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: 28
12
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Originally posted by twitchy
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
that must have been some bomb. It brought down a commercial JET, but didn't vaporize lower manhatten


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]


Would you mind posting info about these types of atomic demolitions packs? Where are they normally used? Where are they normally used? Who is licensed to use them? What is the minimum nuclear threshold on these devices?
Thanks.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by jfj123]




posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   
According to this report:
repositories.cdlib.org...

Here is the reason for Tritium found at the WTC

Several tritium radioluminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of
the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that [the]Boeing 767-222 aircraft
operated by the United Airlines that hit WTC Tower 2 as well as [the]Boeing 767-223ER
operated by the American Airlines, that hit WTC Tower 1, had a combined 34[.3] Ci of tritium
at the time of impact, contained in emergency signs. WTC hosted several law-enforcement
agencies such as ATF, CIA, US Secret Service and US Customs. The ATF office had two
weapon vaults in WTC Building 6. Also 63 Police Officers, possibly carrying handguns, died in
the attack. The weaponry containing tritium sights was therefore a likely and significant source
of tritium. It is possible that some of the 2824 victims carried tritium watches, however this
source appears to be less significant than the other two.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So I think the mystery is solved.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So I think the mystery is solved.


Gee, thats almost as much BS as the EPA stating the radiation was casued by Depleted Uranium in the planes (when the 757 and 767 do not carry Depleted Uranium)



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
They are called SADM's, a google search can pull up a wealth of information on them if you're interested. As to the Tritium being explained by exit signs, guns sights, and wrist watches, Ive yet to see any proof positive that 55 times the normal levels of tritium (even after being sprayed down with water for months mind you) can be attributed to them. It's pure speculation, so sorry, but no, mystery unsolved.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
So I think the mystery is solved.


Gee, thats almost as much BS as the EPA stating the radiation was casued by Depleted Uranium in the planes (when the 757 and 767 do not carry Depleted Uranium)


Fine. Prove the report wrong. Thanks for your post.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Ask yourself the question, "Does the report you've provided us with here proove that the source of elevated tritium is exit signs, wrist watches and gun sights, or does it speculate?"



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Ask yourself the question, "Does the report you've provided us with here proove that the source of elevated tritium is exit signs, wrist watches and gun sights, or does it speculate?"


Well since there is no ABSOLUTE way to confirm this other then to find out what materials were made out of Tritium, figure out how much Tritium the materials had and figure out how much was found around the scene and see if they match up. Their report seems to reflect this information.

If you believe the report is incorrect, please feel free to post correct info.

There are several problems with the H-Bomb idea, 2 of which are:
1. No evidence of an EMP
2. The buildings did not explode out, they fell down

H-bombs are not directional explosives as far as I know.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Fine. Prove the report wrong. Thanks for your post.


You posted the report, please prove it to be correct.

How many signs and watches would it take to produce the amount of radioactive material in the air?



[edit on 1-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
If you believe the report is incorrect, please feel free to post correct info.

I didn't say it was incorrect, I'm saying it's speculative, at best, disinfo at worst. As to directional explosives, you haven't googled SADM's, have you? They are Atomic Demolitions Munitions, not just an H-bomb's. Devices designed specifically to bring down large structures.

As to the EMP, that is something that is currently being examined further, we do know that before each collapse, cell phones and radios in the immediate vicintity went out, which is odd.

The towers didn't just fall down either, they disentrigated, explosively.




posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I guess no onw has heard of the Chechen type building buster bomb?



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by jfj123
If you believe the report is incorrect, please feel free to post correct info.

I didn't say it was incorrect, I'm saying it's speculative, at best, disinfo at worst. As to directional explosives, you haven't googled SADM's, have you? They are Atomic Demolitions Munitions, not just an H-bomb's. Devices designed specifically to bring down large structures.



Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) was a United States Navy and Marines project that was demonstrated as feasible in the mid-to-late 1960s, but was never used. The project, which involved a small nuclear weapon, was designed to allow one individual to parachute from any type of aircraft carrying the weapon package and place it in a harbor or other strategic location that could be accessed from the sea. Another parachutist without a weapon package would follow the first to provide support as needed.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Even nuclear bunker busters are not directional explosives. They still explode in every direction however once the war. is underground, more of the shock wave is distributed through the ground which will increase the likelyhood of destroying the bunker.


As to the EMP, that is something that is currently being examined further, we do know that before each collapse, cell phones and radios in the immediate vicintity went out, which is odd.

Odd but not evidence of an EMP blast. The cell phones, radions, etc. in the IMMEDIATE area would never work again, along with newer vehicles.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I guess no onw has heard of the Chechen type building buster bomb?



Going to google it now..

Can't really find any info on this, please expand if you can.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I guess no onw has heard of the Chechen type building buster bomb?



If you have, post the info. Thanks in advance.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

H-bombs are not directional explosives as far as I know.


Hello jfj123!

Oh yes they can be — directional.

The main impetus to develop directional H-bombs came from the bunker-buster munitions designers. Which is why hardened, buried targets, no matter how deep or in what type of geological formation, no longer are off limits. The Iranians for example, seem to currently think their underground nuclear facilities are safe, but they’ve got another think coming.

The desire to miniaturize H-bombs comes from the energy industry’s quest for pure fusion energy. I suspect it’s been one of the most heavily researched fields of alternative energy in the past forty years.
The favored approach currently seems to be the development of hydrogen fuel pellets. I. e. tiny H-bombs which would be ignited in continuous sequences driving some sort of ‘piston’ system, akin to how fuel/air mixtures explosions propel combustion engines.

Sorry folks, the IEER has finally removed the direct link to the entire article “Dangerous Theromonuclear Quest — The Potential of Explosive Fusion Research for the Development of Pure Fusion Weapons”. But there are other articles, type in “Andre Gsponer” in any search engine and you will hit pay dirt.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 12/1/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by jfj123

H-bombs are not directional explosives as far as I know.


Hello jfj123!

Oh yes they can be — directional.

No they can not. You see that is why the war. must have a hardened nose cone to penetrate into the ground. The further the war. can penetrate, the more damage the nuke will do but the shock wave is dispersed into the ground equally based on density. The nukes themselves are not directional also known as shaped charges.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
No they can not. You see that is why the war. must have a hardened nose cone to penetrate into the ground.


Sorry jfj123, but you are wrong. Way wrong.

On the very first page of this thread there are links (to Andre Gsponer) describing — in great detail — the advances in bunker buster munitions and how hydrogen bombs have been incorporated into them. No ‘hardened nose cone’ will penetrate three hundred yards (900 ft) of granite, a directional nuke will.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by jfj123
No they can not. You see that is why the war. must have a hardened nose cone to penetrate into the ground.


Sorry jfj123, but you are wrong. Way wrong.

On the very first page of this thread there are links (to Andre Gsponer) describing — in great detail — the advances in bunker buster munitions and how hydrogen bombs have been incorporated into them. No ‘hardened nose cone’ will penetrate three hundred yards (900 ft) of granite, a directional nuke will.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


No sorry you're way wrong. The hardened nose penetrates the ground just like a conventional bunker buster would. Once the missile has penetrated, the nuke goes off. As the nuke is now underground, most of it's energy is uniformly dispersed through the ground. Look at ground level tests vs underground tests of nuclear weapons. Thats where they originated nuclear bunker busters.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I admire your self- confidence jfj123. But you’re so far from the truth it’s not even funny. I don’t want to bore other ATS readers with a ‘squabble’. You’ve stated your position and I’ve stated mine. So we’ll just leave it at that.

The advances in bunker buster penetration depth come from directional nuke technology. The device you’re describing has been around since World War II.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
I admire your self- confidence jfj123. But you’re so far from the truth it’s not even funny. I don’t want to bore other ATS readers with a ‘squabble’. You’ve stated your position and I’ve stated mine. So we’ll just leave it at that.

The advances in bunker buster penetration depth come from directional nuke technology. The device you’re describing has been around since World War II.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


Believe what you want. I've read many an article about the subject. The basic technology I am referring to has indeed been around awhile however, I am familiar with newer versions of it and the basic premise is the same with the exception that the missiles can now travel deeper to hit more hardened targets. If you're familiar with the new bunker busters, you know they rely on the shock wave generated by the nuclear explosion to disturb the ground and cause hardened targets to collapse.
Once again, think what you want, believe what you want. Thanks for your post.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
cause hardened targets to collapse.


I like the way you worded this. Fits nicely to the WTC.




top topics



 
12
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join