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: 13
12
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
@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


No didn't take it as a dig, was quite surprised actually and I would like some feedback, personally i thought you would of thrown the amount required back at me.

Made mistake on RE I make it at 118% but thats a questionable source, not far out though.

With you now about working out the size, sounds like it would probably be bigger than the towers themselves hehe, not sure about the physical dimensions of a 1lb block on tnt, could you enlighten me a bit?




posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   
heh a .4kg(1lb) block of Tnt (military issue) is 4.5cmx4.5cmx17.8cm or 1 3/4 square by 7 inches long

as to throwing the numbers at ya....heh, outside my area of expertise. in a million years id never have had to know how much tnt it would take to pulverize concrete to 30microns. my job was just to make whatever the concrete was in go away and as un-subtle (and some subtle) ways as possible.

with RE factors always just remember to divide the RE factor for what you are using by the ammount of TnT you calculate for. in other words, use your calculations for how much tnt you need, then take that number divided by the RE factor for what explosive you choose for the job and thats your yeild. (figure 100lbs of TnT, but you want to use C4 so divide 100/1.34 and thats your C4 requirement.)


personally, if i had been tasked with augmenting the aircraft impact of the towers with a way to blow them up and make it look like part of the accident...id have aerosolized some more jet fuel into the HVAC system and turned the whole building into a fuel air bomb. then got NIST to say that the fuel that wasnt burned off leaked into the vents and offgassed and blown. may not have brought them down, but it would have been a spectacle

but thats just me.

i still dont think there were any explosives in the towers, conventional or otherwise. but if people want to talk about explosives, and if i have data that helps so that they are at least talking with the right info, then ill offer it.

[edit on 26-10-2006 by Damocles]



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
personally, if i had been tasked with augmenting the aircraft impact of the towers with a way to blow them up and make it look like part of the accident...id have aerosolized some more jet fuel into the HVAC system and turned the whole building into a fuel air bomb.


This isn't far off from one of the ideas entertained by Jim Hoffman on his site:


One can imagine a scenario in which a thermobaric devices were installed at each floor in the service core of each Tower. Each device would listen for a radio signal with a particular signature which would trigger a primary charge, dispersing the aerosol throughout its floor. Then, about five seconds later, a secondary charge would be triggered causing an explosion with overpressures sufficient to shatter the perimeter walls.

One advantage this theory has over most other explosives theories is that it avoids the need to install explosives near the Towers' perimeter columns. The thermobaric devices could have been installed entirely in discreetly accessed portions of the Towers' cores. The number of devices could also be much smaller -- perhaps just one per floor. The devices could have been encased in impact- and heat-resistant containers similar to those used to protect aircraft voice and data recorders, so as to prevent accidental detonation from the aircraft impacts and fires.


911research.wtc7.net...

I just thought that was interesting.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   
rofl and oddly ive never read that site. ive said many many times ive come up with LOTS of methods of doing it just to see if i think any of them are plausable. ive yet to find one i think is would give a result like the one that was witnessed. part of the reason i dont think it was rigged.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   
View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed


'In mid-February in Madrid, the Windsor Tower (see above) burned for over 20 hours, which led to a fire stronger and hotter than that in the WTC, but even the collapses of the Windsor Tower caused by the very strong and long-enduring fire were minimal and limited to the upper floors. If either of the WTC tower had started to collapse because of fires the collapse would have been limited to only a few of the floors and then stopped.'

'... the cores of the towers were not distracted by thousands of powerful cutting charges but by a modern thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb ...'


www.serendipity.li...



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
heh a .4kg(1lb) block of Tnt (military issue) is 4.5cmx4.5cmx17.8cm or 1 3/4 square by 7 inches long

as to throwing the numbers at ya....heh, outside my area of expertise. in a million years id never have had to know how much tnt it would take to pulverize concrete to 30microns. my job was just to make whatever the concrete was in go away and as un-subtle (and some subtle) ways as possible.

with RE factors always just remember to divide the RE factor for what you are using by the ammount of TnT you calculate for. in other words, use your calculations for how much tnt you need, then take that number divided by the RE factor for what explosive you choose for the job and thats your yeild. (figure 100lbs of TnT, but you want to use C4 so divide 100/1.34 and thats your C4 requirement.

personally, if i had been tasked with augmenting the aircraft impact of the towers with a way to blow them up and make it look like part of the accident...id have aerosolized some more jet fuel into the HVAC system and turned the whole building into a fuel air bomb. then got NIST to say that the fuel that wasnt burned off leaked into the vents and offgassed and blown. may not have brought them down, but it would have been a spectacle

but thats just me.

i still dont think there were any explosives in the towers, conventional or otherwise. but if people want to talk about explosives, and if i have data that helps so that they are at least talking with the right info, then ill offer it.

[edit on 26-10-2006 by Damocles]


Thanks Damocles, they are a little larger than I imagined, that would be one rather huge pile of explosives!! :|

I find it interesting you believe there were no explosives used to collapse the towers, what other factors are there that make you so sure about this?

Check out this short video also:
video.google.com...

Notice they compare a real pancaked building against the WTC, huge pillars of concrete remain intact, and the cars that are crushed appear to have no heat damage either.



[edit on 26-10-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I think Damocles' stance is more that he doesn't see anything that looks like any explosives he's ever worked with, rather than he has any other explanations for what happened to those buildings. At least this is what he's said when things like lack of negative acceleration, loss of angular momentum, 22-ton ejections of 600 feet laterally without torsion, etc.

I've been coming more at it from the opposite approach. Sublimating debris and molten iron were the first things I saw that implicated any type of explosive device specifically. Before that, and primarily, I'm looking at demolition simply because the other explanation accounts for hardly anything at all, and even then, not accurately, when it comes to those three collapses, not to mention that these same problems are coincidentally left out of all government reports.

[edit on 26-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

I find it interesting you believe there were no explosives used to collapse the towers, what other factors are there that make you so sure about this?



honestly, all i really have to go on is personal experience. ive set off pretty big demo charges before when i was a combat engineer. i just dont SEE evidence of demo charges going off. also, its a matter of volume of demo needed or the work involved in rigging with linear cutting charges. i know how demo charges are primed/initiated and ill admit its possible, i just dont see it. ive come up with several scenarios how i would do it and what i would use and i just dont see it happening. none of my own scenarios would pull off that job with the finese that the buildings came down with. i feel ive earned the title "expert" when it comes to military grade explosives and operations involving them, but that doesnt make me a controlled demo expert. my own views are strictly that of knowing the properties of Demo charges. yeah, i could bring down a building in a controlled fashion, but thats not my strong point. want it to just go away dont care how? yeah, that i can do, into its own footprint? eh, maybe i get it perfect maybe it drops into the building next to it. its just too many little things about the towers that dont add up to a CD for me. ive said numerous times though that im willing to admit i could be wrong. ill say without a doubt that there are people that know demo better than i do, even being an "expert" doenst make me god. so if someone who knows something i dont would fill me in ill listen with an open mind.

but as bsb said, ive never claimed to know what DID bring them down, or wtf caused so many of the anomolies, of which ill admit there were a multitude, but i just dotn think it was a bomb, many bombs, thermite, or, even a hydrogen weapon.

several of the factors i had for a long time thought were important have recently been shown to be innaccurate. i had someone explain WHY they were inaccurate to me and im willing to accept that.

oh but bsb, as to the loss of momentum, dont forget the zip feeds tower in sioux falls SD that started to fall then stopped when the lower supports got stuck. it CAN happen.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
oh but bsb, as to the loss of momentum, dont forget the zip feeds tower in sioux falls SD that started to fall then stopped when the lower supports got stuck. it CAN happen.


Yeah, its momentum ceased, but so did the entire collapse. Wasn't like it started tilting outwards, but then stopped, all while still falling straight down.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
this is true...


but, you also know that sometimes i like to yank your chain and get you to, even for a second, consider just one more angle. if you DO consider it and then dismiss it anyway...no problem at least you considered it.

im like paul harvey man, i just want "the rest of the story"



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Check out this short video also:
video.google.com...

Notice they compare a real pancaked building against the WTC, huge pillars of concrete remain intact, and the cars that are crushed appear to have no heat damage either.



That clip does it for most people I've shown it too.
Nothing works better than visual comparison to break through the brainwash


[edit: shortened quote to relevant content]

[edit on 11/2/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
I don't buy this part of the theory. And people should stop pushing it, it's too far fetched.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
I don't buy this part of the theory.


Alright.


And people should stop pushing it, it's too far fetched.


I can agree with this. It's not needed in the least to establish a case against domestic or Western groups. Doesn't mean it can't still be discussed on a conspiracy theory discussion board, though.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Is this a type of military thermite you've worked with?


Alright, my last most post, says I would not reply to this thread again, how ever, just could not help it. It has been bugging me since I jumped in and was asked, so after reading through STP 21-24-SMCT [DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION:Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited]. Found what I was hopeing to remeber but could not, for the life of me.

About military thermite, typed as printed in manual;


(b) The basic ingredient of metallic incen-
dairy fillings is a mixture of powdered aluminum and
powdered iron oxide called thermite (TH1). When ig-
nited, TH1 burns at a temperature of about 4,000F.

Soldier Training Publication
No 21-24-Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks (SMCT)
Pg 4-54


Hope that answers some questions, and gives a very good idea of what we are working with in the explanations I gave above, in my posts previous.
That will be all, please carry on as you were.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Here is a radio interview i found on another forum related to the topic:

Monday Oct 23 2006 - NutriMedical Report by Dr Bill Deagle MD

"Irrefutable Proof that Micronukes and Thermate were Used to Bring Down World Trade Center Buildings 1,2,6, and 7"

Stream:
mp3.rbnlive.com...
mp3.rbnlive.com...

Download:
mp3.rbnlive.com...
mp3.rbnlive.com...

Thought some folks following this thread might was to check this out.

[edit on 6-11-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 06:24 AM
link   
wow wow wow oh MY GOD. i find all of your comments insulting to the people who died in these towers. think of the absurdity of what your saying. yes i have read all 4 pages of posts and they are all twat. crap. made up and supported with bits of pieces o 'scientific evidence'. my favourite is the ' oh the hyrdogen bomb is just heavy water titium and deutrium it doesnt have any uranium or plutonium in it blah blah. come folks get real. there are basic rules governing physics and chemistry that you cant magically change. im quite sure nukes have gotten quite small yes (they could make a davy crocket bomb in the 60 that could be launched by a couple of men in a field from a smal artillery gun, with a yield as low as half a kiloton). however even this had uranium or plutonium in it. half of your figures are conflicting anyway. someone listed some figures for the psi effects of a 1kt nuke. god, accurate figues. well if this was at the bottom of the tower what make any of you think that there would be something inside the tower strong enough to hold the blast inside the tower until it reached the top, but then weak enough to collapse under the force of the tower falling. there is no man made structure on earth that can withstand a direct nuclear bomb blast as such extreme close range. and yes, bombs were used to bring down the bloody towers, they are called two extremely large passenger jet ravelling at 900 km per hour. i call that a bomb. open up a darstedly physics text book and read it. ben (bsc in applied chemistry, sydney, aust)



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by bencalleja
wow wow wow oh MY GOD. i find all of your comments insulting to the people who died in these towers.


While I find the idea of a hydrogen bomb being used on the towers a bit silly, I have to state that the above quoted statement steps over the line from silly to outright stupid.

Think about what you just said. You came on a thread created by a person who has a concern that something more than what he was told officially played into the deaths of almost 3000 people. Whether you agree with the theory that he has proposed, his intent is obvious - he's seeking to find out if there is more that played into killing these people.

Which would be more disrespectful to the deaths of the people? Not questioning a discrepancy of the official story or just saying "Oh well, it doesn't really make sense, but big deal they're dead now."

And further to that - exactly what is it about a group of people discussing a proposed theory that makes you so damned enraged? You just disrespected living souls all in the name of some dead people...w00t, you took the higher moral ground, now didn't you?



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bencalleja
wow wow wow oh MY GOD. and yes, bombs were used to bring down the bloody towers, they are called two extremely large passenger jet ravelling at 900 km per hour. i call that a bomb. open up a darstedly physics text book and read it. ben (bsc in applied chemistry, sydney, aust)


Dear bencalleja:

Tsk, tsk, so young and so angry. But first off I want to thank Valhall for “covering my back”. And say hi to the Valkyries for me. I might be needing one pretty soon if I keep posting on ATS, the “daggers” just seem to keep coming and coming…

Why is it throughout the ages people always appear to have so much difficulty in accepting changes in scientific knowledge? It plainly baffles me. But I guess that’s the way things are and will always be.

So let’s address this once more, round and round in a circle we go. Even though I do suspect that “bencalleja” might be an “operative”, yep, a “real one”. Not a fake like Mr. “I Was Paid To Post Conspiracy Theories” a.k.a. “zoldmyzoul”. No, bencalleja might be the real deal, trying to provoke us into revealing how much we know or don’t know. So I’ll allow him/her to think we’re “nibbling” a little a the “bait”.

Bencalleja, since you diligently read all the posts on this thread and the important links you are already aware that military researchers are constantly looking for better ways to project energy forward in a concentrated focus on the target. This is particularly useful in bunker-buster munitions’ applications. The only way — theoretically and practically — to “take out” a deeply underground located hardened target is to use a weapon which throws all of its energy forward. Not sideways, not backwards, not up or down but FORWARD. Because A) enormous amounts of energy are required in a dense environment such as rock and dirt — and because B) what happens underground is hidden and buried and therefore viewed as environmentally inherently “safe”, nuclear bombs are considered the ideal solution for earth-penetrating-devices.

Just like we are able to focus unruly photons in a laser beam of light, we can direct where we want Neutrons to fly. And don’t even try to suggest that this is ridiculous. Unless you want to find yourself with egg all over your face like those who said “lasers aren’t possible”. Grab a flashlight, hold it upside down and you’ll see the arch of destruction of the directional hydrogen bombs used at the WTCs.

But I can do you one better — there were no passenger jets smashing into the WTCs (at least not real ones in real life). And if there had been they would have bounced off just like a car bounces off a telephone pole. Now don’t make things unnecessarily complicated by complaining that the car hits the telephone near the base where there is little leverage. A typical “Ford Explorer” behemoth is 15 times longer than the diameter of a twelve inch utility pole.

Incidentally, Controlled Demolition Inc., the pioneer of explosive-based building removal, shows numerous buildings on their website being “pulled” (a term they coined). If you look at the dust clouds in these pictures you can see how different they look from the pyroclastic dense “hot” clouds at the WTC. Executives at CDI had actually frantically tried to call officials in NYC on 9-11 to warn them to get the firefighters out of the buildings, since they felt certain that they would collapse from the plane impacts and the fires. But they couldn’t “get through”, the lines were busy.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 11/10/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Here is a radio interview i found on another forum related to the topic:

Monday Oct 23 2006 - NutriMedical Report by Dr Bill Deagle MD

"Irrefutable Proof that Micronukes and Thermate were Used to Bring Down World Trade Center Buildings 1,2,6, and 7"

Stream:
mp3.rbnlive.com...
mp3.rbnlive.com...

Download:
mp3.rbnlive.com...
mp3.rbnlive.com...

Thought some folks following this thread might was to check this out.

[edit on 6-11-2006 by Insolubrious]


Sorry my last post was rather rushed and the links incorrect so thought I would repost as I think its worth a listen if you are interested in the thread. Its an interview with Ed Ward by William Deagle. I would expect some of you to have read Ed Wards article of nuclear bombs at the WTC (www.thepriceofliberty.org...)

Monday Oct 23 2006 - NutriMedical Report by Dr Bill Deagle MD

"Irrefutable Proof that Micronukes and Thermate were Used to Bring Down World Trade Center Buildings 1,2,6, and 7"

mp3.rbnlive.com...
mp3.rbnlive.com...


The ads are a bit off putting they last about 3 mins each so thats how much to fast forward by approx(!) William Deagle says in the first part of the interview that 'his insiders told him Mossad were involved' (part 1, 50:10) also the use of 'red mercury' (part 1, 2:30) which I think SteveR pointed out earlier in this thread. They also go on to back up most of the main points in this thread.





[edit on 10-11-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Dear Everybody:

Here is a schematic of a “non-existent” miniature pure hydrogen bomb with an antimatter trigger.


And here is also an illustration of a “non-existent” antimatter “storage container system”, a Penning trap, ready for pickup by commercial shipper.


For further reading, this is the link to the article on Antimatter Weapons (also “non-existent of course”).
cui.unige.ch...

By the way thank you Insolubrious for the link to the highly informative interview with Bill Deagle.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods




top topics



 
12
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join