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: 12
12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:57 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.


Dear Mr. Spock:

You being a Vulcan and all, are most certainly partial to logical thinking. Which is why I feel I might can provide you with answers.

The things we know for certain are:

1. The WTC-1,2,6 and 7 buildings were blown, err, “collapsed” to kingdom come.
We have multiple high resolution visual documents to prove this. These and the plethora of audio recordings support the presence of explosives. [The hydrogen bomb hypothesis is a separate issue.]

2. There were relative to the size of the buildings minimal ruins — but there were huge energy-intensive pyroclastic dust clouds. We have a limitless supply of high resolution visual documents to prove this also.

3. Mathematically we have proven that a gravitational collapse (cause by fires from planes) could not have resulted in said observations.

The events I think have yet to be established — and yes it’s my personal viewpoint — are:

1. Whether or not there were actually planes crashing into WTC-1 and WTC-2. All video footage showing the airplanes is of horrible quality. And in the case of WTC-2 was presented after a highly suspicious 6.5 hour delay.



2. The structural damage footprints of the plane impacts do not “square” with common sense knowledge of material behaviors. I. e. the quarter inch thick steel 14” x 14” box perimeter columns are not pronouncedly bent inwards as one would expect had the aircraft fully penetrated the buildings — a far-fetched assumption in itself.

Therefore, the question about the “wiring” of the explosives can be answered by the outcome. The bombs went off so it must have been intact because it did its job. However with remote detonators no wiring in the conventional sense is need anyways. But for discussion purposes this doesn’t matter.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 10/23/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]




posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Excellent posts and replies all of you, I am not against your stances on this. Just explaining to you as a military professional who is EOD certified and having hands on training with explosives, trying to say how things are done, for real.

Not hypothesis or theory, but fact. How ever to continue this grand and enjoyable debate in which I dont indend to detract from, but further the study and conversation of.

Let me offer some supportive links for my side of things, whether or not you choose to give me the beneift of the doubt, I could not care less. But as you have been heard out, I only ask the same.

Don't hate the sources they were the first I found, pish posh you can say, I have.




Bush admits there were explosives in WTC! - Above Top Secret Conspiracy Community


Yep, he damned sure did. And it's worth repeating...

ATS

Bush Tacitly Implies WTC Controlled Demolition?


Bush made a strange comment about explosives and their placement in U.S. buildings. Was this a tacit admission of 9/11 controlled demolition?

infowars.com

Bush Admits Explosives Were Placed in WTC


Bush says, at a news conference at the White House, "He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

shoutwire.com


[edit on 23-10-2006 by ADVISOR]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
heh why do i think that if advisor and i started a thread wehre the two of us debated the explosives in the wtc issue, it would be very interesting.

because being a (former) military professional with 12 years of explosives and WMD training and a lot of hands on with heavy demo, i just dont see real evidence of explosives there. agree to disagree i guess.

but i do think an open debate would be lively as i think the two of us could really compare notes on an intellectual level and not have it turn into a name calling pissing contest.

sorry for being off topic.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Thank you ADVISOR.

I would like to hear how many kg's or tons of explosive do you think was necessary to drop the each tower? And what type?

We can find out if it is feasibly responsible for the anomalies discussed herein.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
How much C4 and Thermite would it take, for each tower. It would take a lot and then some, but keep in mind the composition 4 was specifically created to "cut steel" as it is an explosive. Thermite as I have mentioned elsewhere with only a nickle sized amount, can burn through a large block engine and into the ground, in only a matter of seconds.

Combine that ability with a shaped/directional charge, of course many of them for this particular case, and it in my opinion is obvious. Those "smooth cuts" as asked about, can be caused by C4 and thermite, thermite would melt the steel so that would be less likly, but C4 "CUTS steel" as intended. It is not a blasting explosive, as TNT is, different explosives have different purposes, look a cemtex for example.

How much would it take exactly, can't say, I wasn't there, but if there is one thing for sure I know it was within the demolition companies ability. Those kind of people can look at a structure and know right away how they would do it, with out much more than a few calculations and a blueprint before walking through.

The high tech fancy new age explosives are nice and all, but are not practical to be utilized in a implosion situation. They have used the same old materials for years even decades with out fail, trust me they are least likely to use a unproven and experimental new class of explosive. Why risk their reputation, let alone the business.

But to give you a rough guesstimate, I would say nothing less than a few semi loads worth, or perhaps approximately 200+ skids or pallets stacked full of the material.

That is my final $00.02 feel free to critisize and rebute as you wish, thank you for your time, and patience.

Carry on, as you were.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Excellent posts and replies all of you, I am not against your stances on this. Just explaining to you as a military professional who is EOD certified and having hands on training with explosives, trying to say how things are done, for real.

Not hypothesis or theory, but fact. How ever to continue this grand and enjoyable debate in which I dont indend to detract from, but further the study and conversation of.


Dear Advisor:

We all, hmm, no, most of us posters on this thread AGREE that conventional explosives were used on 9-11. Which in itself implies that 9-11 had to have been an “inside job”.

However, there is discussion whether or not chemical bombs alone would have been up to the job of destructing the near largest (and strongest) buildings ever built. Also something else seems necessary to explain the many other odd and unusual observations relating to the WTC collapses.

Morally, for those who were trapped inside the WTC structures and their relatives it doesn’t make a difference what type of devices were used on 9-11.

But knowing the truth could affect the thousands of rescue personnel and countless “nobodies” who were covered from head-to-toe in what might turn out to have been dangerously poisonous dust and vapor particles. Average people have few means of gauging the 9-11 events on their own. They literally don’t have the time, skills or perhaps even the financial means (no computer) to do their own research on the internet. Obviously the main stream media won’t help them. Those of us who are privy to valuable information should feel ethically obliged to share it freely.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/23/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Thermite as I have mentioned elsewhere with only a nickle sized amount, can burn through a large block engine and into the ground, in only a matter of seconds.


Is this a type of military thermite you've worked with? I'm interested because there is at least one video of a fairly large amount of thermite (at least much greater than a nickel-sized amount) eating through an engine block, and it takes a few seconds. I suppose there are variables either way.


The high tech fancy new age explosives are nice and all, but are not practical to be utilized in a implosion situation.


Then they may be appropriate for the discussion after all, because the WTC Tower collapses were more explosions than implosions, wouldn't you agree? And WTC7 is another case, more in line with implosions.





The above illustrates the massive amounts of building debris being ejected outwards, always with the thick dust surrounding.

A more detailed photo that deserves some attention:



Let's make a simple observation:

There is no dust into where that debris is falling.

So we must conclude that all of that thick dust trailing it, is coming from it, as should appear intuitively enough anyway.

Either this is some burning material, putting off dense, grayish smoke, even as it falls, indicating a rapid and total combustion with some efficiency to it (or else it would be black), or else it's some kind of dust or vapor.

Intuitively, I don't think that is burning material. If you look closely you can see the actual debris that is falling, and how small it is compared to the material it's trailing. For all of that to be smoke from a fire, the upper portion of that debris must be experiencing some absolutely wild fire (which is entirely obscured by the 'smoke' itself?), consuming the object in good ratio with the amount of oxygen it's being exposed to, combusting extremely rapidly. The material being trailed looks more consistent with the other fine material being forced out of the building as it falls.

If it's concrete dust trailing the object (a falling concrete chunk), then why is it breaking up into such fine particles mid-fall? Logically it should not be, because nothing is happening to it other than falling through the air, and it's plain to see that the breaking up is ongoing as it falls rather than something that's just occurred a bit earlier.

Another explanation is that this material, whatever it is, is vaporizing, sublimating, turning immediately directly to vapor. For me, this makes more sense than the alternatives mentioned above. If there is yet another explanation then I'm all ears, but those are the only explanations I can think of.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
dammit

bsbray

I have no idea. I have never thought about that before. I've never heard any one ask that question before. And I have absolutely no answer for it at this time. In fact, I can't even fathom what the answer might be.

hmmmm



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Here is a little fun i had with the numbers that were estimated for power, i felt telling people 6 million kg of TNT required is hard to imagine, so i thought i would have a go at roughly converting it in to a more easier way of looking at it. This is a pretty simple stripped down approach that excludes many factors.

So, it has already been evaluated that energy requirement is approx. 6 million kWh to pulverise the 90,000 tns of concrete as seen at the WTC. (see www.gnn.tv...)

about 13,200,000 lbs (6 million kg) of TNT would be required to generate that.

So how much man power would that require to set up that much TNT?

Ok, so lets be fair and say 1 man has the job of shifting about 20 lbs packages of TNT at a time, since they have to travel some way they would get fatigued quite quickly with much more. Is that a good estimate? Perhaps 30-40 lbs is reasonable.

so anyway 13,200,000 lbs / 20lbs = 660,000 trips to deliver each 20lbs package. And by trips i mean 'getting the payload, putting it in place, then go and getting some more' which may take on average 2-3 hours depending on where the payloads were going.

Thats a lot of work! Not to mention much time, so lets up the people.

lets say, 50 people were doing it.

660,000 trips / 50 people = 13,200 trips per person.

Even with 500 people working the site thats 1,320 trips each. I doubt 500 people were involved, and I think they would of been complaining after the first few hundred trips.

So lets give them a chance, they were dedicated and they have 50 workers to do the site that are willing to do it and won't spill the beans. Lets say each trip took about 2 hours to complete (not including the setup time). So
13,200 trips x 2 hours = 26400 hours to complete.

26400 hours is 1100 days, or approx 36.6 months (3 years)

Ok these guys don't work 24 hours though they need to sleep sometime, if they work flat out 12 hour shifts with virtually no breaks that double time so thats:

6 years!!

If they were 40lbs packages thats still 3 years.

So 50 hardcore workers have been planting demo charges non stop for 6 years? Or did I go wrong somewhere. I didn't even take into account the setup time for the charges...

Still not quite sure if i have the kWh ratio correct, and the real physical weight in relation to the actual power of TNT.

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:21 AM
link   
@bsb, ok im medicated so this makes sense to me but i could be wrong, ill throw it out there anyway.

ok, the chunk of material that has a tail to it. is it 'possible' (lets not talk about probably just possible) that its a chunk of material that didnt just "fall" off of some part of the material above and that it was forcibly ejected downward THROUGH the cloud of dust that would have been there in its way and that as a result of the force its 'pulling' the dust behind it giving it the appearance of a tail? if we can agree that its at least possible then we cant rule it out.


@inso

fun numbers. granted, you could do the same job with less volume of explosives by going with C4 as it has a higher RE factor but as TnT is the base for RE factors its a good example. wanna have some real fun with it? look up the size of a standard 1lb block of TnT and figure out how many cubic meters that volume of material would fill.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:27 AM
link   
THE PLOWSHARE PROGRAM

1. Mere fact that the U.S. has developed atomic munitions suitable for use in demolition work. (58-8)


RESTRICTED DATA DECLASSIFICATION DECISIONS
1946 TO THE PRESENT (RDD-7)
January 1, 2001
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Declassification


READ MORE



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ok, the chunk of material that has a tail to it. is it 'possible' (lets not talk about probably just possible) that its a chunk of material that didnt just "fall" off of some part of the material above and that it was forcibly ejected downward THROUGH the cloud of dust that would have been there in its way and that as a result of the force its 'pulling' the dust behind it giving it the appearance of a tail? if we can agree that its at least possible then we cant rule it out.


It may be remotely possible, but I also have videos taken from ground level of WTC2's collapse, and you can very clearly see massive objects flying through the air trailing thick dust behind him. Eventually I'd like to upload these somewhere and take frames out of them to illustrate this.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
heh as long as youre open minded to consider it as a, albeit remote, possibility my respect for you as open minded remains intact



hate to think u got all wierd on me.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
@inso

fun numbers. granted, you could do the same job with less volume of explosives by going with C4 as it has a higher RE factor but as TnT is the base for RE factors its a good example. wanna have some real fun with it? look up the size of a standard 1lb block of TnT and figure out how many cubic meters that volume of material would fill.


Well I had a quick look and c4 is equivelent to 114% tnt power, so thats not really that much more powerful, but considering it is shape charge it could be used in a more efficient way. The ratio concerning concrete per cubic meter against RE was already worked out, as stated above approx 6,000,000 kg of tnt would be required to pulversize all the concrete to micron scaled particles on the level that it did. I was going off their numbers not my own!

www.gnn.tv...



Total minimum of over 6 million kwh required

This is a minimum figure based upon 90,000 tns of concrete which by all accounts is 30% of actual concrete present in WTC.

6,00,000 khw = 6,000,000 kg of tnt = Nuclear fission equals 70 kt TNT per kg


Still I have found another website that conflicts, stating at least 14 tons of HE would be required. hawaii.indymedia.org...


[edit on 25-10-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
But knowing the truth could affect the thousands of rescue personnel and countless “nobodies”


Ok, let us get one thing straight right now!


Those people, are not and were not "nobodies", they are other peoples "loved ones". Fathers, brother, sons, mothers, daughters and sisters.

A friend of mine lost his dad in those towers that day, and seeing his pain makes my eyes leak like F'n water spouts. So PLEASE, do not ever refer to those irreplaceable people, as "nobodies". This can be considered a verbal warning for EVERY ONE, and I will, issue a warn for further disrespectful reference/s.

I as a member of this site, and as a person, am VERY OFFENDED by such remarks.

Now, with that out of the way let me further continue what I came back to this thread to type/say.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Is this a type of military thermite you've worked with? I'm interested because there is at least one video of a fairly large amount of thermite (at least much greater than a nickel-sized amount) eating through an engine block, and it takes a few seconds. I suppose there are variables either way.


Anti material, the military grade stuff is much more pure or refined in it's purity and quality. It mixes with the oxygen better and burns a bit hotter and could be another factor in the potential "variables".


Originally posted by Valhall
dammit

bsbray

I have no idea. I have never thought about that before. I've never heard any one ask that question before.


Hence why I am grateful and proud to have such members as "scholars", it is these questions and theories presented by members as BSB and others, who make this site and the Research Forum what it is.




Originally posted by Insolubrious
Or did I go wrong somewhere.


GRRR, I just typed out a HUGE reply to this and I forget half of what I typed.....


So to sum it up, let me use myself as an example;
While working security (in a civilian enviornment), I averaged 14 to 16 hour days doing my job. Understanding that you used a rough concept in your draft of a formula, useing TNT (another factor, C4 as mentioned would change your draft), but it is good enough to get the point across to those who have no idea of this sort of stuff.

I would say it is plenty decent enough for TNT, but C4 & thermite and durations of shifts worked would be much different. The minimum time presented would and could be much less, especially with 24 hour work load. given that the workers are used to long hours and have the endurance for such.

Ok, that is basically what I had typed out, but summed up with less detail.

[edit to add almost forgotten reply, to previous question]
[edit ps, I would not intentionally forgot any ATSer, just had to review my post for intended details accidently lost]


[edit on 25-10-2006 by ADVISOR]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
But knowing the truth could affect the thousands of rescue personnel and countless “nobodies”


Ok, let us get one thing straight right now!


Those people, are not and were not "nobodies", they are other peoples "loved ones". Fathers, brother, sons, mothers, daughters and sisters.

A friend of mine lost his dad in those towers that day, and seeing his pain makes my eyes leak like F'n water spouts. So PLEASE, do not ever refer to those irreplaceable people, as "nobodies". This can be considered a verbal warning for EVERY ONE, and I will, issue a warn for further disrespectful reference/s.

I as a member of this site, and as a person, am VERY OFFENDED by such remarks.



Dear Advisor:

Enough is enough. You can close this thread for all I care. You can call me anything you wish — but don’t ever, EVER accuse me of making derogatory remarks toward anyone. I never have and never will.

Obviously you’re having difficulties with the English language. It’s quite clear from the context of my post that when I was referring to “nobodies”, I was talking about “nobodies” in terms of the “establishment”. Yes, all the fathers, brothers, sons, mothers, daughters, sisters you mentioned are “nobodies” to the powers that be. They are “nobodies” because nobody seems to “care” about them. And I like to think of myself as someone who stands up for people who have been trampled on and have no way of doing anything about it since they’re “nobodies”.

So go ahead, shut the thread down. Evidently you’ve got some “issues”. If you want to think of me as an evil person — go ahead. But since I’m not “up to your standards” — I will forever wonder how someone like yourself is able to function in their every day life. I’m sorry to have disappointed you.

All the best and good-bye,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   


Ok, if I may, you were the one who used "derogatory", not I.
Also, you again used the term "disappointed", though I did not. I did use the words typed in my post above.

Just so you know, I have not threatened to shut this down, and have only encouraged it's continued growth. As is most obvious in my posts/replies.

So if you will have it, I offer an appology in my misunderstanding, but that does not change the offence I felt with your words as they were used. If that is how you intended them, then I completely misunderstood, and would not be against you expressing yourself. Let alone close a thread due to such.

As for your other remarks towards me and my ability to function, forgetaboutit, water on a ducks back. You lost me on that one, no hard feelings though on my end.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
No good byes, let's both take a few breaths, I hope you do not leave. In case you do not sign in again though I will post my u2u to you, because if your not signed in you can't read it so here goes;



Send U2U Message to Wizard_In_The_Woods
to:
Wizard_In_The_Woods

subject:
I'm confused....

Message:
Maybe we got started off on the wrong foot, but I have no set standards for people, that is to each their own.

This web community and it's owners do how ever have such, and those are to be held by all members here who wish to participate. As agreed to when creating an account with ATS.

I have no set standards for people, other than what is afore mentioned, and do not, hold others up the mandatory standards I do for myself.

I have no hard feelings towards you, and am VERY impressed with your thread and how it is turning out. If I wasn't my participation would not have occured and would not have felt offended, hope this clarifies some what.

Your contribution to this site is valued, and your time is much appreciated. That goes for all members, every ATSer your self included, I honestly hope you accept my open apology as posted in your thread, and that we can maintain the conversation with less friction.

If you would, go back & reread my other posts, I have nothing but the best intentions to the thread and it's topic. Personally I would like nothing more than the truth to come out on this bs.

Until then though, it is the people like you and the others plus myself, who will not be able to find closure on this, dispite how much we all want it.

Together, all of us the truth can be found, we only need to find it.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by debate
1. Mere fact that the U.S. has developed atomic munitions suitable for use in demolition work. (58-8)



So did the Rooskies



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
@inso, i think you thought i was taking a dig at you and i wasnt really. i wasnt disputing your numbers at all, but you had been talking about weight/time to move them into the building and what i suggested was that you look up the size (physical dimensions) of a 1lb block of tnt to calculate the amount of cubic storage space you'd need for that much ordinance. just thought u might find it interesting is all



Originally posted by Insolubrious
Well I had a quick look and c4 is equivelent to 114% tnt power, so thats not really that much more powerful, but considering it is shape charge it could be used in a more efficient way. The ratio concerning concrete per cubic meter against RE was already worked out, as stated above approx 6,000,000 kg of tnt would be required to pulversize all the concrete to micron scaled particles on the level that it did. I was going off their numbers not my own!




6,00,000 khw = 6,000,000 kg of tnt = Nuclear fission equals 70 kt TNT per kg




something about your 114% number struck me as wrong so i pulled out one of my books to double check that cuz it wasnt what i remembered and i was right. (nothing personal, just in the interest of trying to have accurate data)

the RE factor for TnT is 1.0 the RE factor for C4 is 1.34 so taking the number for tnt and dividing by 1.34 (using the 6 million kg number) we end up with 4,284,571kg of C4 to do the job. still a LOT of HE but almost 1/3 less. not trying to nitpick but wasnt sure if you realized that it was that much less or not.

(refference for this post is FM 5-34 Engineer Field Data. chapter 6 demolitions page 2 and 3 table 6-3 and figure 6-3 this book is authorized for general distribution and ive not revealed any "secrets". that would be my NBC book that i cant quote from)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join