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: 22
12
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   




posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I wouldn’t worry too much about the effects on the truth movement. It’s not going anywhere anyways. People even discussing 9-11 are only the slimmest of fringe groups. I don’t know where the ‘polls’ are made and by whom. But I don’t know ANY CT-ers, and I travel and meet lots of people.

The chief reason why hydrogen bombs were used to level WTC 1, 2, 6 and 7 is simple. Only such devices would have been capable of releasing the necessary energy within the given parameters of the observed effects. Here are once again, Jim Hoffman’s calculation, as shown on page eight of this thread:
WTC single tower energy analysis — KWH source (+) or sink (-)

(+) 111,000 falling of mass (1.97e11 g falling average of 207 m)
(-) 135,000 crushing of concrete (9e10 g to 60 micron powder)
ignoring water vaporization
(-) 400,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 1020 K)
(-) 11,300,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 1020 K)
assuming water vaporization sink was not supply-limited
(-) 1,496,000 vaporization of water (2.38e9 g water)
(-) 41,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 373 K)
(-) 1,145,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 373 K)

Total (Unaccounted For) Energy Deficit for one WTC tower: (-) 14.4 million kWh
By the way, this is the energy equivalent of 12,348 U.S. tons of TNT, again PER TWIN TOWER

911research.wtc7.net...


The ones who should really take notice of all this are the Iranians. They’re incomprehensible idiots — gosh are they stupid — for not understanding that if we’re willing to use this kind of weapon on our own cities then surely we won’t deprive their country of experiencing them. They must not be ATS readers, else they would know what’s about to rain down on their lands. Oh well, in WWII the Russians never thought the Germans would attack them either…

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Wow! We should build more buildings like WTC 6! It took a hydrogen bomb blast and didn't collapse! That's really impressive.



WTC 6 was severely damaged on September 11 with two holes that extend the height of the building. The photo, from directly overhead WTC 6 on September 23, shows a large crater in the center of the building, and a smaller one in the southeast end (bottom of photo). The holes had remarkably clean profiles, with the same region punched out of each floor. The shapes of the holes may provide clues about the destruction of the North Tower.



WTC 6 was demolished as part of the clean-up of Ground Zero. FEMA, the agency charged with investigating the disaster, did not collect any data on this building.

911research.wtc7.net...

That's some building!



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

WTC 6 was demolished as part of the clean-up of Ground Zero. FEMA, the agency charged with investigating the disaster, did not collect any data on this building.

That's some building!


Au Quai, smartiepants, here’s an image of WTC-6 showing a big-ass hole in it. WTC-6 was demolished alright, but not as part of the FEMA clean-up. It happened just a little bit earlier, as in the morning of 9-11.



You’re messing with the big dogs here. Aarf, aarf! Make sure your ammo’s dry (John Lear).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 11/7/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
If it was demolished on 9/11 then why is there a picture of it STILL STANDING taken on the 23rd? Oh, wait, I forgot. They faked everything on that day, so they just released pictures of it and PRETENDED that it was still there.

It was severely damaged yes, but it was NOT totally demolished as you're claiming. There are plenty of pictures from AFTER 9/11 that still show a pretty significant portion of the building standing there. And it's pretty obvious that it's AFTER 9/11.

Here's one:




That's a pretty good chunk of building still left for having a hydrogen bomb go off in it.

[edit on 11/7/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   
wouldn't h-bombs make a sound ?

I worked at bluecross blueshield. I started in aug of 2002. All of my coworkers were there that day. On the day of the first anniversary, they told their stories. The guy who trained me told me he stopped to bum a cigarette from someone just outside the front doors that day. The weird thing is he's not a smoker.

I couldn't help myself, I asked him if he heard any explosions, due to the stuff I was reading on the internet.

He said all he heard was the sound of the Jets, the explosion, and when people started jumping out of the windows rather than burn to death, he ran like hell.

so this theory is simply not possible



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
I wouldn’t worry too much about the effects on the truth movement. It’s not going anywhere anyways.

Bullshiit!!
The message i get from you is that we are worthless and that holograms and CGI hit the towers, then H-bombs were used.

It's not the truth movement that's worthless, it's people like you bent on spreading fallacies and bad news and demoralize the truth movement. People like Bush love your kind ..... me ..... not so much.

PepeLapiu



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but, rather than just answer me you chose to blow me off with that bs post and then get all defensive like i was attacking you for what you were saying.


I did not blow you off. I had answered the question but i guess it was not enough for you.. So i posted more posts with facts and information and it still seemed like it was not enough for you, like you had some facts and information to debate what i had posted.

But it is helpful to do some research before posting on a subject.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   
well then i guess its a case of miscommunication. i asked a few questions and you replied with "as stated..." which you should be able to admit really isnt an answer at all.

as far as researching before i post, sure, if im going to post from the standpoint of knowing something about a topic then yeah. but, i was asking you questions not to challenge you but rather because it is an area i figured you would know more than i did. ive admitted i know jack about aircraft. you worked in that field, seemed like a decent reason to ask you a question.

if i wanted to debate you about it, id have opened with why i thought you were wrong and supported it with facts to back up what i was going to claim.

so, sorry for the misunderstanding.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Here are once again, Jim Hoffman’s calculation, as shown on page eight of this thread:
WTC single tower energy analysis — KWH source (+) or sink (-)

(+) 111,000 falling of mass (1.97e11 g falling average of 207 m)
(-) 135,000 crushing of concrete (9e10 g to 60 micron powder)
ignoring water vaporization
(-) 400,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 1020 K)
(-) 11,300,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 1020 K)
assuming water vaporization sink was not supply-limited
(-) 1,496,000 vaporization of water (2.38e9 g water)
(-) 41,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 373 K)
(-) 1,145,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 373 K)

911research.wtc7.net...




So i checked out your source. All these estimates relate to the energy contained in the dust cloud. The jist of the argument of the source is that:



The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity.


So from all that you come to the conclusion it was a H bomb.

WTC7 dust cloud energy > WTC7 potential energy ---> magic ----> H bomb.

???????



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by blahdiblah
So i checked out your source. All these estimates relate to the energy contained in the dust cloud. The jist of the argument of the source is that:

The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity.

So from all that you come to the conclusion it was a H bomb.

WTC7 dust cloud energy > WTC7 potential energy ---> magic ----> H bomb.

???????


The dust cloud is focused on because Hoffman thought it would be a better presentation of the problem to show that the dust clouds alone required more energy to create than a falling building alone could produce. One could factor in all kinds of other energy losses from the building's own internal "resistances" to buckling and bending and other kinds of failure.

I hesitate on saying much else since I haven't seen any really convincing (ie realistic and justified as such) figures for all the energy sinks and sources, but the kind of energy deficit suggested by Hoffman would require an enormous source of additional energy. Not just indicating explosives, but something more extreme. At least rigging the buildings with so many conventional charges that the towers could almost be considered as partially built out of them, because otherwise the explosive energy there wouldn't be enough to match such a deficit.

Explosive energy is basically extremely intense sound energy. It dissipates pretty quickly, tending to cut what it's supposed to and not do much else at all.

[edit on 8-11-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


except since there was no radioactive fallout, EMP, there could not have been a nuclear explosion as these 2 things are ALWAYS a component. If those 2 things (radiation & EMP) are not found as components then there was NO nuclear explosion which makes you WRONG. Either prove BOTH fallout and EMP or drop it.

Outlandish claims like this and the hologram idea, pushes any type of conspiracy further and further away from mainstream thinking and hinders the search for THE TRUTH as to what happened.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Haven't you heard that those planes were holograms??? Which means that all those people who told those stories were either delusional, liars or saw a hologram. Wait maybe the nuke was a hologram too ??? or the building was a hologram and the nuke was real.... Maybe we're holograms but the buildings were real...

Sorry for the rant but just for the record, I do believe you. Many people have come forward to talk about what they heard and saw and for the most part it matches the video evidence.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by PepeLapew

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
I wouldn’t worry too much about the effects on the truth movement. It’s not going anywhere anyways.

Bullshiit!!
The message i get from you is that we are worthless and that holograms and CGI hit the towers, then H-bombs were used.

It's not the truth movement that's worthless, it's people like you bent on spreading fallacies and bad news and demoralize the truth movement. People like Bush love your kind ..... me ..... not so much.

PepeLapiu



I agree with your attitude toward WOW and Lear wholeheartedly however, he's baiting you to shoot your mouth off. Don't get banned over his silly, unresponsive, incorrect, irresponsible, non-factual posts.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Either prove BOTH fallout and EMP or drop it.



I thought we put forward a fairly strong case for EMP and fallout (and the apprent lack of it), perhaps try reading the thread again?

[edit on 8-11-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
here is a hint try this:

go to google and try searching some of these terms:
SADM,
WTC radiation,
WTC EMP,
WTC fallout,
WTC nuke

I am sure you will find plenty to read there if reading this thread is too much.

Have a look into 4th generation nukes and micro nukes too.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
except since there was no radioactive fallout, EMP


Prove it. Both would be much less severe than in the bombs that wipe out cities. The isotopes that emit radiation were mostly hauled off in the debris and the ones that were left were not looked for and would still be decaying, 6 years later. The EMP could have and imo would have been negligible because of the small size of the bomb required. It takes a truly massive nuclear explosive to cause an impressive EMP, compared to what we're talking about.


six

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Question for discussion. Has anyone figured out the amount for force that would be needed to damage to core to failure? Can that that be figured out with the information out there? On how many floors would the core have to be damaged to failure to cause global collapse?

Another question. If this were a upside down cone of destruction, would not the lobby have been blown out in the first building to fall? Would not the firefighters in the second building have noticed such a massive explosion?

Edit for lousy spelloing.....

[edit on 8-11-2007 by six]



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
Question for discussion. Has anyone figured out the amount for force that would be needed to damage to core to failure? Can that that be figured out with the information out there? On how many floors would the core have to be damaged to failure to cause global collapse?


This is what i could find.

Fahim Sadek, Michael A. Riley, Emil Simiu,
William Fritz, and H.S. Lew
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
fahim.sadek@nist.gov
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004


Preliminary Findings

. A 500 mph engine impact against an exterior wall panel results in a
penetration of the exterior wall and failure of perimeter columns. If the
engine does not impact a floor slab, the majority of the engine core
remains intact through the exterior wall penetration with a reduction in
velocity of about 10% and 20%. The residual velocity and mass of the
engine after penetration of the exterior wall are sufficient to fail a core
column in a direct impact condition. Interaction with additional interior
building contents, or a misaligned impact against the core column,
could change this result .

. A normal impact of the exterior wall by an empty wing segment
produces significant damage to the exterior columns but not necessarily
complete failure. A fuel-filled wing section impact results in extensive
damage to the exterior wall, including complete failure of the exterior
columns. This is consistent with photographs showing the exterior
damage to the towers due to impact.



Preliminary Findings, cont.

. At room temperature, global instability of the intact tower occurs when
five floors are removed from the tower model. At column temperatures
of 600ºC, the removal of four floors induces global instability.

. When 15 core columns are assumed severed, it is likely that column
splices below the hat truss will fail due to the large tensile loads in the
columns. When only 8 core columns are assumed severed, the splices
may fail; however, the results are not conclusive.

. The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.


six

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Sorry if I was not clear. What I ment was without the damage from the airliner. A intact building without any damage that you were just going to blow up. Not CD, just plain ol' blow up.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join