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: 18
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
If you want to play pretend nuclear physicist... here is some info on HTO from Harvard. The article is not specifically about HTO, but is entitled:

"Activation and damage of fusion materials and tritium effects in inertial fusion"


...The role of tritium, when elemental tritium (HT) and titrated water (HTO) derive in organically bound tritium (OBT) will be explained...


adsabs.harvard.edu...

Enjoy.




posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Want to keep playing nuclear physicist???


3.53, 3.83, 0.164 TU at GZ -- all tritium amounts are well within expectations for prosaic background levels of tritium (less than 10 TU).

WTC 6 = 1 acre (approx)

WTC site = 16 acres. Rain = 4 million liters. 4/16 = 1/4 of a million liters deposits in WTC 6 in its 40 ft (depth) by 120 ft (diam) crater.

WTC 6 was hot - see thermal images.

Firemen = 12 million liters. Firemen would mostly be spraying the hot areas.

There are about 5 acres that gradually increase to maybe a total of 6 to 7 acres, but lets be generous and say they sprayed 8 acres (this will lower the total amount of Tritium Units estimate).

8/16 = 1/2 of 12 million liters = 6 million liters spread over 8 acres = 3/4 of a million liters per acre

Rain plus Firemen = 1 million liters in WTC 6 in the 40 ft (depth) by 120 ft (diam) crater.

1 liter of the pooled water = 1,106 TUs X 1 million liters of water = 1.1066 BILLION TUs JUST IN WTC 6 (no other places were checked.

This completely ignores 104 Million Liters (30 Million Gallons) pumped out of the bathtub and the drain water of 51 TUs. 120 million liters X 51 = 6.120 BILLION TUs.

This completely ignores the amount of Tritium in gas form that escapes into the atmosphere and gets massive dispersal

TRITIUM = NUKES AT 911 WTC PROOF!!



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read both pages first, follow it to my external link, think about it for a week, try to counter all my proof if you don't agree with it.

Then try to confront me on the issue if you dare!

If you come to the same conclusion as mirageofdeceit did, so you agree with my conclusions, you can also state that in a post here, or there.

I'm waiting.
For years already.
No one could proof me wrong.

[edit on 28/4/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 



With this in mind it is only logical to deduce the following:

1. “Al Quada” never existed. It is strictly an invention of our U.S. government.

So the world wide terror organization with thousands of members in many countries around the world where many governments acknowledge the existence of Al Quada, doesn't exist. uh huh. Lets see some evidence.


2. WTC1, WTC2, probably WT6, and WTC7 were brought down by hydrogen bombs (augmented with thermate cutting charges)

Not to sound like a broken, broken record, but lets see some evidence, lets see some evidence

Lets see:
water and ground contamination reports.
Radiation levels at and near ground zero.
EMP evidence
Radiation sickness in all area's where dust fell and probably within 20 miles.
Mass animal die offs such as fish depopulation.

And "augmented with thermite"? seriously? Why would you need small charges to augment a nuclear explosion?



3. The damage at the Pentagon was done strictly with (conventional) bombs.

Why would you use conventional explosives on one building but nuclear on another? And if you can so easily damaged a concrete re-enforced building such as the pentagon, using conventional explosives, taking down the WTC towers should have been very easily with conventional explosives thus eliminating the need for an EASILY DETECTABLE nuke.


4. A passenger plane was shot down over Shanksville, PA but not at the “official site”.

Show evidence to support this statement.
How were debris and bodies transported to the "official site" without being seen?
How was the unofficial site completely cleaned of debris and bodies without being detected?
Where is the unofficial site ?

I would greatly appreciate a response. Thanks



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   
wow, did you even read past the first page of this thread? I believe all the issues you raised have been addressed already. Or do we also need to sound like a broken record on repeat?

Thanks,

Inso



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 



Further facts indicative of the use of nuclear weapons on 9-11:

1. It took 100 days to extinguish the fires at the WTC sites. There was — literally — a lake of molten steel at the bottom of the foundation pit beneath the bedrock.

I don't know whether this is really true or not but if it is, this in no way indicates the use of a nuke. Fires can smolder under ground for a very long time, even years, keeping the area very hot.



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



How many underground fires have a constant water supply poured on them? As far as I know, they let them burn out, not try and fight the fire. At WTC, they were constantly pouring water on it. I've never heard of them pouring water into these coal mine fires, just letting them smolder out on their own. Hence the years of being on fire. If they were to fight those fires, they could (theorectically) put them out in days.

Just my opinion.



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 08:44 AM
link   
thermal imaging taken by satellite confirmed several hot spots in the rubble in excess of 2000 degrees. That was picked up a few days after, they gradually cooled over the weeks and they never increased in temperature. Considering they flooded ground zero with water and were constantly hosing it down those 2000 degree fires were pretty persistent, wouldn't you say?

Considering there were only fires on 10% of the floors at the top any fires should of been smothered by debris in the collapse or after makes it even more suspicious don't you think? What fuel was there? Powdered concrete and steel doesn't burn very well from my experience.



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by jfj123
 



How many underground fires have a constant water supply poured on them? As far as I know, they let them burn out, not try and fight the fire. At WTC, they were constantly pouring water on it. I've never heard of them pouring water into these coal mine fires, just letting them smolder out on their own. Hence the years of being on fire. If they were to fight those fires, they could (theorectically) put them out in days.

Just my opinion.


No, actually they couldn't put them out in days. Keep in mind, that they needed to get the WTC underground fires out ASAP because of all the underground connecting tunnels and populated area.

Here's an example of what I am talking about:

The ruins of Centralia Pennsylvania no longer exists on some maps. The story began sometime in 1962 along the outskirts of town when trash was burned in the pit of an abandoned strip mine, which connected to a coal vein running near the surface. The burning trash caught the exposed vein of coal on fire. The fire was thought to be extinguished but it apparently wasn't when it erupted in the pit a few days later. Again the fire was doused with water for hours and thought to be out. But it wasn't. The coal then began to burn underground. That was in 1962. For the next two decades, workers battled the fire, flushing the mines with water and fly ash, excavated the burning material and dug trenches, backfilled, drilling again and again in an attempt to find the boundaries of the fire and plan to put the fire out or at least contain it. All efforts failed to do either as government officials delayed to take any real action to save the village. By the early 1980s the fire had affected approximately 200 acres and homes had to be abandoned as carbon monoxide levels reached life threatening levels. An engineering study concluded in 1983 that the fire could burn for another century or even more and "could conceivably spread over an area of approximately 3,700 acres."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


source
www.offroaders.com...



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Hence why I said "as far as I know" and "my opinion". Now, I know different. Thanks.



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by jfj123
 


Hence why I said "as far as I know" and "my opinion". Now, I know different. Thanks.



That's why I posted it. Nothing personal but I just wanted you to have the info. You're welcome. No problem. Thanks for taking the time to read it



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



I didn't take anything personal out of what you posted. You posted something that showed my knowledge was incorrect. I respect that as I'd rather be correct in my reasoning of things than to spread misinformed views.



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   
yes excellent point, If the WTC and the basements were made of coal then I am sure there would of been plenty of fuel for that fire to last months. Thanks for clearing that one up.



Did any of the firefighters at the ruins of Centralia Pennsylvania report back molten steel running down the channel lines, like a foundry?

[edit on 4-11-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
yes excellent point, If the WTC and the basements were made of coal then I am sure there would of been plenty of fuel for that fire to last months. Thanks for clearing that one up.


I'm sorry you didn't understand what I was saying. Let me try to explain again since you obviously did not read the post correctly.

I just gave the mine as an EXAMPLE showing that yes indeed, things can burn underground a lot longer then you might expect. I realize there was no coal in the basement of the building but I'm sure there was plenty of flammable items down there to burn a long time. A single story house can smolder for days so why is it so difficult to believe a structure incredibly larger then a single story house, could smolder for weeks.

Once again thanks for not reading the post thoroughly enough



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
i already knew things could burn underground, thanks. My point was those sorts of underground fires takes a while to get going, like the types you get a waste facilities from organic matter and such breaking down and other effects that take time to occur. The pile was hot and cooling from day one.


[edit on 4-11-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
p.s you should still try reading the thread, hate to sound like a record player and all but i had this same discussion last year with CameronFox.



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


So you are saying that all fires cool regardless of having fuel and being insulated (which would effect the transfer) ?



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


So you are saying that all fires cool regardless of having fuel and being insulated (which would effect the transfer) ?


No I am not saying that at all, I am saying coal is a great fuel for combustion, the WTC wasn't! So to compare the two isn't really fair.

[edit on 4-11-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
so how many buildings have collapsed and we had fires for 3 months as a result? That doesn't include factories or mines filled with chemicals or fossil fuels, thats cheating!


[edit on 4-11-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


The WTC wasn't good fuel? Based on what? Hell it was a fire buffet. 110 stories of office material and many many other combustibles.

I think the problem is that you may think that the only thing that can burn are materials that are traditionally used for fuel. That would be incorrect.

[edit on 4-11-2007 by snoopy]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join