and light to moderate damage to ordinary houses, will occur within this ring.

0.25 psi>, 1.86 miles: Most glass surfaces, such as windows, will shatter within this ring, some with enough force to cause injury.

It's important to note that even a small-yield nuke has a massive EMP range; depending on yield and where it detonates, the EMP can extend hundreds of miles.

A little common sense tells us a few things here: First, given the data, we know that the effects of a 1-kt nuke were not felt or seen during 9/11. The buildings near the WTC were not completely destroyed in a blast, as would have been the case; the damage they suffered was from debris during the collapse, as can be seen on video.

Paramount is that fact that we have video. The EMP would have instantly fried all media equipment within at least a mile or so around ground zero; which we again know wasn't the case. Firemen's radios worked, and EMP would have rendered them useless.

A hydrogen bomb, again, is much more powerful than a fission device. Even if we were to just lowball the radius and say it was only twice as effective as a standard nuke, which I think is extremely liberal, the data points towards no.

I think the "experts" jumping on this bandwagon would be surprised what a five minute search on Google can do for you.

Sources:

Calculator
Princeton Nuclear Science



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer
well put, someday soon I think we're going to run out of possible theories.
Theres another now saying the planes which hit the wtc were actually holographs!


Research and read before you make a fool of yourself.

I do not agree that an "H Bomb" was used, but the reasons being presented and your agreement with them.. you are just plain WRONG.

Please READ prior to "debunking". TIA



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
DISCUSSION OF MODERN H-BOMBS...

arxiv.org...

Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons...

Again, if you want to 'debunk' go crazy, but get your 'facts' straight first.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
More on 4th generation nuclear Nanotech weapons

xmb.stuffucanuse.com...



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Dear Slap Nuts:

Your handle sounds a little risqué but perhaps I’ve been reading too much news about Congressman Foley’s e-mails lately.

Yes, the Finnish author does explain why the destruction started at the top. His writings have been loosely translated into English which is why they’re somewhat difficult to read. He explains how the bombs’ energy was directed upward. He compares the effect (on a much smaller scale of course) to Finnish anti-tank mines. He posts a graphic to illustrate the arch of destruction. Since the forward projection of energy is so critical to the success of bunker buster bombs, here’s a link to another article by the Swiss scientist, Andre Gsponer. arxiv.org...

Greetings,
Woods The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Dear Astygia:

You’re thinking in terms of old-style “dirty” atom-bomb triggered thermonuclear weapons. Times are a changing.

Unfortunately, when it comes to our newest hydrogen bombs things aren’t the way they used to be. Back in the good ol’ days (ca. 15 years ago) we still needed a conventional atom bomb to trigger the fusion reaction of a hydrogen bomb. Therefore hydrogen bomb explosions always had to be HUGE! Well, nowadays we can activate the nuclear fusion of hydrogen through various other means, e. g. high energy lasers. Which means we can make hydrogen bombs as small or as large as we like. We now can build nukes the size of a cherry-filled-olive! The Russians know this. The Chinese know this. Which is why neither of them will interfere militarily with whatever we do. We’ve got an entirely new set of weapons in our quiver.

Because our latest generation of thermonuclear weapons is “water-based” they’re considered “clean”. And when they’re small in size, some decision makers don’t even consider them to be nukes anymore. The key components are two forms of heavy water; deuterium (non-radioactive) and tritium (radioactive). The reaction releases alpha particles and neutrons.

However, the alpha radiation (alpha particles) coming from a pure hydrogen bomb is difficult to measure. The common garden variety Geiger counters used for civil defense don’t cut the mustard. Alpha particles are the nuclei of a helium atom (two neutrons and two protons) without electrons. They will eventually pick up two electrons from somewhere — and if they get them from your lungs then you are in for a lot of “pain”.

Although alpha particles are stopped by a few inches of air, a piece of paper, skin or some other minimal shielding, they are EXTREMELY dangerous if they get INSIDE a living organism. E. g as dust on the surface of lungs or mixed with food and incorporated into cell structures where they can wreak all sorts of havoc — just like their 'long legged' cousins beta and gamma. Alpha particles are highly ionizing, and can do terrible damage to living cells. It’s because they only travel short distances that they are so hard to detect. Alpha-type Geiger detectors have a very delicate film on them. They almost have to touch the object to detect the alpha output. And if they actually do touch an alpha source, they become useless until they are cleaned.

Further facts indicative of the use of nuclear weapons on 9-11:

1. It took 100 days to extinguish the fires at the WTC sites. There was — literally — a lake of molten steel at the bottom of the foundation pit beneath the bedrock.

2. NASA’s thermal survey of 16-Sep-2001 reported rubble temperatures as high as 1377 deg F four days after the “attacks”. FOY aluminum melts at 1220 deg F.

3. The thermonuclear explosions happened — out of sight – in the basement of the WTC buildings. And because those buildings were massive structures of concrete and steel, the blasts behaved essentially as all underground blasts do. They don’t show mushroom shaped fireballs. The neutrons vaporize all dense materials into a giant cloud of dust, long before the (relatively small) blast and heat waves arrive.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Dear Doubting Thomases:

The evidence is in plain view for everyone to see. It’s called the countless pictures and films made of ALL the 9-11 events. Call it the “Zapruder film festival” if you will.

The inner cores of the WTC skyscrapers were — literally — vaporized by the neutron volley coming from the nukes placed in the bottom of the elevator shafts, along with the five and a half inch thick steel reinforced concrete floor slabs and pretty much everything else inside the buildings except for some light-weight objects such as paper documents. The “magic” is that high-energy neutrons are invisible to the naked eye (and CNN) and yet they can instantly superheat dense substances such as steel causing them to “evaporate” (sublimate, i.e. convert directly from their solid state to a gaseous form). Of course anything containing water will instantly explode into molecularly small pieces as well (this includes concrete and “biologicals” such as people) — leaving no fragments to be found.

Depressingly, academia and even renown experts in the fields of materials research and engineering have seem to forgotten — or never really understood — how basic materials behave.

E. g. take yourselves a piece of concrete and drop it from a ten story building and see what happens. By the time it hits the ground it will have accelerated to top speed. See if it breaks into “talcum powder” — you instinctively already know it won’t. The gravitational energy is way too small to do that. And steel, especially mild steel typically does not break under gravitational stress — it bends. This can be observed at any junk yard. So grab yourselves a coat-hanger out of the closet and experiment with it to see what it takes to break it into little bitty pieces (let alone get it to “disappear into thin air” altogether). And no, it makes no difference, small scale or large. In principal these substances should behave the same — in a skyscraper or your backyard, in a research lab or in the field.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
The bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were some of the earliest, most primitive and dirty bombs ever created. That was in the 1940's, some 60+ years ago. Some 60 years and trillions of dollars of (obviously classified) research funds later, is our current US military. Plans to build any type of nuclear device are not in public domain, so really, how much could we possibly know?

Consider that the big bombs couldn't really be detonated for risk of starting a nuclear war. Smaller, "tactical" nuclear devices would be a priority, no? They talk now of using smaller bombs on Iran, though devices with such low yields as in the hundreds or singles of tons range aren't something you hear any talk of, except that it's supposed to be impossible and no one can do it and "nuclear" means only a monstrous explosion that can hardly be tamed.


I'll point out four things on this topic and see where it goes:



Consistently yellow-hot yet still rigid steel/iron. Thermite or HE's could not do this. Other possibilities?



Streets and parking lots full of scorched cars. At least one car was also flipped. The dust clouds were reported as hot.



Trails of dust following solid ejected debris. Concrete breaking up mid-fall from no applied force? Concrete/steel on fire, smoking as it falls? Hydrocarbon material burning as it falls, producing thick white smoke with no visible flame? Sublimation? Is there any relation to this?

And remember all the microscopic particles of steel and aluminum and iron, or whatever the metals were, found in high amounts in the air at Ground Zero? How does that come to be? Thermite is one possibility.

Ground Zero civilian medic and corporate whistleblower Indira Singh reports ulceric sores, hair loss, cancer in clean-up crews at GZ:


BF: At one point, I noticed that you testified as to your physical symptoms and how this had affected your health. What did happen to you, just on a physical level?

IS: It’s an interesting question because I was in excellent physical condition for my age and gender and I was training for an 8,000m mountain climb, so aerobically I knew I could be up at 19 – 20,000 feet, no oxygen, doing a fair amount of aerobic activity… what happened to me is—what happened to all of us basically, and it doesn’t sound very nice, but this is what happened—we had sores—some Firefighters I know still have these horrific sores all over their body, our hair fell out, eye infections, shortness of breath, Adult-onset Asthma, chronic coughs, tiredness, extreme fatigue, cardiac symptoms, heart palpitations where you never had any before, irritability, a lot of symptoms that were consistent with neurotoxic poisoning, those were just the physical symptoms, and in some cases people reported that their hair fell out and even their dental work fell out.

And to me they were consistent with signs of radiation poisoning.
However, the toxic cocktail that had been burning there… I think a California group went in and analyzed and pretty much came up with the determination that there were about 900 contaminants, 200 different kinds of dioxins, we had the particulate matter the asbestos, the concrete, they had said that particles were ground so fine that they were the smallest particles ever produced in history. And they blew past all our barriers and got lodged right in our lungs and most of us who were exposed to that are suffering from something called reactive airway disease syndrome, which is something that the coalminers get.


LaBTop has posted before on geiger counters apparently being disallowed for two or three days after the collapses at Ground Zero, with emphasis on the fact that radiation levels die down rapidly. High-efficiency bombs would also leave behind less critical mass to provide radiation; only certain kinds of radiation would likely escape the building structure anyway with any smaller bomb: alpha radiation, for example, can hardly penetrate your clothes. The bombs dropped on Japan made use of ~1% of their critical masses, throwing the rest of the kilograms of pure uranium/plutonium all over the bombed region, accounting for much radioactivity no doubt. Again, those were dirty, primitive bombs. What hasn't advanced by leaps and bounds in the past 60 years, through the Cold War and all, at least in terms of military technology?

I've also read of (from some military vet on the OKC bombing, but don't have the sources or any technical jargon ready) the property of nuclear detonations to utter destroy concrete, whether it is something to do with the lower density of the material itself or what, I don't know, but this could explain why the concrete was all microscopic dust while seel and even paper was left intact; it wasn't brute force that destroyed the concrete and left so much paper intact, was it? In some "terrorist" blasts in the Mid-East, you'll see concrete blown into the same microscopic dust seen at Ground Zero, with the rebar left behind perfectly intact!


These are just things from my current understanding of the situation and nuke detonations. Certainly not all questions are answered and a discussion would be nice, but maybe there are a few things we can actually consider while we're at it.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
As always, BSB posts well.

To be fair, I'll gladly concede that there's no way of knowing how advanced our arsenal is. But I still am confident that. if not impossible, it's highly unlikely that nuclear weapons of any sort were used in the towers, given the lack of nuclear effects in the area, namely EMP.

I think the main issue with these theories is how they seem to evolve. There are a lot of examples, which I can comfortably call evidence, that point towards demolotions. However, there is no evidence of a nuclear weapon.

Finding ways to make a theory work, versus basing a theory from evidence, are two different things.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
To be fair, I'll gladly concede that there's no way of knowing how advanced our arsenal is.


Which is a big reason I can't be sure of anything with those collapses. Really I was just trying to start a discussion on the items I mentioned, not like I'm sticking hard and fast to anything here. But it does seem unusual for any kind of explosive or crushing force or etc. to so thoroughly destroy so much freaking concrete, and yet papers fly around intact, or at worst, just charred from fire. It appeared as if very little was even so much as bent.

This topic represents the kind of stuff that goes beyond simply disputing the official line, and showing inadequacies in that, and actually gets us looking from a more purely scientific (not so much political anymore, imo, as any simple argument about CD at the WTC accomplishes that easily enough) point of view, trying to explain what we saw as accurately as possible.

Regardless of whether a nuclear device was used, the issues I pointed out in my last post are still unanswered by any commonly-accepted collapse mode, in my opinion. Maybe these sorts of threads aren't that practical to the movement (probably work in the opposite direction for seeming so ridiculous), but I at least think it's interesting. And I think we owe something towards trying to find the most comprehensive theory of happened there anyway, if we're going to spend so much time on here in the first place, you know? There must be some explanations that work.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
1. “Al Quada” never existed. It is strictly an invention of our U.S. government.


Thanks for posting. Although this holds true to a degree, it's not entirely factual. Al Queda was created by US to combat invading Russian armies in Afghanistan, meaning they do exist. This is coming from someone who's lost family to them.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
EMP would of been extremely minimal if these devices were detonated deep underground, they need to be detonated in the atmosphere to create wide spread damage. Additionally don't you think many radioactives would be hard to detect since they would of been buried under the rubble of an 110 story skyscraper? Also I read that hydrogen bombs leave different radiation to atomic bombs and that gieger counters cannot detect it easily. H-bomb fallout is dealt with by high pressure water spraying which is what happened for the next 100 days at ground zero. There are over 20 strong points that correlate with the usage of some type of thermonuclear device in this short video clip:
video.google.com...



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I'm sorry but if the so called hydrogen bombs exploded in the underground area, you think the building be collapsing by gravitational pull of the whole building like we have seen in common demoliton of buildings. The twin towers, the destruction was starting at the top where the impact areas are occuring.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
A good cause can be made for a small nuclear weapon being used in the basement. In the upper level some kind of cutting charge had to be used to cause the downward motion. Maybe the extra power of a small nuke device in the basement would cause an upward movement to ensure implosion.

Also in the basement was all the melted metal that lasted for days. What was the status of radioactivity in the area? Not that I trust the government to tell the truth at all.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

we had sores—some Firefighters I know still have these horrific sores all over their body, our hair fell out, eye infections, shortness of breath, Adult-onset Asthma, chronic coughs, tiredness, extreme fatigue, cardiac symptoms, heart palpitations where you never had any before, irritability, a lot of symptoms that were consistent with neurotoxic poisoning, those were just the physical symptoms, and in some cases people reported that their hair fell out and even their dental work fell out.


The ulceric sores and other 'cancerous' symptoms can be explained away by the large numbers of toxic and carcinogenic materials that go into making the average jet. It is widely known that the clean-up firm was unprepared for the large number of residues from the jet, and that many areas were still at hazardous levels of toxins when the went back to work (Wall Street). Of course, the health reports were written up in deliberately ambiguous lawyerspeak so that a case for sending people back to work, a similar thing happened with benzene spillages in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join