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: 23
12
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
[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.



Well if you are talking about normal building you would just need to cut some of the main support beams.

Maybe use a chemical beam cutter.



six

posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


No prep work...Just blow it up. Not controlled...No safe guards...Just brute force. Along the lines of Damocles old proffession. Nothing pretty.

[edit on 8-11-2007 by six]



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Something big definetly hit the basement level, at least in this example:




“When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone. “There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!” The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer.

They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. “You could stand here,” he said, “and two inches over you couldn’t breathe. We couldn’t see through the smoke so we started screaming.” But there was still no answer.

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything” he said. They decided to ascend two more levels to the building’s lobby.

As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil” and lying on the floor. “


Basement level explosions...errr jet fuel

I think if there were nukes, they were set off shortly after the upper level explosives brought down the top parts of the towers. This is why during the collapse, when the top of the towers is a quarter and half way down to the ground, you can clearly see a pillar of smoke going up directly up the center of the towers (with a big plume at the top of it rising). I found this quite peculiar because the pillar is in the same path that the core and elevator shafts were just seconds before).
Next time you watch the towers collapse, pay attention to the core areas, and look for the pillar of smoke rising out the center...quite odd.

[edit on 8-11-2007 by Unplugged]



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
No prep work...Just blow it up. Not controlled...No safe guards...Just brute force. Along the lines of Damocles old proffession. Nothing pretty.


Sure, the only time demolition takes a long time is if you are worried about the other buildings around you and make efforts not to hurt the other buildings. If you are not real worried about the other buildings it would not take that long to do.

Also with chemical cutters no large quality of explosives, saving set up time.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

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]


NOPE. Sorry. I did read someone mentioning they thought some communications were temporarily out and they speculated it was due to an EMP burst from a nuke. At ground zero, there would be NO working cell phones after even a small EMP burst however, people were making phone calls so it is ruled out.

There were some suggestions that a bit of radiation was found at ground zero but as several people posted, there are MANY sources for the possible radiation found such as exit signs, smoke detectors, radon, etc..



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


Again, I mention...Notice all the dust EVERYWHERE just after the collapse??? All that dust would be "hot" (radioactive). There would be a blanket of radioactive dust all over the place, contaminating everything it landed on.

And no it doesn't take a massive nuclear explosion to cause a widespread EMP burst.

What you're talking about is a non-existent bomb.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
There were some suggestions that a bit of radiation was found at ground zero but as several people posted, there are MANY sources for the possible radiation found such as exit signs, smoke detectors, radon, etc..


Do you have any facts or evidence as to how much radiation would be in exit signs, smoke detectors, etc ?

There would have to either be a lot of radiaton or a lot of signs and smoke detectors.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
There were some suggestions that a bit of radiation was found at ground zero but as several people posted, there are MANY sources for the possible radiation found such as exit signs, smoke detectors, radon, etc..


Do you have any facts or evidence as to how much radiation would be in exit signs, smoke detectors, etc ?

There would have to either be a lot of radiaton or a lot of signs and smoke detectors.



No, I honestly have absolutely no facts or numbers. I was just repeating what someone else posted. I'll see if I can get some numbers for you though. Not sure if I'll be able to get the info tonight but I'll try.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
[edit on 11/8/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
No, I honestly have absolutely no facts or numbers. I was just repeating what someone else posted. I'll see if I can get some numbers for you though. Not sure if I'll be able to get the info tonight but I'll try.


Well i am pretty sure their would not be too much to the smoke detectors, and their would have to be thousands of them to make any real difference.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 



well if any engineer types around here can figure out how many core columns etc it would take to fail the building, i can figure what it would take to fail the columns...but its going to be an impressively large number.

doing it deliberatly with say, sheet charges came out to something like 1100lbs/floor to cut all 47 columns, so to brute force blow it would be...quite an impressive number.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
No, I honestly have absolutely no facts or numbers. I was just repeating what someone else posted. I'll see if I can get some numbers for you though. Not sure if I'll be able to get the info tonight but I'll try.


Well i am pretty sure their would not be too much to the smoke detectors, and their would have to be thousands of them to make any real difference.


Here's some info about smoke detectors:


A typical Americium source contained in one ionizing detector intended for home use, would consist of 0.8 to 5.0 micro curies of Americium on a silver disc, coated with a very thin layer of gold. An industrial model may contain up to 15 micro curies. We usually speak of picoCuries of radiation, which are one millionth of a microCurie, as having biological significance for humans. According to Dr. Edward Martel, an expert on alpha particle emitters like Americium and Radium, one microCurie of Americium contains thousands of lethal doses if spread in a human population. Dr. Martel was a senior scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Bolder, Colorado. Dr. Karl Morgan, Father of Health Physics and Emeritus Member of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, has stated that the risks are identical for Plutonium 239 and Americium 241. He adds that once in the environment, (after a fire or after having been discarded in a landfill), Americium is more of a risk than Plutonium because it is readily taken up by animals (including humans) and plants.

The alpha particles could escape from the metal foil while the detector is intact, if there is a leak of any kind or if the covering has been damaged. In a fire, incinerator, sanitary landfill (which is usually an aquifer recharging area), the radioactivity can be released. The gold foil covering the radioactive particle will melt at 1063 degrees Centigrade.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


source
www.iicph.org...


Ionizing Smoke detectors contain one of the most toxic chemicals on earth, Americium 241. If the amount normally in an ionizing smoke detector were in a lab, it would trigger provisions of the nuckear regulations including labeling the area as containing radioactive material.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


source
list.uvm.edu...

As you can see, there is quite a bit of Americium in a single industrial smoke detector

Still looking for more info.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
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.



I think Damocles has. He has credentials in explosives.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
At ground zero, there would be NO working cell phones after even a small EMP burst however, people were making phone calls so it is ruled out.


You keep saying we don't have proof of an EMP burst. Do you have proof that what you are saying is factual? I haven't seen any links yet. Sorry my friend, but your word on this just doesn't cut it here.


There were some suggestions that a bit of radiation was found at ground zero but as several people posted, there are MANY sources for the possible radiation found such as exit signs, smoke detectors, radon, etc..


Also, what are these many sources? Exit signs? Wrist watches? Do you really believe there was enough of those to notice anything but background radiation? If so, maybe a physics class dealing with radiation might be helpful. I'm not slighting you. I'm just saying education is gold these days.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
well if any engineer types around here can figure out how many core columns etc it would take to fail the building, i can figure what it would take to fail the columns...but its going to be an impressively large number.


You're not going to get that until I get the structural drawings where I can verify what the column strength was, what they were designed for, what the safety factor was etc. BTW, if you haven't noticed yet, I refuse to just take NIST's word for it.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
As you can see, there is quite a bit of Americium in a single industrial smoke detector


So, according to this, someone could make a crude dirty radioactive bomb very easy. I doubt the NRC lets this type of radioactive material loose. But, who knows, our top officials "could never image planes used as missiles" right?



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


If you think the information I posted is inaccurate, please show me. So far thats the best info I could find.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   
They lied about air quality what makes you think they wouldn't deny the presence of radioactives with short half lifes? Look up plausible deniability and how the government deals with information concerning covert operations.


wiki

Plausible deniability is the term given to the creation of loose and informal chains of command in governments and other large organizations. In the case that assassinations, false flag or black ops or any other illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any connection to or awareness of such act, or the agents used to carry out such act.



There you go, and I would say 9/11 is a prime example of a whitewash. If there were radioactives they are legally allowed to deny it regardless of the facts.


wiki

Covert Operation: An operation that is so planned and executed as to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor. A covert operation differs from a clandestine operation in that emphasis is placed on concealment of identity of sponsor rather than on concealment of the operation. From The U.S. Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms - Joint Publication JP1-02 dated 05 January 2007



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I never said it was inacurate. But, I've used soil density gauges before (I'm actually troxler certified and have taken courses in radiation safety).

www.viinstruments.co.za...

They are made with americium.

The NRC regulates them as to who can own one and who can opperate one.

Now, if smoke detectors have the same element in them, why is the NRC not involved? Or when a smoke detector gets stolen, why not a big fuss about it?


Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services, announced today that one radioactive gauge is missing from a job site in Jonesboro, Arkansas. The gauge may pose a health risk to persons if handled or carried for an extended period of time. The missing gauge is in a yellow plastic transport case and weighs approximately 90 pounds.


www.nrc.gov...

That's all I'm saying.



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
If you think the information I posted is inaccurate, please show me. So far thats the best info I could find.


If there was a simple explanation for the radiation why would the EPL lie and state it was DU from the planes.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join