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.

 

Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Is it the overpressures that pulverize the concrete like that, but leave paper and steel intact?

If that's the case, Insolubrious, then fission or fusion, our device, I think, was either shaped or else had a little more power to it, or both.




posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I would rule out all fission devices, based on the matter of radiation. I don't beleive a SADM took part, mentioning it simply illustrated the fact that nuclear demolitions exist. That cannot be refuted anymore. However, the unclassified SADM's we've been looking at can't really link to 9/11.

Pure fusion devices are the only weapons that fit the bill, from what we know so far. Concrete pulverized to 30 microns, molten steel under constant attention for months, and unexplained seismic shocks are the biggest telltale signs. Patterns in landmark dates are also interesting, complete retirement of SADM's with no replacement in '89, the abrupt ending of the longtime pure fusion research in '92, WTC attack in '93.. etcetera.

Here is a nice little short on the explained seismic shocks.



www.911review.com...

Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

However, the Palisades seismic record shows that-as the collapses began-a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth.

These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.

A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.

The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground.


I know not of any conventional explosives that cause a 2.3 magnitude earthquake. It's very characteristic of nuclear weapons.

By the way, nice map Insolubrious.

[edit on 20/10/06 by SteveR]

[edit: to add source link]

[edit on 10/21/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Pure fusion devices are the only weapons that fit the bill, from what we know so far. Concrete pulverized to 30 microns, molten steel under constant attention for months, and unexplained seismic shocks are the biggest telltale signs. Patterns in landmark dates are also interesting, complete retirement of SADM's with no replacement in '89, the abrupt ending of the longtime pure fusion device research in '92, WTC attack in '93.. etcetera.


Also ablating steel (WTC1 spire), that's a BIG wtf with anything other than these kinds of extreme devices.

I think looking at other alleged cases of these devices may be useful in determining how they were used at the WTC, because unless there's technology that allows h-bombs to be shaped and directed upwards for some distance, we may be looking at multiple instances of them within a sequence of events such as on the mechanical floors, within the cores, and then the inner destruction would be revealed as the perimeter columns and trusses are peeled away with something maybe a little more conventional. How the perimeter columns would have been "peeled away" presents yet another challenge, keeping in mind that the collapse wave was fluid and that so many large sections were ejected so far laterally.

I'm still really fluid on all of this, still learning and comparing observations regularly, still ready to accept still other explanations of the observed events.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
SteveR,

Could you please provide the source link to your quote? I'm sure you just overlooked it.

Thank you!



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Pure fusion devices are the only weapons that fit the bill, from what we know so far. Concrete pulverized to 30 microns, molten steel under constant attention for months, and unexplained seismic shocks are the biggest telltale signs.



Well then it's too bad only the first part about concrete actually applies.

Please show us some proof that there was molten steel for months. There was certainly molten material at ground zero, and the underground fires led to molten material being uncovered, but by no means has it been proven that there was molten steel, especially not for months.

And no matter what your unnamed source tells you, the seismic shocks are explained if you actually ask the experts.

After all, if you ask the people who actually took some of these seismic recordings, you'll see that they have this to say.


www.popularmechanics.com...

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."



I guess my next question is how exactly does a nuke in the basement explain the collapses starting where the planes hit?

Surely the nuke wasn't set off on those floors where the collapse started, we would have seen some sort of explosion.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Is it the overpressures that pulverize the concrete like that, but leave paper and steel intact?


Dear bsbray11:

Unfortunately I’m not near a fast internet connection so I haven’t yet looked up all of your or Insolubrious’s recently posted links. Still, I’ll try to answer your question.

Since most of the damaging effects (80%) of a pure hydrogen bomb result from radiation allow me to explain that term first. There are two types of radiation — particle radiation and electromagnetic radiation. Hydrogen bombs primarily produce particle radiation which is minuscule objects moving at high speeds (Neutrons and alpha particles). Fast moving neutrons — at about 10% light-speed — are responsible for the physical destruction at the WTC’s.

When they smash into something they instantly superheat it. If concrete is heated quickly it explodes. Put an acetylene blowtorch flame against a piece of concrete and watch it “pop”. The neutrons instantly expanded the water in the cement into high-temperature, high pressure, high-volume steam which blasted its surroundings (silicates) into low-micron particles.

The neutrons also caused most of the steel to “boil off” at 5500 deg F, i. e turn into metal “steam vapor”. This happened so quickly that the metal went directly from a solid state to a gaseous form, skipping the liquid condition altogether. In plain English, the steel beams and floor panels didn’t even have time to melt — they were sublimated. On one of your recent pictures you show a core column still standing. There the vaporization was either incomplete or delayed. It’s hard to tell from a still photo. But surely there were no conventional chemical explosions at that point “to finish the job”. That would have been way too visible. Most likely the column joints continued to break down and the whole thing collapsed seconds later.

The countless lightweight pieces of paper which were carried away by turbulences were either bypassed by the cone of destruction or were too low-density to stop the neutons (and couldn't absorb their kinetic energy).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/20/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mbkennel
Nobody has demonstrated any thermonuclear ignition of substantial magnitude without a fission weapon primary. Certainly nothing remotely weaponized or weaponizable.


Which is why we're all working under the hypothetical assumption that these devices exist, thus accounting for many issues with the collapses unresolved by anything else, be it falling steel and concrete, high explosives, or thermite reactions.

Unless you're going to prove a negative, or else exactly what achievements military organizations have made under so much classification, then there's not much you can add here.


Bsbray,

Can you clarify your comment here? Are you saying that if someone can't proove that something doesn't exist that it does, just because the military's achievements are classified and we don't know what they are capable of?

Am I understanding you here? I think that is what your statement implies, is that the case?

Thanks!



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear debate:

Hallelujah! Yours is the post we’ve been waiting for! A mathematical analysis of the energy amounts necessary to pulverize the concrete of the WTC’s.

You’ve listed a treasure-trove of revealing links. I’m not quite sure how you arrived at the 4 million kWh energy for pulverization of 14,400 tons of concrete to 0.3 microns. But I’ve probably overlooked something.


This is taking a standard linear relationship;

concrete pulverised to 60microns = 1.5 kwh/tn
concrete to 30 microns = 3 kwh/tn
concrete to 0.3 microns = 300 kwh/tn

A linear relationship is the base level.

e.g

www.energystar.gov...

page 6

the reduced particle size to 10-20microns is roughly 25kwh/tn.

this is using a highly efficient method of reducing concrete to fineness powder. So any questions over the linear calculation must acknowledge the energy requirements to be much higher as an exponential relationship is involved.

4 million kwh is a baseline figure which far exceeds the P.E of the building.

The amount of TNT required is illogical, it is in the thousands of tonnes range.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Dear "debate":

Thanks for the clarification. 4 million kWh is the energy amount found in 3,429 U.S.-tons of TNT. Gees, I still have to get used to this kWh thing as a way of describing energy. I would be much more comfortable using Joules. But hey, I'm just copying what seems to be common practice.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear "debate":

Thanks for the clarification. 4 million kWh is the energy amount found in 3,429 U.S.-tons of TNT. Gees, I still have to get used to this kWh thing as a way of describing energy. I would be much more comfortable using Joules. But hey, I'm just copying what seems to be common practice.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


yes, it is an industry standard measurement because it is based upon cost in monetary values.

although considering that the collapse took place in 14 seconds, the kwh needs to be adjusted for that time period..

watts per hour ----> watts per second === joules



greetings

zark aka debate

[edit on 21-10-2006 by debate]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jab712
Bsbray,

Can you clarify your comment here? Are you saying that if someone can't proove that something doesn't exist that it does, just because the military's achievements are classified and we don't know what they are capable of?


No. I'm saying that our discussion assumes such a device exists, skipping determining whether or not one does in order to go on and discuss how the detonation of such devices would fit in with observations made during the collapses on 9/11.

I also said that, unless proof was offered that such a device does not exist, ie proving a negative (next to impossible to do), then I didn't really care what this particular poster had to say on feasibility or problems that public domain physicists are having.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Here is a message about radiation but it blames Depleted Uranium on the planes. Problem is the 757 and 767 do not use Depleted Uranium they use Tungsten for counterweights.

www.xs4all.nl...

From: "Leuren Moret"



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Please show us some proof that there was molten steel for months. There was certainly molten material at ground zero, and the underground fires led to molten material being uncovered, but by no means has it been proven that there was molten steel, especially not for months.


Material? What material do you suppose this is?

www.physics.byu.edu...

Please review clean up crew reports. All the information you need is there.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Jim Hoffman's site lists a number of sources for claims of molten steel here:

911research.wtc7.net...

Worth a read.


Btw, Wizard, thanks man for clarifying this stuff for me. I'm not at all that familiar with these kinds of devices, but your posts help loads.

[edit on 21-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."


That quote in popular mechanics means nothing to me.

The actual data, does.

Courtesy of bsbray's last link.
911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Please show us some proof that there was molten steel for months. There was certainly molten material at ground zero, and the underground fires led to molten material being uncovered, but by no means has it been proven that there was molten steel, especially not for months.



I have sent e-mails to some demolition and wrecking companies who were working at the WTC site asking about them seeing molten steel in the basements of all the builidngs.

[edit on 22-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 22-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Just a few dumb insights here:

Attachment Bolts are rated to certain amounts of strength, so if the bolts fastening the concrete/steel floors to the framework of the building were overloaded then wouldn't they shear in line with the downward force?

Collapsing floors would generate a great deal of pressure on each lower floor, dosn't pressure = heat?

Enough heat to melt the steel?

Papers could survive if they were from the higher floors, but because of immense pressure wouldn't everyting on the lower floors just kind of disintegrate?



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
Just a few dumb insights here:

Attachment Bolts are rated to certain amounts of strength, so if the bolts fastening the concrete/steel floors to the framework of the building were overloaded then wouldn't they shear in line with the downward force?

Collapsing floors would generate a great deal of pressure on each lower floor, dosn't pressure = heat?

Enough heat to melt the steel?

Papers could survive if they were from the higher floors, but because of immense pressure wouldn't everyting on the lower floors just kind of disintegrate?


Thier may have been some heat created by the towers as many floors as they had but i do not think enough to cause molten steel and what about builidngs 6 and 7 ?

[edit on 22-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR


That quote in popular mechanics means nothing to me.

The actual data, does.


Why is a quote from one of the people who work at the lab that took the data mean nothing to you?

Why don't you contact the labs yourself and see what they have to say about it?

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Why is 9-11 research's opinion of more value than the opinion of someone who is a proffesional seismologist?

Why would a proffesional seismologist participate in the cover up of mass murder?

www.911myths.com...

[edit on 22-10-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
Attachment Bolts are rated to certain amounts of strength, so if the bolts fastening the concrete/steel floors to the framework of the building were overloaded then wouldn't they shear in line with the downward force?


They were also supposed to have been welded. Charles Pegelow (LP structural engineer of 30+ years) explained in an interview with Jim Fetzer that those bolts are called erection bolts. They're used during the erection of the building to hold it together, but then guys come in and weld it afterwards.


Collapsing floors would generate a great deal of pressure on each lower floor, dosn't pressure = heat?


No.


Enough heat to melt the steel?


..... No.

High explosives work ONLY by pressure, great amounts of it produced rapidly by chemical reaction. Why don't they produce molten steel?


ULTIMA,

There are quotes on Jim Hoffman's 9/11 Research page that I've listed above. I've tried contacting demolition companies before, without even mentioning 9/11 or suggesting anything about it, and these guys were pretty unwilling to cooperate without knowing who exactly I was.

I have a feeling that the actual quotes collecting from the various releases and media sources are going to be more reliable, unless you happen to email a PR that was also there doing clean-up, which I doubt.

[edit on 22-10-2006 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join