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: 29
12
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 01:12 AM
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


So there was a directed nuke that destroys concrete and steel and human tissue.....

Were you aware that there were a few firefighters - in stairwells that are, coincidentally, in the cone of the directed nuke blast - that survived?

If this fairy tale directed nuke blast destroys all it encounters, how did these folks survive?




posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Haroki
Were you aware that there were a few firefighters - in stairwells that are, coincidentally, in the cone of the directed nuke blast - that survived?


They were on the lower floors, the cone is narrow at that location, widens toward the top.

[edit on 2007/12/2 by SteveR]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Except for the fact that the WTC's were not underground.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Griff
 


Except for the fact that the WTC's were not underground.


if you detonate a nuke buried in concrete and steel the observed result would be much like that of an underground nuke test. The building absorbs the effects of the blast. There is no blinding flash or fireball, just a big earth shaking boom followed by a large pyroclastic flow.




posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Keep in mind most of the blast would be absorbed by the ground and not by a building above it.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Have you read the thread? There is seismic data here.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
reply to post by jfj123
 


Have you read the thread? There is seismic data here.


I would expect there to be a seismic event recorded because 1st huge planes hit huge buildings then huge buildings collapsed.


The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

Here is some information about the seismic events registered on 9/11. extra DIV



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Dear jfg1,

Here is a graph showing the seismic data for the NYC for me morning of 9-11.

The ‘plane impacts’ — which were never planes but bombs — are shown as small spikes. The antimatter-triggered pure hydrogen fusion nukes detonations are shown as big barbs, equivalent to 2.1 Richter scale earthquakes. There is nothing ambiguous about this. The bald eagle should be crying.



Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   
well if anyone cares, i started a thread with some new thoughts on just the seizmic data here



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Oh, and before I forget, no ‘energy beams’ as mentioned by Judy Woods would have caused such seismographic shakings.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


Oh my god now you're pretending we have anti-matter bombs!!!! Come on.




The seismic report from Lamont-Doherty includes a number of graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of the two buildings.

On the first graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes.
On graph 2, Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data gives a much more detailed picture:
The seismic waves (blue for South Tower), (red for North Tower), start small then escalate as the buildings collapse to the ground.

Translation: no bombs.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
The seismic report from Lamont-Doherty includes a number of graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of the two buildings.


There's a paper out showing discrepancies between the seismic times for the plane impacts, and all number of other sources, including the NTSB, the FAA, and even mainstream media, real-time (and synced!!) footage. The conclusion that's led to is that the initial seismic data was not for the plane impacts (which presented a shear force onto the columns which could only reach the ground by oscillating downwards through the columns like a vibrating tuning fork -- is this going to cause an earthquake when it didn't even rock the building itself upon impact?) but for some other event, coinciding with numerous reports of basement explosions from various building in various parts of the lower structures.

You can find that paper laid out with all of its supporting details here: www.studyof911.com...



On the first graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes.


I've seen the blown-up versions and the spikes are still there. There's nothing "misleading" about those graphs, which are both from LDEO. Those almost instantaneous spikes are what I'm assuming to be the "earthquakes" that the towers caused. And I think you may be showing graphs representing two different things about the signals. Notice in their actual report a lot of different units are used in measuring various things: www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

[edit on 3-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 06:02 AM
link   
For those who believe an H-bomb brought down the towers, please remember that any resultant debris, dust, etc. would be radioactive (fallout). Here is an excerpt from an article that clarifies just how long dust was in the air from the towers


Police Officer James Godbee began directing traffic just outside the World Trade Center site two days after Sept. 11, 2001, working hundreds of hours before developing a cough.

He died in 2004 of sarcoidosis, a disease that studies have linked to inhalation of toxic dust that hung over the towers' ruins for months.

"hung over the towers' ruins for MONTHS".

With weather patterns moving that dust, there would be a blanket of radioactive dust for 10's of miles, hundreds of miles or more, around ground zero.

Please don't argue that they used some special "clean" bomb as ALL nuclear reactions produce radiation and radioactive fallout.

The military is even discontinuing the use of depleted uranium shells in favor or tungsten due to radioactive concerns. extra DIV



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The conclusion that's led to is that the initial seismic data was not for the plane impacts (which presented a shear force onto the columns which could only reach the ground by oscillating downwards through the columns like a vibrating tuning fork


Those columns were more smashed than cut and remember they're set deep in bedrock so the impact and subsequent fuel explosion would be conducted very effectively through to the bedrock as shown on those seismic graphs IE there was a significant downward component of force applied.

I'm starting to believe imaginary technology is capable of anything now



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 07:17 AM
link   
This thread is an excellent example of how the "truth" movement operates.

Wild speculation, physics-defying explanations, a clear lack of context, and when all else fails.....(essentially) name calling. Oh, and ignoring rational, knowledgeable explanations.

I understand one of the points of ATS is to discuss possibilities. I am also of the opinion that discussion of topics that are (come on, honestly now) beyond the pail of anything approaching reality undermines that very goal. That goal being truth.

However, there has to come a time when we just shake our heads and move on. Hydrogen bombs? Holograms? Thousands upon thousands of people involved in a secret plot to destroy the World Trade Centers for oil/profit/war profiteering/?



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Beyond the pale, eh?

SlightlyAbovePar, the world will not conform to how “you want to see it”. And reality will not adapt to our leaders wishes either.

9-11 was not about profiteering — no matter how many ruthless creeps did indeed make loads of moohlah of the event. It was executed as part of an overall U.S. energy policy to secure the world’s last remaining petroleum reserves for our ‘strategic national interests’. I am not making this up. Listen closely to Condoleeza Rice or Dick Cheney, they mention this all the time, in a roundabout way of course. All you gotta do is listen!

Here are the absolute facts about the 9-11 occurrences in NYC; three buildings, WTC-1, 2 and 7 were turned to powder. And WTC-6 was left with a giant cylindrical hole in the middle. Now we need to ask ourselves how did this happen? The easiest approach is to guesstimate the amount of energy required to do such a thing. Jim Hoffman conservatively calculated 14.4 million kWh would have been needed per tower. That’s the equivalent of 12,350 US tons of TNT — per tower. The only device I can think of that can do this relatively quietly and invisibly, as in 85% more quiet and invisible than TNT, is a hydrogen bomb, triggered with antimatter. Antimatter gets produced daily at the CERN in Geneva so please don’t protest that this is a fantasy.

For all the details, you’re going to have to read the thread.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 12/4/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
This thread is an excellent example of how the "truth" movement operates.

Wild speculation, physics-defying explanations, a clear lack of context, and when all else fails.....(essentially) name calling. Oh, and ignoring rational, knowledgeable explanations.

I understand one of the points of ATS is to discuss possibilities. I am also of the opinion that discussion of topics that are (come on, honestly now) beyond the pail of anything approaching reality undermines that very goal. That goal being truth.

Very well said !!!


However, there has to come a time when we just shake our heads and move on. Hydrogen bombs? Holograms? Thousands upon thousands of people involved in a secret plot to destroy the World Trade Centers for oil/profit/war profiteering/?

Don't forget Directed Energy Weapons, Anti-matter bombs, Gravity beams and force fields. I think there are a few more but I can't remember them right now.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Directed Energy Weapons:
If this term includes any directional shaped charge, and if directional hydrogen bombs are included under this categorization, then yes, DEW’s were used. If you’re talking about Lasers, or micro-waves or whatever, then no, DEW’s weren’t used.

Gravity Beams: What’s that?

Force Fields: Some sort of magnetism maybe? I have no idea what you’re talking about!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 

Beyond the pale, eh?
SlightlyAbovePar, the world will not conform to how “you want to see it”. And reality will not adapt to our leaders wishes either.

9-11 was not about profiteering — no matter how many ruthless creeps did indeed make loads of moohlah of the event. It was executed as part of an overall U.S. energy policy to secure the world’s last remaining petroleum reserves for our ‘strategic national interests’.

But there are oil reserves being found all over the world so there is still plenty of oil. For this to be true, we would need to secure Canada, Russia, the middle east, venesuala, the US and many, many other countries around the world.


Here are the absolute facts about the 9-11 occurrences in NYC; three buildings, WTC-1, 2 and 7 were turned to powder. And WTC-6 was left with a giant cylindrical hole in the middle. Now we need to ask ourselves how did this happen? The easiest approach is to guesstimate the amount of energy required to do such a thing. Jim Hoffman conservatively calculated 14.4 million kWh would have been needed per tower. That’s the equivalent of 12,350 US tons of TNT — per tower.

So that means a 12 kiloton nuclear bomb. Thats a lot of EMP and radiation. In comparison, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 13 and 16 kiloton and killed approximately 140,000 people including associated effects.


The only device I can think of that can do this relatively quietly and invisibly, as in 85% more quiet and invisible than TNT, is a hydrogen bomb, triggered with antimatter. Antimatter gets produced daily at the CERN in Geneva so please don’t protest that this is a fantasy.

This is fantasy, I protest. This is why.
First, lets discuss anti-matter
When a particle and its anti-particle meet, they annihilate each other and their entire mass is converted into pure energy. Thats a big bang!!!

Now here's a comparison
100% of mass in an anti-matter reaction is converted into energy.
7% of the mass of a fusion reaction in a hydrogen bomb is converted into energy.

High-energy antimatter particles are only produced in relatively large numbers at a few of the world's largest particle accelerators. The current WORLDWIDE production rate of antimatter is approx. 1 billionth of a gram PER YEAR.

Now lets here from the source you brought up-CERN.

According to an article on the website of the CERN laboratories, which produces antimatter on a regular basis, "There is no possibility to make antimatter bombs for the same reason you cannot use it to store energy: we can't accumulate enough of it at high enough density. (...) If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


You used CERN as a reference point for anti-matter production. That same source says you are wrong.

So we're back to saying this is fantasy.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join