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: 19
12
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123


Dear jfj123:

First off, my apologies to you for my being so cantankerous toward you on previous threads. I kind of thought you might be one of Chertoff’s goons or something. You probably will always still ‘hate’ me. But I’m not entirely the obnoxious, opinionated jerk I appear to be. You’re questions seem sincere, and so I’ll do my best to address them.

Jfj123:

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.


This is a fundamentally important issue. Indeed, Al Qaeda does not and never did, exist as a terror organization. A French military officer, Henri Bunel was heavily reprimanded for running his mouth about Al Qaeda’s non-existence and former British foreign minister Robin Cook was ‘dropped dead’ for talking too much. I’ve posted evidence and links here on ATS previously, here’s the link. And since there is a danger of you overlooking some important information, let me point out that one of the Al-Qaeda websites was registered by a “Jon David” in Berlin, Maryland, USA. Now what was that all about???!! (Naturally, this website, alneada.com has long since been removed.)

Jfj123:

Not to sound like a broken, broken record, but lets see some evidence, lets see some evidence And "augmented with thermite"? seriously? Why would you need small charges to augment a nuclear explosion?


The twin towers, WTC-1, 2 and WTC-6, and 7 were nuked. They had to have been because no other known explosive would have been up to the job. I. e. would have released the necessary energy to pulverize the structures. 14.4 million kWH alone were needed per tower according to a rough estimate by Jim Hoffman.

Lasers or space-based directed energy weapons (whatever nebulous thing they may be) seem theoretically impractical. These devices are only forms of energy and not sources of energy like hydrogen bombs are. To generate a 14.4 million kWH laser one would need ‘several’ hydrogen bombs of that size, plus some sort of crazy device (God only knows what kind exactly) to convert and transmit the released energy. But I digress into unfamiliar territory. I must admit, I still have no idea what Ms. Judy Woods is talking about.

The thermate cutting charges were necessary to chop up the perimeter column grid. Otherwise that would have been left standing, like a giant piece of chicken-wire fencing with the wind blowing through. The nuclear explosive fields had to be tightly focused (shaped) upward so as to not send feathery pieces of ton-heavy steel beams across Manhatten more than unavoidably necessary.

Jfj123:

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.


There was evidently no desire to demolish the Pentagon, only to speed up a renovation process already underway. Whereas someone obviously had the desire to level the WTC complex. The energy needed to make disappear WTC1 and 2 was — per building — the energy equivalent of 12,350 tons of TNT. That’s 617 eighteen wheeler truckloads full of bomb matter. That’s five and a half semi’s of material needing to be unloaded and placed on each of the 110 floors. There’s nothing easy about that.

WITW: 4. A passenger plane was shot down over Shanksville, PA but not at the “official site”.
Jfj123:

Show evidence to support this statement.


That statement of mine is — embarrassingly — wrong. There was no plane shot down on 9-11. I too was duped on 9-11 by the live reports of fighter jets zipping past the heads of news media personnel. I specifically remember them mentioning that. Well, these days I know better. Those reports were either a (another) ‘coincidence’ or they were purposely planted.

John Lear has helped open my eyes on this subject. There were four phony, non-existent flights on 9-11. Four planes, none of them real or in the air, were reported as being hijacked. Once those claims were made they could not be retracted. Once mentioned, the cabal had to ‘do something’ with all four of those phantom flights. Two went to NYC, one hit the Pentagon and one was ‘gotten rid of’ (reported as crashed) over Shanksville, PA. Again, none of these four Boeings were ever airborne. They existed only as pieces of information broadcast across all MSM outlets. There were blah-blah Boeings!

Hope this helps.
Peace man!
Greetings,
Wizard In The Woods




posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   


It sure doesn't look like a fire related collapse to me.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I find Twitchy's above comparison photos quite suitable to address the subjects of the three months long underground fires and the molten metal remarks from Ground Zero workers and visitors.

Try to step back from all previous posted explanations of those fires.
Just ask yourself a simple question, which can be answered with every day's simple logic :

What do you expect to end up in the sub basements of both WTC towers, after their BULBOUS collapses?
And where do you expect the bulk of the top parts, from above the plane impacts, to end up in the debris field piles?

As a reminder, you can clearly see in Twitchy's photo, that the debris from the top part of that depicted tower in that phase of its collapse did already show NO evidence at all anymore of BURNING debris, it seems to have been effectively extinguished by the mechanism of the collapse itself.
Whatever mechanism that exactly was, we are trying to get a hold on that for 6 years, by now.

A second reminder: note that the first floors of both towers were very spacious lobbies and empty halls and were topped with a reinforced mechanical floor. Above those came the first office floors with their work space cubicles and office furniture.
Which were all not on fire during collapse.

And lo and behold, where did we observe the meanest fires?
At the deepest bottom of the debris piles, we are constantly told.
But was that true?

I saw photos from just after collapse, with just a few minor clouds coming from the top of the debris heaps. Certainly nothing comparable to the "raging" fires from just before collapse, at the top tower parts.

And how many cars filled with gasoline were parked around 9 o'clock a.m. in the WTC underground sub-level parking garages? Does NIST give a number on that?
Was that a normal, to be expected figure, or were there far less cars than usual parked?
How many cars were recovered and payed insurance for, afterwards, so we can get an additional figure on that?

Add.edit: Did any car owners got a chance to get to those cars between plane impacts and collapses, and left the parkings into the streets around, thus effectively minimizing the amount of trapped cars and the amount of burnable gasoline in the basements?

[edit on 5/11/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
well we seem to be avoiding the most important questions....
No radiation
No evidence of EMP

You cannot have a nuclear explosion without these 2 items no matter how much you clean up the reaction. Let me say this again...without these 2 things, no nuclear reaction. Since absolutely ZERO evidence of these things has been found, by default, NO NUKE. There needs to be no further discussion about it. Nobody nuked the WTC towers.

As example, people were making phone calls immediately after the planes hit. If a nuke went off, no phones would be working. This right here completely disproves the nuke idea.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Actually prior to each collapse cell phones and radios went down for a second, and there most certainly was radioactive material in the debris. Don't know how well you followed this in the news, but at first they tried to say it was from the depleted uranium counterbalance in the aircraft, but that trumped their Pro-DU rhetoric at the time and to my knowledge, it has never been explained or addressed.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


Cellphones wouldn't have gone out for a second; they would have never worked again. Also, security cameras would have been destroyed along with all other electronic devices in the immediate area.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Perhaps you can explain why they all went out in the area just prior to each collapse then?



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Perhaps you can explain why they all went out in the area just prior to each collapse then?


If they all went out just prior to the collapse, it would have nothing to do with a nuke as the explosions happened quite a bit earlier then the actual collapse.

But once again, if they went out then started working again, then it was not a nuke. An EMP blast from a nuke, even a small nuke, would permanently disable all electronic devices FOREVER (aka they would never work again).



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
EMP was mostly affecting things very close by, also the nuke generated EMP like any electric pulse would follow the path that could best conduct its flow. Since were talking very low yield nuke here buried in a building (much like an underground nuke) the escaping effects of EMP would be minimal and no blinding flash either. What do we see with the underground nuke tests?



An underground nuke test. No blinding flash, and oh look the camera is still running, why didn't the EMP fry its circuitry like your nuke would? Look at those thick clouds of powdered desert being sprayed into the air, notice the texture, the color the velocity and the ground shaking. Does it remind you of anything ..?





[edit on 5-11-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
EMP was mostly affecting things very close by, also the nuke generated EMP like any electric pulse would follow the path that could best conduct its flow.

Would you include in the same building, as nearby? Because the cell phones in the building were working.

Here is some info about EMP's at various altitudes:

The pulse can easily span continent-sized areas, and this radiation can affect systems on land, sea, and air. The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400–500 km over Kansas would affect all of Continental United States. The signal from such an event extends to the visual horizon as seen from the burst point.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




Source Region Electro-magnetic Pulse [SREMP] is produced by low-altitude nuclear bursts. Strong magnetic fields are produced in the region of ground zero. When the nuclear detonation occurs near to the ground, the SREMP target may not be located in the electromagnetic far field but may instead lie within the electro-magnetic induction region. The radiated EM field falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the deposition region (near to the currents the EMP does not appear to come from a point source).

As a result, the region where the greatest damage can be produced is from about 3 to 8 km from ground zero. In this same region structures housing electrical equipment are also likely to be severely damaged by blast and shock.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Yes I realize this information doesn't include underground testing. I am researching that but have run out of time to post.
source
www.fas.org...


Since were talking very low yield nuke here buried in a building (much like an underground nuke) the escaping effects of EMP would be minimal and no blinding flash either. What do we see with the underground nuke tests?

Please show me how the EMP would be minimal? What do you consider a minimal EMP blast area?


An underground nuke test. No blinding flash, and oh look the camera is still running, why didn't the EMP fry its circuitry like your nuke would?


You can "harden" electronic equipment against EMP blasts

To shield electronics from EMP or EMI, the equipment needs to be encased in a metal housing, often in the form of what is known as a Faraday cage. The openings to that housing would be sealed with electrically conductive gaskets. The housings can range from tiny, such as the metal soldered on printed circuit boards, to housings that are the size of rooms that protect critical electronic equipment inside.

The cables and/or wires entering the housing need to be shielded as well, because without such shielding, a cable or wire acts as an antenna that carries an EMP or other EMI directly into the device. The shielding of such cables typically consists of a wire mesh. conduit—the metal case through which wires and cables can be placed—may work as well, for facility-level shielding.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

source
www.military-information-technology.com...


six

posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Question for discussion. If these "fourth generation" nukes exist, they would have to test them. Is there any siesmic eveidence of any tests? Any other evidence of tests? I remember reading somewhere that not even the most powerful super computer could completely model a nuclear explosion, thats why we had to have the live tests. If we tested them, Russia would have known. They have inspectors, satillites etc. Dont you think that they would have cried foul? There is a test ban in place.

[edit on 6-11-2007 by six]



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by six
 


Maybe we tested them along with India when they tested theirs? Just asking. I've also heard of islands having symptoms of remains of tests. Maybe we tested them on the bottom of the ocean? I'm just throwing out suggestions and am not trying to theorize just yet. I'll let someone with more knowledge answer your questions.


six

posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Wouldnt there be siesmic evidence though? Are our relations with India that good to show them our lastest and greatest? I thought they were kind of sore at us for our relationship with Pakistan. I dont know thats why I am asking. I think it would be kinda hard to hide a nuke test.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I find it difficult to believe they would have developed Special Atomic Demolition Munitions (SADMs) specifically for demolitions without taking the EMP into consideration. It's not something I'm very learned in, but I wouldn't be so quick to discount the possibility of nuclear demolition, rivers and pools of molten steel weeks later cannot, to my knowledge, be explained by conventional explosives or underground fires.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


I was only throwing suggestions out there. What about the moon? We've been there (so they say). Why haven't we been back since the 60's? Maybe that's our new nuke testing grounds? Again, I'm just thinking aloud.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Children, I hate to be the one to have to break it to you, the bad news, but as of today, 06 November 2007, the United States of America has not ratified the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty (CTBT).

This means we get to conduct as many underground nuclear tests as we damned please. “Without the CTBT, the United States, Russia, China, France the United Kingdom, India and Pakistan are not prohibited from conducting further underground test explosions.” We, the USA are in the same category as say, China.

Our propaganda seems to have worked. It’s fooled many into thinking that only the ‘rouge’ states were still blowing up nukes. Of all countries, it seems WE are the one most interested in advancing that type of weapon!

Do I get applause for this?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 11/6/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
[edit on 11/6/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Do I get applause for this?


I'll applaud you but I don't think it will do any good as you can't hear me.


BTW, I know what you mean, I'm just being silly.

Thanks for the info.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I was only throwing suggestions out there. What about the moon? We've been there (so they say). Why haven't we been back since the 60's? Maybe that's our new nuke testing grounds? Again, I'm just thinking aloud.


We have been to the moon and there are plans to go back.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Griff
I was only throwing suggestions out there. What about the moon? We've been there (so they say). Why haven't we been back since the 60's? Maybe that's our new nuke testing grounds? Again, I'm just thinking aloud.


We have been to the moon and there are plans to go back.


Chances are China may get there next. They just successfully put a satellite in orbit around the moon....for a 1 year mission to analyze the surface/mineral content. Their space program has been booming lately...will be interesting to see how things develop over the next few years.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join