Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis, page 2

Originally posted by Insolubrious
EMP would of been extremely minimal if these devices were detonated deep underground, they need to be detonated in the atmosphere to create wide spread damage.

Not unlikely, because EMPs can be neutralized with enough insulation. Anything that conducts electrical current (steel, aluminum, concrete, even the Earth itself; potentially anything with enough voltage, which is also surged in an EMP) can provide insulation from these things, just like a Faraday cage would, and weaken them. With low yields, the EMP pulse is also weaker to begin with.

Keep in mind that there were signal losses and etc. attributed to the collapse of WTC1's antenna, just as there was radiation that was attributed to various things that passenger planes apparently carry.

video.google.com...

Thanks for this link.

Off the top of my head, that video is at least wrong on point 20, because I've seen plenty of GZ photos showing fairly deep pools of water covering what looked like a pretty significant area. That's not to say the water in the tanks didn't evaporate, or whatever, but technically there was abundant water at Ground Zero, so the support for that point in particular isn't all there.


[edit on 3-10-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Astygia
Even if a low-yield nuke were buried in the sub-basements, and the EMP range were cut in half, or a third, or even a fourth, we're still talking about hundreds to thousands of feet

Depending on the depth there could of been no EMP what so ever, still there were reports of power outages, perhap this is because EMP interfered with sub terrainial electronics only (major power cables etc).

home.debitel.net...

EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC.

www.saunalahti.fi...

Again, the only way the nuke theory stands is by assuming we have an extremely clean, small, non-EMP producing nuclear device, and at this point it would be so dummed down I don't see why they'd bother with it over more conventional demolitions. Which is why I don't see the point in pushing the issue.

One point is conventional demolitions seems unrealistic due to the amount of prep. work and quantity involved. Several payloads of demo charges on every other floor would of been required to create that micron scaled devistation that we saw, and that would not of gone un-noticed by the staff.

Also a building needs to be significantly weakened before demolition takes place, which would of made WTC extremely unsafe, especially with tens of thousands of people going in and out of the building all day. People just would of noticed. The mini nuke theory however is far more convenient since only a small device (or perhaps a just a few) is required to do the bulk of it and is setup rather quickly and easily by just a few individuals in a matter of hours, not months.

Have a look at this page, there is 24 points that correlate with:
www.saunalahti.fi...

Dear DJMessiah:

Thanks for pointing out that Al Qaida does exist. It seems this link — www.thetruthseeker.co.uk... — offers the best explanation.

“Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.” This neatly explains why nearly all the so-called “highjackers” were Saudi!

“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism.”

DJMessiah, let me know if you think this description doesn’t square with your insights.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.

Source

Dr. Steven E. Jones, his own views.
28 Sept 2006

Greek method: start with one or several observations, then apply LOGIC to seek an explanation.

Modern Scientific Method: start with a few observations, and generate an hypothesis to be tested. Then perform further EXPERIMENTS to test the hypothesis. Keep challenging the hypothesis with more experiments – and modify the hypothesis as more empirical data are acquired. Finally, based on solid evidences and analyses, arrive at a conclusion à publish results in a peer-reviewed journal or book.

• Hypothesis was raised that a small nuclear bomb was placed in each Tower –> we collect experimental evidences to find out whether the hypothesis is valid or not. (Scientific method)
• Empirical Facts: All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided, and much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades.
• I have studied fusion for decades, and have made frequent measurements of neutrons (as well as charged particles).
• Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples and a solidified metal sample for radioactivity using a Geiger counter: I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY. This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since neutron activation levels were zero.
• I also tested some sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison – and the Geiger counter showed hundreds of counts per minute. This also shows the long life of the radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs – the sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast.
• Note that concrete pulverization is often achieved in controlled demolitions with chemical explosives, e.g., the Seattle Kingdome demolition.
• Mini-nukes are not needed for pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers.
• See Seattle Kingdom Demolition

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Everybody:

The key links to the hydrogen bomb theory are:

1. www.saunalahti.fi...
2. www.saunalahti.fi...
3. arxiv.org...

Dear whomever:

The "key" to debunking this alleged "hydrogen bomb theory" are:
1. Geiger-Muller counter
2. Vibration & Seismic Detectors
3. The fact that there was no trace of residual radiation found anywhere within or around the detonation site(s).

Therefore, the alleged "theory" does not even fit the word's very definition, thus amounts to being an illogical model of unverified 'factoids' or collection of garbage.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Everybody:

The key links to the hydrogen bomb theory are:

1. www.saunalahti.fi...
2. www.saunalahti.fi...
3. arxiv.org...

Dear whomever:

The "key" to debunking this alleged "hydrogen bomb theory" are:
1. Geiger-Muller counter
2. Vibration & Seismic Detectors
3. The fact that there was no trace of residual radiation found anywhere within or around the detonation site(s).

Therefore, the alleged "theory" does not even fit the word's very definition, thus amounts to being an illogical model of unverified 'factoids' or collection of garbage.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Seekerof]

Thats 3 questionable points vs some 20 strong observations.

www.saunalahti.fi...

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Insolubrious]

Thats 3 questionable points vs some 20 strong observations.

www.saunalahti.fi...

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Insolubrious]

Well, let's question/explain the strength of those observations then:

1. addresses 99% of concrete in WTC turned to dust due to million degree heat of device. If it were the case that the heat from the device still had the effect to heat concrete at upper levels of the building, don't you think it would have been visually obvious, i.e. some sort of flash? That kind of heat sort of makes things glow a nice cherry red in the least.

3. quick math tells me it requires roughly 3.6 kg of TNT to throw 22 tons of anything at around 80 fps, which is how fast it would have to go to reach 200m in about 7.5 sec. Does it really require a nuke to transmit that kind of force?

4. see 3 above and multiply by about 10 or so.

5. frankly it doesn't shock me to have glowing steel, even molten pools of the stuff considering the massive amount of potential energy contained in any of the WTC buildings, to be released by just little old gravity.

8. see 5 above, same response. A 50 ton press is a pretty small thing to keep track of when roughly 900 feet of steel building falls down on top of you.

9. why does it require a nuke to vaproize human tissue considering 5 and 8 above?

11. so all footage taken by all sources was retouched to mask the 'true' color? Are you seriously reading these 'observations'? Is all brown smoke/gas caused by a nuclear explosion?

12. Please explain why the tritiium in the exit signs would be insufficient to give the measured readings. Personal experience; the amount of radium in one old-fashioned watch is enough (when spread out) to make contamination detectors go nuts in the area of nuclear submarine. Spreading out the contamination from a bunch of exit signs on the planes would not shock me to be detectable. How elevated is 'elevated'? (And to imply US/Israeli involvement bcz of it being a fusion weapon is just a tad feeding to the anti-semitic side of the CT realm, no?)

14. Is he actually trying to imply that bringing down not one but two 900 ft buildings wouldn't kick up a huge cloud of dut UNLESS brought down by a nuke??

17. This gentleman does realize that if someone is going to accrue enough bodily damage to die by inhaling radioactive contamination, it would be easily detectable. In fact this statement (along with others) implies a general lack of knowledge by this individual as to how radiation and contamination are different things entirely.

19. 'Water spraying contains fusion radioactiviy'... See end statement of 17 above. The only thing water can do is wash the stuff to some other location, possibly diluting it in the interim. However, unless the stuff gets washed in the river, it will still sit there on the ground/in the sewer/all over the place and be easily detectable using rudimentary rad detectors.

20. I doubt even the veracity of this statement. 'No bodies or ... etc found in the rubble'? First I ever heard that one. Proof?

21. see #1 above. Causing 200K gallons of water to flash to steam at the top of the building would have required a visible amount of heat to an outside observer.

22. See #21 above, as well as various other above. To cause this kind of devastation with neutrons would have large scale activation of any metal in the area. That didn't happen. Also, last I checked things don't explode when in a neutron flux; they get activated, baby!

23. 'Wide-scale'? You mean in the immediate area where two 900 ft buildings collapsed? That wouldn't have caused some damage to the surrounding infrastucture, would it?

24. First I ever heard of it. Must be in with #11 with those media sources being part of the conspiracy.

Anyways, apologize that I didn't hit every one. Considering the above I hardly think I have to.

I never jump in on these, but on this I had to; ty!!!

9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 16 days ago with 14 member flags

Newest 9/11 Documentary - Proof 9/11 was an inside Job
  Posted 0 days ago with 14 member flags

9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 9 days ago with 13 member flags

An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T\'s List of Demolition Signs
  Posted 18 days ago with 12 member flags

Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 16 days ago with 6 member flags

new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags

Final Decision: Court sanctions lawyers behind September 11 conspiracy case
  Posted 11 days ago with 6 member flags

Remains of 9/11 victim identified
  Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: