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: 20
12
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
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.


No big deal, we have already been there. Its not like the old space race between the US and Russia.




posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
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.


You simply can't "take into consideration" EMP, when dealing with a nuclear explosion, it simply doesn't work that way. Both EMP and radiation ALWAYS occur in ANY nuclear reaction. So once again, no EMP, no radiation, NO NUKE.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You simply can't "take into consideration" EMP, when dealing with a nuclear explosion, it simply doesn't work that way. Both EMP and radiation ALWAYS occur in ANY nuclear reaction. So once again, no EMP, no radiation, NO NUKE.


Here is an e-mail about radiation. Strange thing is they blame it on the Depleted Uranium in the planes,, problem is the 757 and 767 do not carry depleted uranium they carry tungsten for counterweights.

www.xs4all.nl...

On Sept. 11, I called a medical doctor who lives 7 miles from the Pentagon and warned her that DU could have burned in the hijacked jets that crashed (up to 3000 pounds were used in 747's). She turned on her gamma meter - radiation levels were 8 times higher than normal inside her house. She informed the Nuclear Information Resource Service in Washington DC[Phone: 202-328-0002], and the EPA, FBI, HazMat and other emergency response agencies went to the Pentagon to investigate.
A pile of rubble from the crash was radioactive, but the EPA rep said "oh... it's probably depleted uranium... it's not a health hazard unless you breathe it". Firefighters, Pentagon personnel, and communities nearby DID BREATHE IT. There was no follow-up investigation, and what about the World Trade Center in NY? Radiation almost never gets into the media. It is a taboo subject.

From: "Dr. H. D. Sharma"
[Physicist]
It does not matter whether the planes that hit the World-Trade Towers and the Pentagon have DU or not as long as DU does not catch fire. If DU catches fire -- most likely it will just like in the case of the El-Al plane that caught fire outside Amsterdam (Netherland), it will form aerosols of uranium dioxide. Inhalation of the aerosols can be harmful to human health depending on the quantity inhaled.
The presence of aerosols can be checked with the help of a simple radiation survey meter. Such meters are readily available and the site near the Towers should be checked for gamma-ray emitters as soon as possible. If you do not see any radiation from adioisotopes of thorium-234 and protoactinium-234, you are fairly certain that no DU has become airborne and it is unlikely to be harmful to human health.
Hari Sharma.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Interesting assuming it's a real email. Unfortunately without evidence of and EMP blast, the information does not lead to a nuclear bomb.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Interesting assuming it's a real email. Unfortunately without evidence of and EMP blast, the information does not lead to a nuclear bomb.


Well it would be easy to find out if it was real. Since they have e-mails and phone numbers in the e-mail.

I fing it interesting though that they automatically blame the Depleted Uranium, with some basic searching you would know that the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Interesting assuming it's a real email. Unfortunately without evidence of and EMP blast, the information does not lead to a nuclear bomb.


Well it would be easy to find out if it was real. Since they have e-mails and phone numbers in the e-mail.

I fing it interesting though that they automatically blame the Depleted Uranium, with some basic searching you would know that the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.


I did some basic searching and found DU is commonly carried on many planes where space is hard to come by so it is possible it was just a mistake because it is fairly commonly used??? That is just a guess on my part though but it makes sense.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I did some basic searching and found DU is commonly carried on many planes where space is hard to come by so it is possible it was just a mistake because it is fairly commonly used??? That is just a guess on my part though but it makes sense.


You might want to do some more research. Boeing stopped using DU with the older 747s because of radiation problems in crashes.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Here are a few problems with the nuke theory
1. No radioactive fallout (ie ground and water contamination)
2. No EMP
3. The building collapsed from the top down not the bottom up.
4. If it was a controlled blast with strategically placed conventional charges, no nuke would be needed.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Just from looking around this info, this is the kind of stuff that baffles me:

Traces of Tritium all over ground zero?
Charred lots of cars and trucks, completely black from an incredible amount of heat
Large amounts of molten steel at the base of the towers, were not put out for 3 months
The concrete pulverized into fine dust, 70…300 micron particles (just this could take more energy than the total gravitational energy available)
The concrete is pulverized before the towers even hits the ground!!!
among other things

How could conventional explosives and thermite achieve so much heat? so widespread and long lasting? ...Im not even mentioning the jet fuel- its a non-starter.

[edit on 6-11-2007 by Unplugged]



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Here are a few problems with the nuke theory
1. No radioactive fallout (ie ground and water contamination)


There was an enormous amount of tritiated water, and radiation levels in the debris are still unconfirmed. There are specific ways that you measure for extra radiation, because the isotopes the radiation creates, that you look for, have half lives, and most of them had been through many cycles by the time anyone was interested enough to start looking.

I assume you didn't actually look into whether or not there was any solid information either way, before you made the assumption that nothing was present.



2. No EMP


I don't think that that's been proven either. There were a few electrical problems around the times of the collapses, and with the size of a bomb being considered here, the EMP might only be enough to cause temporary static on radio and etc. from inducting scattered electrons, not enough to fail actual components. The bombs that cause big EMPs are also the bombs that wipe out entire cities. Not comparable.



3. The building collapsed from the top down not the bottom up.


The devices being considered would have to be small enough for the explosion to fit within the core structure, or else the theory would have problems. If the blasts fit within the core, you could have multiples to fail the core at different points, in a sequence. Specifically, think of one device around each of the 2 mechanical floors above the ground in each tower (around where the darker bands you see are in photos of the towers) that go off in a coordinated fashion. Wouldn't that work?



4. If it was a controlled blast with strategically placed conventional charges, no nuke would be needed.


If only conventional charges were used, then sure. But what suggests that conventional charges were used?



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
There was an enormous amount of tritiated water, and radiation levels in the debris are still unconfirmed. There are specific ways that you measure for extra radiation, because the isotopes the radiation creates, that you look for, have half lives, and most of them had been through many cycles by the time anyone was interested enough to start looking.


I posted this in another thread, but it suites this thread just fine also.


Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by ----------
Fetzer is a prof, he would know about the use of a Geiger counter .... why doesn't he go down to NYC and prove his theory with a Geiger counter?


Maybe this is why?


Tritium emits a weak form of radiation. The radiation emitted from tritium is a low-energy beta particle that is similar to an electron. Moreover, the tritium beta particle does not travel very far in air and cannot penetrate the skin.


Source: www.nrc.gov...

And this:


Deuterium-Tritium Fusion

The most promising of the hydrogen fusion reactions which make up the deuterium cycle is the fusion of deuterium and tritium. The reaction yields 17.6 MeV of energy but requires a temperature of approximately 40 million Kelvins to overcome the coulomb barrier and ignite it. The deuterium fuel is abundant, but tritium must be either bred from lithium or gotten in the operation of the deuterium cycle.


Source: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

And this:


Deuterium is useful in nuclear fusion reactions, especially in combination with tritium, because of the large reaction rate (or nuclear cross section) and high energy yield of the D-T reaction.


Source: en.wikipedia.org...

And lastly, this:


Nuclear fusion involves merging two types of hydrogen atom – deuterium and tritium – to make helium, as well as neutrons that release vast quantities of energy. Almost limitless amounts of deuterium fuel can be made cheaply from seawater, tritium being produced as a byproduct in the reactor itself. Nuclear fusion produces only rudimentary radioactive waste, similar to that from hospital X-ray machines, and none of the high-level waste from fission reactors.


Source: www.timesonline.co.uk...

I wouldn't dispell micro-nukes just because it sounds like science fiction.

Also, what good would a gieger counter do when we already know there were elevated levels of tritium?

Edit: This post pretty much answers your questions in the post above this also.

[edit on 11/6/2007 by Griff]


I changed the name of the poster I was responding to out of respect for that person.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 02:31 AM
link   
I am pretty sure that if they used nukes then they were augmented/layered with other explosives, there were dozens of flashes occurring all over the building most noticeably around 8:55 to 9:00 which were obviously not nukes but some other type of explosive most likely c4 or some type of cutter charge used to soften up the infrastructure. Flashes have been observed travelling up the WTC buildings much like the Landmark tower primaries. Its been confirmed for multiple angles so its not much good blaming it on reflecting debris.

See the WTC primaries in this video: (-6:38)


Still when has traditional demolition resulted in nearby cars being melted and charred along with that instant rusting effect, pools of molten steel, huge pyroclastic flows of completely pulverised concrete and other materials..



An underground nuke test looks terribly similiar to the WTC collapse, minus the towers! The yield of the bombs used in the WTC would only be a tiny fraction of the power of the underground nuke displayed in the video above.



[edit on 7-11-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


The resemblance is striking. In particular, note the vertical shafts and the similarity to what in these photos I had coined "Lucifer's Fingers" (although in suggestion of the DEW hypothesis).
Also, in this video, the trajectories of dust are indeed similar to this.

One problem, however: these video are of Project Dugout, which was a series of non-nuclear, chemical explosives tests in 1960. Here is the video in its entirety, unfortunately soundless. Regardless, it might be worth a look at the cartoons of the designs of the tests.

One question concerning the mini-thermonuke hypothesis: if these were involved, wouldn't they necessarily have to be directed upward and not downward so as to not rupture the "bathtub"? Such a hybridization program of DEWs & nukes does apparently exist.

Finally, as an aside, an oblique nod to the deployment of mini-thermonukes at the WTC gleaned from Lawrence Wright's...


IN THE EARLY MORNING, when the sun hit the towers of the World Trade Center, the twin shadows stretched across the entire island of Manhattan


That is a rather glaring error to print in a book titled "The Looming Tower", precisely at the opening of the chapter where the central figure of the book is introduced. As a literary device, it would almost seem as if it were a deliberate error, to force an reinterpretation of events whereby the sentence turns out to be correct. That is, by way of thermonuclear reactions occuring at the towers...

But there is much in the book that defies the official story, even if Wright pretends to accept it.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Was a hydrogen bomb used at the WTC scene?
Absolutely not, all you would have to do to verify this is go to ground zero with a Geiger counter and see how much residual radiations are there. These things would be a round for hundreds if not thousands of years after 9/11.

Have the micro-nukes/hydrogen proponents done this Geiger counter exam?
Absolutely not, in fact they don't even mention residual radiations. So Wizard's so-called scientists are completely wrong and they know it, they don't want to take a Geiger counter to the site because they know that would prove them wrong.

These people's job is to infect the truth movement with all sorts of lies and wild unfounded "conspiracy theories".

And frankly Wizard, I am disappointed with you. I know you like this holograms/nukes/no-planer far out stuff but we both know you are not helping the truth movement with the dissemination of these lies.

Now some are going to tell us that some radiations were found at the Pentagon .... well, what does that prove about the WTC scene? Why are you guys trying to derail the discussion by mentioning the Pentagon scene? This would be like saying that debris of an ice cream cone found at the Pentagon reveal that there was an ice cream parlor at the WTC complex .... makes no sense at all!!

Shame on you Wizard, shame shame shame


Cheers,
PepeLapiu



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I fing it interesting though that they automatically blame the Depleted Uranium, with some basic searching you would know that the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

Actually they can. The counterweights of the control surfaces (ailerons and tail feathers) are often made of depleted uranium because it is so dense.

The two seater Sonex airplane I am building in my garage will use lead counterweight. My little 22 foot wingspan airplane will use around 5-10 pounds of counterweights. So if DU was used as counterweight in the 757 I would surely have no problems with believing they were using a good 100 pounds of DU for a 150 ft wingspan 200 seater airplane.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu


[edit on 7-11-2007 by PepeLapew]



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 04:21 AM
link   
bsbray, Ultima and Wizard:
I try really hard every day to bring the explanations of 9-11 down to a level that people can relate to. When talking about the towers falling like pancakes I offer people to try and recreate the same with a pile of pizza boxes or a pile of LEGO blocks. I use examples that people can relate to on a day-today basis.

So when you guys go off the deep end by suggesting no-planers and mini-nukes and DEW and the likes, you really don't do any favors to the truth movement

Shame on you all


Cheers,
PepeLapiu



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by PepeLapew
Was a hydrogen bomb used at the WTC scene?
Absolutely not, all you would have to do to verify this is go to ground zero with a Geiger counter and see how much residual radiations are there.


Like I said in an earlier post, you're looking for radioactive isotopes. That's what Geiger counters look for.

Radioactive isotopes have "half-lives". This is the time it takes for the radiation emission to decay by 50%.

Most relevant isotopes (the ones you usually look for) have a half lives from anywhere around 8 days or so (an iodine isotope), to a few months, but only larger periods of time (ie decades, longer) for very rare heavy metals and things like that. You would only expect an elevated percentage of them to be isotopes, compared to background levels of the element.

No one has gathered ANY data on the presence or lack thereof of these isotopes; no one has really looked for them, and they are still decaying over 6 years later, and most of the debris (that would have contained an amount of radiation) has been removed. So, you can't debunk the "nuke hypothesis" just by walking down to Ground Zero with a Geiger counter. More information is needed. But, if you did walk down to GZ like that, you'd probably find elevated amounts of radiation in the area anyway, because that part of New York actually does have elevated background radiation levels that were discovered a couple of years ago and attributed to discarded medical equipment and etc. around the parks in the area. And it was the Manhattan area, although the highest levels weren't on the island itself if I remember right.



I try really hard every day to bring the explanations of 9-11 down to a level that people can relate to. When talking about the towers falling like pancakes I offer people to try and recreate the same with a pile of pizza boxes or a pile of LEGO blocks. I use examples that people can relate to on a day-today basis.


If small, "tactical" nuclear weapons have been developed, and are being set off all over and blamed on all number of other things (from car bombs to "pancake collapses"
), wouldn't you want to know about it? The question extends beyond 9/11, because there were some damned unusual "terrorist bombings" in Bali and Jakarta in the last few years, and in the Philippines, and even in Iraq.



Originally posted by 0ivae
One question concerning the mini-thermonuke hypothesis: if these were involved, wouldn't they necessarily have to be directed upward and not downward so as to not rupture the "bathtub"?


I don't think they'd really be directed downward. What I was personally thinking was more like a spherical blast coming from the center of the core, with a radius that doesn't really extend beyond the core area itself.

The basement was bombed pretty heavily during 1993 and no real damage to anything occurred (besides some floors fell in). No columns had to be replaced, and I've never read of any repairs having to be made to the bath tub (and that would be some important labor). My point is that there's a threshold of damage you can get away with, that varies with distance from the bath tub, I'm sure, and blowing things up near the bath tub (or even other columns) will not necessarily destroy it. Blasts can be controlled to a fairly accurate degree, I would imagine, especially when the fuel is nuclear and you have to pick a specific (and small) yield to use in a given situation. and you have to pick where to put it, etc.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by PepeLapew
Actually they can. The counterweights of the control surfaces (ailerons and tail feathers) are often made of depleted uranium because it is so dense.

The two seater Sonex airplane I am building in my garage will use lead counterweight. My little 22 foot wingspan airplane will use around 5-10 pounds of counterweights. So if DU was used as counterweight in the 757 I would surely have no problems with believing they were using a good 100 pounds of DU for a 150 ft wingspan 200 seater airplane.



Yes, but Boeing stopped using depleted uranium with the older 747s due to problems with radiation in crashes.

The 747 used a couple thousand pounds of DU.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by PepeLapew
So when you guys go off the deep end by suggesting no-planers and mini-nukes and DEW and the likes, you really don't do any favors to the truth movement


I never suggested either of those, just posting facts and evidence i find on the subject.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes, but Boeing stopped using depleted uranium with the older 747s due to problems with radiation in crashes.

The 747 used a couple thousand pounds of DU.


but when exactly did they stop using DU on their planes? had the 767's already been built? did they have DU counter weights already? if they did were they retrofitted with new counter weights?

i dont know any of these things they just seem like logical questions to ask and you seem to be more in the know on this topic than i would be.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join