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: 15
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Just to clarify.

Those suits look like Tyvek suits, a very common requirement when working around chemicals.


www.galeton.com...

This suit is ideal for maintenance and clean-up work, painting, sanding, aerosol applications or anywhere that you want to protect yourself from dirt, grease and contaminants.


Pictures of Tyvek suits

If they were really worried about radiation, or chemical warfare, they probably would have worn something more along the lines of a Hazmat suit.


en.wikipedia.org...

Hazmat suits may provide protection from:

Chemical agents - through the use of appropriate barrier materials like heavy PVC or rubber and Tyvek, and clean breathing air

Nuclear agents - by including some radiation shielding in the lining, but more importantly, by preventing direct contact with or inhalation of radioactive particles or gasses


Pictures of Hazmat suits




posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 03:57 AM
link   
from my understanding tyvek is just the material these suits are made from, hazmat is short for hazardous material and hazmat suits are made from tyvek.

They look to be wearing class B tyvek hazmat suits which can offer some protection against radiation and other hazardous materials/chemicals, but obviously not as much as a class A suit. I think people would be asking questions if the class A hazmat suits were brought in. We all know the hazards at ground zero were watered down by the officials.



Tyvek is a brand of spunbonded olefin, a synthetic material made of high-density polyethylene fibers; the name is a registered trademark of the DuPont Company.


If ground zero workers were kitted out with class A hazmat suits perhaps they wouldn't be dying right now. On the cold side, it would of slowed them down considerably and these suits are pretty expensive and most likely limited in availability so they didn't and perhaps couldn't. (These suits can cost anywhere from $4,000 - $10,000 each)

With the amount of asbestos alone they should of had breathing apparatus, which is also part of the air tight class A suit.



Some of the guys at the pentagon had breathing apparatus.

Various hazmat gear:
www.sccfd.org...



Tyvek Coveralls from Dupont also provide a reliable barrier against exposure to harmful dry particles, such as lead dust, asbestos and particles contaminated with radiation.


Two high profile radiation experts concur Pentagon strike involved use of a missile. Also Geiger counter readings right after the attack shows high levels of radiation 12 miles away from Pentagon crash site.




[edit on 28-11-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Going to act like everybody else here....




Two high profile radiation experts concur Pentagon strike involved use of a missile.


Source? And while you are at it, which missile in the US arsenal would cause that damage, leave radioactive traces and NOT vaporize anything? Because a Tomahawk with a W80 warhead is going to be QUITE obvious.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Going to act like everybody else here....




Two high profile radiation experts concur Pentagon strike involved use of a missile.


Source? And while you are at it, which missile in the US arsenal would cause that damage, leave radioactive traces and NOT vaporize anything? Because a Tomahawk with a W80 warhead is going to be QUITE obvious.



I don't know about the missile, only reason i included it was because it was part of the original statement and wouldn't of made sense without it, which stated they found raditation too which is hard to mistake unlike the missile theory.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
from my understanding tyvek is just the material these suits are made from, hazmat is short for hazardous material and hazmat suits are made from tyvek.


While they can be made from Tyvek, there is a difference between something you put on to protect yourself when spraying paint or chemicals, a Tyvek suit, and something to protect from radiation, a Hazmat suit.

You could make a thin shirt out of kevlar, but you shouldn't expect it to stop bullets.

Those suits look like the Tyvek suits commonly available for less than $50. They do not look like they are trying to prevent radiation contamination.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by Insolubrious
from my understanding tyvek is just the material these suits are made from, hazmat is short for hazardous material and hazmat suits are made from tyvek.


While they can be made from Tyvek, there is a difference between something you put on to protect yourself when spraying paint or chemicals, a Tyvek suit, and something to protect from radiation, a Hazmat suit.

You could make a thin shirt out of kevlar, but you shouldn't expect it to stop bullets.

Those suits look like the Tyvek suits commonly available for less than $50. They do not look like they are trying to prevent radiation contamination.


Yes of course, and if the powers that be had their way no one would of known of the radiation risk what so ever. Well at least these suits offered some minimal protection, after all radiation has been detected and documented at both the WTC site and the Pentagon. Its appalling the guys working at ground zero had no protection what so ever, even if it was only $50 per overall.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Minimum Protection From Radiation???? Tyvek is an insulator. PERIOD. If you watch a house being built, it is used as a barrier between the plywood and the siding. These guys are just being protected by whatever chemicals they are using,and from any blood born pathogens from the victims.
GEEEESH



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I don't delve in "conspiracy theories" and I am sick of people who keep doing this.
After mini-pizzas, we now have mini-H-bombs ... give it a freakin' rest guys.
A geizer counter would detect any radiation emitted from a H-bomb of any size.

First there was the ridiculous pod idea then there was the equally ridiculous idea of a No-Boeing in the Pentagon and No-Plane in the Pentagon.

The reason for all those stupid conspiracy theories is obvious to anyone who pays attention.

As soon as I read the the scientist who came up with that stuff wanted to remain anonymous, I already knew the theory would be stupid.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   
well, having been an army NBC specialist (after my 5 years as a combat engineer) and being trained to Level A cert as a Hazmat tech for my stint with a WMD response team i have to say those are just, in essence, raingear used, like another poster said, to protect from bloodborne pathogens and to pretty much keep clean/dry from all the crap at the crashsites.

those suits give NO more radiation protection than say...a tshirt.

alpha/beta particles are very weak and anything long sleeved will protect you from them, a simple filter mask will protect your lungs. against gamma (which is usually highest during the actual blast) theres really nothing you can do to protect yourself save being behind several inches of lead or a few feet of concrete.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Ok point taken, thanks for clearing that one up guys, so to speak. It was just a bit of speculation.

I remember now about the lead shielding required to protect against gamma radiation as Damocles points out. I guess that means class A hazmat suits are pretty useless too? Doesn't the gamma radiation disperse rather quickly after the initial blast, or does it remain present at the site active in materials that absorb it?

Also, check out this paper on elevated tritium levels at the WTC:


repositories.cdlib.org...


34[.3] Ci of tritium were released from the two Boeing 767 on impact with the Twin
Towers at the World Trade Center. The limited measurements and modeling are consistent with
an instantaneous (catastrophic) creation of HTO from the aircraft emergency signs, deposition of
a small fraction of it at ground zero and water-flow controlled removal from the site. The
modeling suggests that the contribution from the aircraft would imply the HTO deposition
fraction of [3]%, a value which is judged somewhat too high. Therefore, the source term from
the airplanes alone is insufficient to explain the measurements and modeling.
Several weapons were present and destroyed at [the]WTC.
The modeling is also
consistent with the second tritium source from the weapon sights (plus possibly tritium watches)
where tritium was slowly released from the debris in the lingering fires, followed by an oxidation
and removal with the water flow. Such a limiting case would require a minimum of 115 weapons
and a quantitative capturing of tritium. Therefore, such a mechanism alone [seems in]sufficient,
which indicates that the weapon/watch source complemented the airplane source.


Am i right in understanding that this research shows tritium produced by the planes and other artifacts (like watches) were not enough to produce these elevated levels of tritium at the WTC site without 'weapons' as quoted?

Also about geiger counters, I read that only a highly expensive and sophisticated type of gieger counter (not just any old geiger counter) would be required to detect traces of the fallout elements left by a hydrogen based bomb. Is this correct?

[edit on 1-12-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
no, a level A suit isnt any good against gamma, and if my memory serves (ive been out of the game a couple years) you are correct that most of the gamma is gone after the blast.

cant comment on the tritium part though, wont pretend to know what i dont.

and for the radiation meters, i can only guess there as well cuz the ones i used were pretty sensitive to Beta and Gamma



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Also, check out this paper on elevated tritium levels at the WTC:


repositories.cdlib.org...


34[.3] Ci of tritium were released from the two Boeing 767 on impact with the Twin
Towers at the World Trade Center. The limited measurements and modeling are consistent with
an instantaneous (catastrophic) creation of HTO from the aircraft emergency signs, deposition of
a small fraction of it at ground zero and water-flow controlled removal from the site. The
modeling suggests that the contribution from the aircraft would imply the HTO deposition
fraction of [3]%, a value which is judged somewhat too high. Therefore, the source term from
the airplanes alone is insufficient to explain the measurements and modeling.
Several weapons were present and destroyed at [the]WTC.
The modeling is also
consistent with the second tritium source from the weapon sights (plus possibly tritium watches)
where tritium was slowly released from the debris in the lingering fires, followed by an oxidation
and removal with the water flow. Such a limiting case would require a minimum of 115 weapons
and a quantitative capturing of tritium. Therefore, such a mechanism alone [seems in]sufficient,
which indicates that the weapon/watch source complemented the airplane source.


Am i right in understanding that this research shows tritium produced by the planes and other artifacts (like watches) were not enough to produce these elevated levels of tritium at the WTC site without 'weapons' as quoted?

Also about geiger counters, I read that only a highly expensive and sophisticated type of gieger counter (not just any old geiger counter) would be required to detect traces of the fallout elements left by a hydrogen based bomb. Is this correct?

[edit on 1-12-2006 by Insolubrious]



The "weapons" the report mentions are firearms which had tritium night sights on.

Tritium is a weak beta emitter and was present in small quantities, therefore it needed a sophisticated detector.

For "normal" fallout from a nuclear explosion the levels are high so relatively unsophisticated equipment can be used. I trained on 1950's kit in the 80's!

When monitoring fallout we were instructed to withdraw the detector down its protective tube to increase the shielding when radiation levels were off the scale. We knew what the PF (protective factor) was at different distances down the tube.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   
off topic but beagle, would that be the detector that uses the radioactive metal rod to calibrate it that spawned the military urban legend about the major that used the rod to stir his coffee? lol i always loved that story.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Hi Damocles, the meter we had was the FSM (fixed survey meter). They were issued already calibrated, we were'nt supposed to mess with them !

I like your story about the major
I can imagine him glowing at night so everyone knows were he is


regards

beagle



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
lol i had a few officers where if i could have figured out HOW to make them glow, i may have. "no sir, we're POSITIVE theres no snipers in the area, yer safe to go to the latrine....by the way sir, is your will in order?"

but back on topic,

ok, so suppose for just an instant that there WAS a mini nuke in the basement (sorry, pure hydrogen device) can someoen yet explain to me how it directed its force STRAIGHT upwards with no cone, THEN caused the building to collapse from the top down? all of this without blowing out all of the windows along each floor as the blast wave went up?

if someone can explain all that satisfactorily, ill give hte theory some credibility. until then, im more willing to believe it was explosives. which by the way i dont buy either.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ok, so suppose for just an instant that there WAS a mini nuke in the basement (sorry, pure hydrogen device) can someoen yet explain to me how it directed its force STRAIGHT upwards with no cone, THEN caused the building to collapse from the top down? all of this without blowing out all of the windows along each floor as the blast wave went up?


No one's saying this is how it would've happened. If such devices were used, they'd have to have VERY small yields. Otherwise, there would be too many complications and it could never work out, like the one you point out, or obvious blast waves from mid-way up the building if they were also planted up higher in the cores.

I don't know if I buy the idea that you can shape a hydrogen bomb. The ideas behind pure fusion aren't that complicated, imo. We can't tell if they would work or not, obviously, but at least there is some credible possibility that they could. Shaping such a device would take a little more tech than shaping RDX, as in completely different principles altogether, because these things will destroy ANYTHING that close to them in no time. I could easily just be in the dark on how that stuff would work, but it seems pretty damned esoteric to me.

As far as any of us know, they would've had to have just used very small yields to avoid having to have shaped blasts. And these wouldn't bring the towers down by themselves. They'd just offer a LOT more yield per size of the actual explosive, than other devices. So they'd be easier to bring in and plant in a shaft somewhere critical in the core, which I suspect is why we're seeing steel debris shooting out trailing comet-tails (behind the perimeter collapse wave, too!), or recovered debris like the so-called "meteorite", of fused concrete and steel.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
No one's saying this is how it would've happened.



actually, thats how wizard has said it would work several times, and im simply too lazy to go quote him. but the terms 'inverted bunker buster' and 'like a flashlight' have been used so im curious. im not trying to be facitious (well maybe a little, even if i cant spell it lol)

i guess, if the buildings obviously fell from the top down, why even bother weakening the basement?



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
check out Judy Wood

janedoe0911.tripod.com...

the bathtub is very interesting



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by debate
check out Judy Wood

janedoe0911.tripod.com...

the bathtub is very interesting


This lady uses photoshop pictures....lies...and does not back up her claims. Her billiard ball theory was debunked.

You want to talk about a government shill? There ya go...she is spreding disinformation



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
You want to talk about a government shill? There ya go...she is spreding disinformation


Agreed. Her and Reynolds both, and Fetzer is showing himself more and more to be an idiot.

Reynolds comes from Texas A&M, where the next Secretary of Defense (Gates) comes from, after serving in the CIA for a number of decades, MK ULTRA and all. Reynolds himself was on Bush's cabinet in 2001. Reynolds, aside from his collaboration with Wood here, also presses the idea that no planes hit the towers as if it is demonstrable fact, and the both of them have attacked Steven Jones with arguments that most inside job skeptics on this forum wouldn't press.

So all in all... I would tend to agree.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join