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: 11
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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


Well, technically they do. A high-explosive shaped charge will not remove a measurable amount of metal. Instead it will perforate by the produced million plus psi pressure jet flowing the metal out of the way (compressing it radially). So even though there will be a hole at the point of impact, no metal is removed. The body perforated will weigh the same after perforation as it did before perforation. BUT, just to be clear, that's an instantaneous and infinitesimal reaction. So it's not like using high explosives would start melting all the metal they affected over some long period of time. All "molten metal" reaction from a high-explosive is completed in a significantly small fraction of a second.

Now - a falling floor will not produce a million plus psi pressure wave on what it impacts. There is always heat generated from two solids impacting, but we're no where near the point of heat that could melt metal.




posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
An HBOMB would have leveled half the city and blew said city into the next county.
Please stop with the nonsence and know what you are talking/typeing about before inserting foot in mouth.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Thanks for the clarification, Val.



Originally posted by Valhall
Now - a falling floor will not produce a million plus psi pressure wave on what it impacts. There is always heat generated from two solids impacting, but we're no where near the point of heat that could melt metal.


I was thinking that he might have meant friction rather than pressure, but agree that this is impossible as well.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Agreed that a conventional h-bomb would do just that.

However, this thread is working around the idea that more recently developed weapons were employed that were pure hydrogen, having a fusion reaction without needing fission to start it, thus taking out the necessity of a large blast and tons of radioactive fallout.

Also posted earlier in the thread are links to declassified Department of Energy documents from the 60s and 70s that point out research and successful testing of MRR (minimum residual radiation) devices, as well as research into nuclear weapons for demolitions.

Damocles posted earler (he was explosives for the military) that he had a Sgt. that even told him he could sit a backpack down on a bridge, walk away, and have the bridge leveled into a manmade lake. This was no doubt from a more conventional weapon, but apparently the program under which these were used was terminated around the same time that research for a pure hydrogen bomb was terminated and called a failure. A year later, the first WTC bombing occurred, in which there were reports of molten concrete in the basement.

So, again, this is no suggestion of an old device, like what was dropped on Japan, or the fission-using H-bomb tests decades ago. Everyone realizes how those blasts do not fit the scene.

At the WTC, it is becoming more clear, to me at least, that material was sublimating. You can see this in various collapse videos, especially from the ground, in which large chunks of debris fly out into clear air, all the while trailing thick dust behind them like a comet-tail. The WTC1 spire also released much thick, dark dust before folding together and collapsing straight down. These sorts of things can't be explained by HE's or thermite alone.

Hope the post makes a little more sense to you now. It's based on the assumption that a way was found by the military to produce fusion without fission, and there are a few other ways that may do this, but the public is in the dark as to whether or not any of them would work or how to get them to work.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Just to give an example of what you would be talking about in order to get to 1,000,000 psi due a floor impact. Take the largest estimate for the entire building mass which Greening uses, 500,000,000 kg (1,102,300, lbs) and divide by 110 floors. Now that's going to give you WAY more weight than any of the floors actually weighed - especially the top floors. Two reasons why: 1. some people say Greenings weight for the building is far too great, 2. the upper floors didn't weigh as much as the lower floors so just equally dividing out the total building weight over all the floors gives much heavier upper floors than there really was. Okay, so this technique gives us 10,020,909 lbs per floor. To get to 1,000,000 psi due to static loading for the first floor that collapses onto the floor below it, you have to say the entire floor's weight was loaded on to 10 square inches. Now, you have to add in KE and impact loading, but they won't get you to 1,000,000 psi either without concentrating the entire weight of the collapsing floor onto an extremely small area of the impacted floor.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
It is not what happened, niffty hypothesis, but it is nothing more than that. The towers were brought down with conventional explosives which were used by the demolition business, watch other implosions, same effects and same type of materials used.

The rapid fall rate of the building, from what I know, is most likely attributed to the thermite from higher floors dripping down and burning into the supports directly below those above. This is what make the towers fall in such a "fluid" manner. They fell fast because it was literally liquid steel, the thermite did exactly what it was supposed to do.

Does this make sence?



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
It is not what happened, niffty hypothesis, but it is nothing more than that. The towers were brought down with conventional explosives which were used by the demolition business, watch other implosions, same effects and same type of materials used.

The rapid fall rate of the building, from what I know, is most likely attributed to the thermite from higher floors dripping down and burning into the supports directly below those above. This is what make the towers fall in such a "fluid" manner. They fell fast because it was literally liquid steel, the thermite did exactly what it was supposed to do.

Does this make sence?


I would go with that hypothesis except for the fact that normal demo charges will not pulverise concrete to micron sized particles, it is only possible with such a device.


[edit on 22-10-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I would like it if moderators could acknowledge we are working on a theory here, and would like that discussion to be promoted, instead of routinely blasted.

Anyone heard of Red Mercury? It's a substance that Samuel Cohen (inventor of neutron bomb) claims exists and is used as the trigger in pure h-bomb's (including micro ones.) No idea if it's actually true or not... read about it here under "Red Mercury Claims."

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
An HBOMB would have leveled half the city and blew said city into the next county.
Please stop with the nonsence and know what you are talking/typeing about before inserting foot in mouth.


It is this kind of post that makes me PUKE.

To generalize "HBOMB" really show how LITTLE you know about MODERN nuclear devices.

Read about FOURTH GENERATION FUSION DEVICES.

Your understanding of mini-nukes, etc. really impeaches your own post.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
I would go with that hypothesis except for the fact that normal demo charges will not pulverise concrete to micron sized particles, it is only possible with such a device.


And my main problem is the sublimating material.

Explosives planted in the concrete slabs could possibly account for the fine pulverization so far as I can tell, but NOTHING conventional makes steel sublimate like that.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
It is not what happened, niffty hypothesis, but it is nothing more than that. The towers were brought down with conventional explosives which were used by the demolition business, watch other implosions, same effects and same type of materials used. Does this make sence?


Dear Advisor:

The single most important factor which speaks against the use of conventional chemical explosives as the sole mean of demolition is the shockingly small pile of building debris. Of course there are other observations which evince the use of thermonuclear devices at the WTC’s — but the ridiculously little amount of ruins for structures of this size and strength is one of the more striking phenomenons.

To support my point, allow me to introduce some photos and sketches of the WTC twin tower design.

Exhibit 1: Crosscut of a core column. These columns were made of extremely thick 2” (!)steel. Things like these don’t “disappear” easily. And disappear they did. There weren’t nearly enough left over from the 47 columns at 1368 linear feet each. They alone would have resembled a “giant stack of cordwood logs”.


Exhibit 1-1: Crosscut of a much smaller perimeter column.
The numbers in the figure denote: 36 – Steel column, 38, 39 – Fire resistant plaster, 40 – Aluminum façade, 42 – Window glass, 43 – Window frame.



Exhibit 2: Picture of some of the core columns that were retrieved. Just to illustrate how massive they are. And the edges look suspiciously “smooth”. How were they cut? Certainly not with an acetylene torch.


Exhibit 3: Location of all 47 core columns within the building footprint. They are the small reddish squares.


Exhibit 4: Elevator shaft layout. However I got this from Wikipedia (of all places) — and they don’t show the service/express elevators in the middle of the building which is where the nukes most likely were placed.


Exhibit 5: Floor design. Shows location of concrete slab on top of steel sheet metal. And gives view of main trusses (cross-cut) and transverse trusses.


Exhibit 6: Schematic of trusses, corrugated steel sheet-metal base for concrete and exterior wall columns.


Exhibit 7: Helicopter photo of WTC under construction. Displays the massiveness of core structure.


Exhibit 8: Graphic of the WTC design from “the enemy”, the Sidney Morning Herald, a newspaper supporting the absurd pancake collapse theory. But who cares. Their sketch illustrates the “tube within a tube” engineering concept.


Exhibit 9: Close-up side view of core columns under construction. Where did all this steel go? The hydrogen bomb hypothesis implies it literally vanished into the clouds — as metal vapor.


Exhibit 10: Ground “zero” at the WTC site. And a view of what (little) was left over.


Thank you for your patience. I realize this was a lengthy post. For those with dialup connections I “feel for you”. I hope I provided some answers.

Greetings and good night,
The Wizard In The Woods.


[edit on 10/23/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   
So let me get this right ...

What you're saying is that "persons unknown" received information of the attack beforehand and then took advantage of this planned terrorist attack AND THEN they used it to their financial/political advantage by 'assisting' the terrorist attack by seeding the buildings.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Dear 2stepfromtop:

No, what I’m saying here is that there were no “terrorists” on 9-11 — at least not the ones shown in the organizational chart of “Al-Qaida”. Which by the way doesn’t exist either, at least not the way we were told. I have addressed these issues in previous posts on this thread. I haven’t yet figured out how to properly “quote”. So you’ll have to go through the “hassle” of perusing this thread from the very beginning. Which might not be such a bad idea.

Cheers,
Greetings From The Wizard In The Woods.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Insolubrious
I would go with that hypothesis except for the fact that normal demo charges will not pulverise concrete to micron sized particles, it is only possible with such a device.


And my main problem is the sublimating material.

Explosives planted in the concrete slabs could possibly account for the fine pulverization so far as I can tell, but NOTHING conventional makes steel sublimate like that.


I don't see how that is possible any other way because the amount of C4 required would be impractical, and near on impossible, unless the explosives were some how mixed in with all the concrete on every floor, which i find harder to believe. And if the concrete was mixed with some type of explosive then surely there would be traces of this mixture too. For this sort of micron scaled devistation to take place would require a truely massive amount and a very precise and even distribution of explosives for every square meter of concrete, the WTC staff would literally be climbing over demo charges to get to their desks if it were manually planted and that still wouldn't create a total meltdown of the core. We are talking around 6 million kg of TNT, a total logicistal nightmare to set up, vs 0.6kg nuke equivalent which would do the job easily. (occam's razor)

And yes I agree about the sublimating material, a thermonuclear device appears to be the logical answer, how else can one reach such incredible temperatures required to vaporize that gargantuan frame. Steel will soak up heat like a sponge and could easily conduct it across other members. It probably went along way to neturalizing the explosion, the blasts heat would disperse since there were huge columns waiting to absorb it. So a tremendous heat source from a blast in the basement could go along way to heating up the entire core simply through frenzied conductivity.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
why are you confident that explosives were used? Do you think that the wiring (to the explosives) could survive an hour or so of jet fuel fire?



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
What makes you say that there was so little debris? The WTC "bathtub" was filled with wreckage, which the recovery crews spent months removing, filling a steady stream of barges in the hudson for transport to Staten Island. I was there.

Which begs another question: Where do you suppose the buildings (or most of them) went? Vaporized? Is that the prevailing "wisdom"? Did you see the people on the street covered with a light gray dust? Any idea of the temperature of the debris cloud if all this debris were to be vaporized?

I thought the whole explosives debate was ridiculous. Now nukes? nukes! Someone posted about a pure hydrogen bomb, no uranium or plutonium. You people have the Internet at your disposal, and this guy theorizes a nuke with no radioactive fuel?

THere were no explosives. No army of people working in total secrecy to bring the buildings down, kill thousands of people, and no one steps forward. You are giving too much credit for people keeping secrets.

I worked in the 97th floor of tower 2 up until 9/11. I was there on the 9th when we were testing electrical upgrades to our data center. There were no crews installing charges. There were no nukes (or nukeless nukes for that matter) in the basement.

But, of course this is nothing more than a typing exercise, as you people will believe what you want to believe, no matter what.

But I have a theory about people who buy into and foster conspiracy theories. They live in fear of the world they live in. Maybe they are not too successful at what they do. So, if a NWO, Illuminati controlled world is out there, hey, it's not our fault that we are a failure or a loser. It's in their hands after all.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Spock
why are you confident that explosives were used? Do you think that the wiring (to the explosives) could survive an hour or so of jet fuel fire?


Micronuclear demolitions are self contained devices. I'd imagine they're very robust and shielded. No wires.

[edit on 23/10/06 by SteveR]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
micronuclear demolitions? Wow, where do you guys get this stuff? Why nuclear? better yet, why explosives at all? Do you think the attack alone was not enough to rally the American people? That if the burnt towers still stood that we would not have the stomach to fight back? Why go to the trouble to involve large numbers of people and high tech weapons and risk exposure? Bush getting caught at the head of this would be the worst scandal in the history of this country.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Spock
micronuclear demolitions? Wow, where do you guys get this stuff? Why nuclear? better yet, why explosives at all? Do you think the attack alone was not enough to rally the American people? That if the burnt towers still stood that we would not have the stomach to fight back? Why go to the trouble to involve large numbers of people and high tech weapons and risk exposure? Bush getting caught at the head of this would be the worst scandal in the history of this country.


try reading the thread from the start.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Your personal opinions and experiences are one thing, which I won't address, but more objective issues with the collapses we could talk about if you'd like.


Originally posted by Mr Spock
Do you think that the wiring (to the explosives) could survive an hour or so of jet fuel fire?


There did not need to be any wiring. Wireless technology now exists and has existed for some time. In addition, many explosives cannot be set off by hydrocarbon fires, such as the standard C4, or thermite (or pure h-bombs for that matter), and neither would any theoretical, properly-insulated detonator caps or etc., because hydrocarbon fires aren't really that hot in context. They would be hot for a human to jump into, but other than that, not so much. They don't melt steel, or even really heat it appreciably except in special circumstances, or ignite/detonate most common incendiaries or explosives.

I can elaborate on the above if you want.

Reasons to believe secondary devices and beyond were involved usually include the apparent lack of resistance from hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and welded steel (notice that the collapses did not even slow down as the "driving masses" broke up, fell over the sides, encountered heavier structural resistance, etc.), the loss of WTC2's angular momentum as it began tilting and then abruptly stopped as it began to fall straight down, the uncanny symmetry of the collapses in general, the explosive ejections from various floors as the buildings collapsed, the ultra-fine pulverization of the vast majority of the buildings' concrete, the lack of a stack of "pancaked" floors at the Towers' bases when they were done collapsing, the way they "fell" (forcefully) outwards in four directions simultaneously and evenly (again, without slowing down the whole way down, even as the uppermost floors disintegrated), molten metal (bright!) pouring from WTC2 before its collapse, the molten metal that was seen afterwards for weeks, the lack of significant structural damage to justify any collapse even initiating, etc.

And those can be elaborated upon as well, though preferably in another thread, as it would be kind of off-topic here.


A good bit of info has been posted on 4th generation nuclear devices in this thread, so reading it from the start, like Insolubrious suggests, may be helpful.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join