Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

Originally posted by jfj123
Good question. My suggestion would be to contact the EPA for an answer. I'm sure you can email the question. Let me know what they say.

Just what we need. More regulation. But, if they pose a danger, I think they should be. I'll send an e-mail to the NRC if I remember.

Originally posted by Valhall
Sorry, I missed this question from you. What is the IBC and BOCA? Not familiar with those. Are these civil engineering standards or something? or are they some form of reference material on radioactive substances?

Sorry Valhall,

I just assumed that mechanicals used these codes. The IBC is the International Building Code and BOCA is the national building code. I'm not positive what it actually stands for. Hope that helps.

Now that I'm at work. BOCA stands for "Building Officials & Code Administrators International, Inc."

It reads a lot like the ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) building codes.

Just grazing through, It says that signs should be no more than 100 feet from the exits.

It's not really saying much about the sign's construction. Just that "self-illuminating" signs don't have to comply with the section on "emergency lighting".

Well, it was worth a shot.

Thanks, Griff.

Nah, I'm not familiar with those codes. I tend to live more in ASTM and ASME codes.

Now, you want to ask me about ASME B31.3 Boiler/Pressure Vessel code...I'm all up in it. Guess it isn't too helpful right now though. Unless we'd like to view the towers as two big pressure vessels.

Smoke detectors cause WTC radiation?

That's a good one.

I suppose that explains leukemia and all types of unusual cancers in atypical victims.

I have debated this in depth months ago on this thread, and others. I assume/hope the newcomers have read the thread in its entireity?

Originally posted by SteveR
I assume/hope the newcomers have read the thread in its entireity?

Actually, I'll be the first to admit that I haven't. Although, I do remember some of your posts.

that must have been some bomb. It brought down a commercial JET, but didn't vaporize lower manhatten

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
that must have been some bomb. It brought down a commercial JET, but didn't vaporize lower manhatten

This makes no sense whatsoever. What are you trying to say?

reply to post by SteveR


don't you see the commercial JET debris in the pic I posted

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
don't you see the commercial JET debris in the pic I posted

What about it? Pictures don't do the talking for you. Explain.

reply to post by SteveR


one of the things I've learned as a teacher is to not to spoon feed people

what do you think it means ?

Originally posted by SteveR
This makes no sense whatsoever. What are you trying to say?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
that must have been some bomb. It brought down a commercial JET, but didn't vaporize lower manhatten

And that my friends is why I hate debating some people on this site. You do all this research, post all the information, basically hand it to them on a silver platter, then you see a post like that...
At least read the thread syrinx, they make atomic demolition munitions, or what we call little bombs, about the size of back pack specifically for bringing down large structures.
How in the world did you get that it brought down a commercial jet out of this thread?

[edit on 15-11-2007 by twitchy]

I find the nuke theory to have a few problems:

First, the building was ripped apart over a few seconds, like a zipper. A nuke does its work all at once.

Second, I haven't heard any reports of radioactivity present in the debris. If someone has links to such information that they'd like me to see, please let me know.

Third, it seems to me that even the lowest-yield nuclear devices would have delivered too much energy; the destruction unleashed would have been much more than what we had seen.

So unless something compelling comes to light, this issue settled for me.



[edit on 15-11-2007 by dionysius9]

Originally posted by dionysius9
First, the building was ripped apart over a few seconds, like a zipper. A nuke does its work all at once.

Think of a mushroom cloud (only a lot smaller) in the way of being able to rip a building apart like a zipper. Up and out would do the trick it would seem to me.

Second, I haven't heard any reports of radioactivity present in the debris. If someone has links to such information that they'd like me to see, please let me know.

Elevated tritium levels were indeed found there. After days of watering the place down. Tritium is a form of hydrogen (which disolves pretty well into water). So, after a few days of watering down, there were still elevated levels.

repositories.cdlib.org...

Not that I'm convinced as of yet, but that right there is of concern.

Third, it seems to me that even the lowest-yield nuclear devices would have delivered too much energy; the destruction unleashed would have been much more than what we had seen.

Question: Have you researched how much energy the lowest-yield nuclear devices can deliver and compared it to 9/11? I ask because you started your sentence with "seems to me". Indicating that you are not entirely positive. I don't mean this as a slant at all.

Please remember that a significant amount of energy is needed to turn concrete to micro-sized dust particles.

So unless something compelling comes to light, this issue settled for me.

So, you will just wave it off without doing the research to make sure it couldn't be a possibility?

"These are not the droids we're looking for......move along"

[edit on 11/15/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 11/15/2007 by Griff]

and also I would like to add:



Strontium And Barium In The WTC Dust

WTC Dust contain high levels of Barium and Strontium, both of which are the result of nuclear fission. Strontium is radioactive, why is it (and Barium) in so much of the WTC Dust?


Source provided b Researcher: Chris Morganti

Strontium and Barium levels (boxed in black) compared to other materials, there is nearly as much Strontium and Barium in the WTC Dust as there is Titanium .Plot showing the concentration ranges (colored boxes) and means (horizontal white bars) for major and trace elements in samples of WTC dusts and girder coatings. Several samples had arsenic concentrations below the analytical detection limits, indicated on the graph by the arrow extending downward from the detection limit concentration. Concentrations of some elements (such as tin) were not determined in these samples.



One should be aware that H-bomb actually produce a different fallout to a-bombs:


Information from Finnish Military Expert:

An atomic bomb is built based on very heavy elements, plutonium or uranium. An atomic bomb also is very polluting, and it has a critical mass type explosion mechanism which does not allow very small bombs or also necessary directed energy effects. The energy distribution of an atomic bomb is also less suitable for the purposes used in the WTC. An atomic bomb emits 50% of it's energy in blast force, 35% in thermal radiation and the remaining 15% in various radioactive forms (initial radiation 5%, residual radiation 10%). The use of covert atomic bombs in the WTC towers is an utterly hopeless idea, which is why this evil young man misrepresents my theory so eagerly offering those A-bombs.

The hydrogen bomb is very different. It uses the lightest of the elements, like various forms of hydrogen and lithium. It has very small minimum size, the cherry-size pellets are typical in fusion energy designs. It can be made into directed-energy device much like conventional military explosives. And the energy distribution is more useful, some 80% is in neutron and thermal radiation (and in this case, neutrons also use most of their energy in warming steels and other hard targets). Some 15% goes to blast effects and the remaining 5% into various radiations. In covert operations like the WTC the residual effects of the hydrogen bomb are neatly disappearing into the winds and this process can be speeded up with continuous spraying of water (which also is what happened). Some of the tritium binds with oxygen forming tritiated water (which is less harmful than the free tritium remains) and spraying will also get these lighter-than-air molecules moving, out into the skies.

Yes, I've researched nukes. From what I remember the smallest nuke I've heard of is about 0.3 kt. So, about 300 tons of TNT. Quite a bit more destructive capability than what was seen that day.

I have a problem with something like this being used at the WTC. These low-yield weapons, as a rule, use either U235 or Pu239. Byproducts of the fission reaction include various isotopes of cesium, strontium, americium, cerium, zirconium, iodine, neptunium,.... many others. Please tell me if traces of these have been reported.


Standard disclaimer: I am always right. Consider this professional investment advice. Do not seek further counsel. Please take everything I say as truth. When two things I have said are in contradiction with each other, believe both.

Just saw your graph.

YIKES.

Hmm.....

Thermite
Is the culprit of the controlled demo you can see molten Magma from the beams being cut by termite in many WTC videos.

more thermite here


wtc thermite evidence

Originally posted by dionysius9
Yes, I've researched nukes. From what I remember the smallest nuke I've heard of is about 0.3 kt. So, about 300 tons of TNT. Quite a bit more destructive capability than what was seen that day.

You have not even read the first post in this thread have you?

We're talking fusion not fission! Some people. :shk: