Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
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, which again would have knocked out several of those cameras that brought us the footage we spend so much time debating. And again, the firemen's radios and vehicles were still working, two other major devices we'd have heard about. Watches and pacemakers would have stopped working. Cellphones would not have just lost service, they would have died.

This sort of thing would have been reported en masse, given the sheer amount of people in the vicinity.

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.




posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

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]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
LOL hydrogen bombs

More ridiculous theories and disinformation put out by either the conspirators or plain idiots. This just add more noise to hinder progress to the 911 Truth. Controlled opposition.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

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...



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
LOL, these conspiracies start to be funnier and funnier. I'll not even try discuss the possibility of hydrogen bomb in WTC, however I have just one point about pure fusion bombs. I don't know from where you have this.
Even if it was possible to make fusion bomb without fission part, the weapon would be not clean. Fusion still produces a lot of neutrons and when those neutrons are captured by surrounding material the result is that the material becomes highly radioactive. Indeed it is not that bad and has much higher fallout as transuranic elements but it still contaminates area and kills people. We are talking about weeks of lethal radiation instead of years, but it would be definitely detectable even now.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
LOL, these conspiracies start to be funnier and funnier. I'll not even try discuss the possibility of hydrogen bomb in WTC, however I have just one point about pure fusion bombs. I don't know from where you have this.
Even if it was possible to make fusion bomb without fission part, the weapon would be not clean. Fusion still produces a lot of neutrons and when those neutrons are captured by surrounding material the result is that the material becomes highly radioactive. Indeed it is not that bad and has much higher fallout as transuranic elements but it still contaminates area and kills people. We are talking about weeks of lethal radiation instead of years, but it would be definitely detectable even now.


again if it were detonated far enough underground the effects would be minimal.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I can tell you it is VERY unlikely that hydrogen bombs were used in the destruction of WTC 7. A skeptic can argue that the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, while falling at or near free fall speed, had little resemblance to a controlled demolition. In a controlled demolition, all of the major supports of the building are destroyed simultaneously, causing the building to all fall down in one fluid motion. Not for the top to crush everything beneath it, if that makes sense. However, in the collapse of WTC 7, it is almost CLEAR that it was a controlled demolition. My beliefs about that are very strong. Who was behind this controlled demolition, I am not yet 100% sure, but I can tell you it is VERY UNLIKELY that any type of nuclear device, even tactical had any part in bringing it down.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
As always, BSB posts well.

To be fair, I'll gladly concede that there's no way of knowing how advanced our arsenal is.


Not that I agree with this theory but who says it would have to be in our arsenal. I've heard of countries that have neutron landmines. You can even consider DU to be a small nuclear device basically. It melts thru the steel armor plating and how big are those rounds? Not too big I would imagine.


To the OP,
I doubt 9-11 had anything radioactive involved with it though. The sickness people have been getting that were either in the building or on the pile seem to not be radiation related. It just doesn't sound feasible.


Pie



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   
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



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I think I am missing something obvious here...

If a hydrogen device was set in sub-basement 3, focused up the freight elevator shaft, how did the destruction "Wave" start at the top? Did I miss where he explains this?


just what i was thinking, also the only collapse pic they show is wtc2 which broke apart and shot debris out like that during the collapse wtc 1 just imploded (still sad in both cases though)



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
its ridiculous theories like this and the people who mindlessly buy into whichever theory they think sounds coolest that hurts the real 9/11 truth movement. For everyone who's into conspiracies for conspiracy sake, STOP IT! some people actually want the truth, not theory after theory.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

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]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   

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]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
This is the stupidest theory I have ever heard.....for many reasons and shows that the proponet of this idea has no scientific background whatsoever....

As was pointed out....

There would be residual radiation left over....as well as neutrinos from the fusion reaction.

Satellites would of detected the gamma radiation not only from the explosion but from the decay rate of the plutonium

there would be a thermal disintegration of every building within a few mile radius even with the smallest of nuclear devices.

Survivors would be burned and developing tumors from the radiation exposure...

There is NO evidence of a nuclear device of any type.....

STOP THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!!



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   


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!!!



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:05 AM
link   
This is ridiculous. Judging from some of your posts in support of this theory, some of you people seem like educated, intelligent people. How in the hell you came up with the conclusion that hydrogen bombs were used to bring down the towers is just insane. Repulsively ignorant and insane. I'm not saying that the planes were nessicarly the only reason the towers fell, but to suggest that a HYDROGEN BOMB was the cause of the fall of the towers is just STUPID. I can't believe you people. From holographs to missiles to TNT to nuclear weapons ... get real people, please. The world wasn't created in Hollywood.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   
I would go along with the theory insofar as to take out the inner core. That would be its sole intention. William Rodriguez in the '911 Mysteries - Demolitions' film describes the huge explosion in the basement. There's the footage where you see the camera shake a few seconds prior to the tower collapse. So to me, there is nothing sensational in this theory, I can't see why people would be so upset about "oh this harms our sacred truth movement" - it is simply getting a job done. Think about it. You plan a controlled demlition, you do what it takes to get the job done. If you can get away with a low yield H-bomb in the basement then it makes perfect sense, it actually isn't that shocking or ridiculous to me. It's simply taking care of business. Walk away with insurance claims into the billions and the keys to Afghanistan / Iraq. Everybody wins. Just another perfect day living the American dream. Yankee doodle dandee.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Please, someone invent a time machine, so we can back in time, avert 9/11 and have some damn peace and quiet with out all these nutcase 9/11 theories being pandied everywhere.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Dear Everybody:

Nothing better than a little "show and tell". And member "bsbray" has done a great job of posting images in a post above.
I'm adding a second view of those "roasted" cars...



And here is a view of lower Manhatten. It takes enormous amounts of energy to make clouds like that. No one -- as far as I can tell -- has yet dared to offer a reasonably precise calculation of the kilojoules necessary for such a duststorm to occur. All the estimates I've been able to find are so vague and full of disclamers that they're simply not worth mentioning. So sorry, no "hard" facts available (yet).

Conventional explosives could have supplied the same amount of raw energy as hydrogen bombs but they would have been much "noisier" and much more "visible". Nuclear explosions are quiet and invisble RELATIVE to the amount of energy released. Please, before protesting, I said RELATIVE to their yields.

Thanks for ALL the posts! We're having an open discussion here and ALL views are welcome. Nothing is off-limits. We're brainstorming and eventually the truth will "pan out".

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods






top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join