Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
There would be residual radiation left over....as well as neutrinos from the fusion reaction.


When does the fusion reaction occur in a bomb utilizing fissure?


Satellites would of detected the gamma radiation not only from the explosion but from the decay rate of the plutonium


When is plutonium produced from a hydrogen bomb?


there would be a thermal disintegration of every building within a few mile radius even with the smallest of nuclear devices.


Smallest publically-known devices, yes.

I'm not saying I think it would be possible for a miniature version of a Hiroshima bomb to have been detonated. I'm talking about devices that would be in the yield range of single tons. I'm assuming these devices exist, for the sake of argument. Why couldn't they be used, if they do exist and are available? You'd have no truly massive releases of ANYTHING except proportionally to the same amount of mass of any conventional explosive, right? There were things reported that fit with a very low-yield weapon of this sort, regardless of whether we can attempt to explain them with various other phenomena (some not so convincing, at all) in addition.


Originally posted by dperry4930
3. quick math tells me it requires roughly 3.6 kg of TNT to throw 22 tons of anything at around 80 fps, which is how fast it would have to go to reach 200m in about 7.5 sec.


Then your math is wrong. Set 3.6kg of TNT under a car, which isn't even 22 tons, and set it off. If you can get the car to even lift off the ground, take a video of it and I'll send you $50.


5. frankly it doesn't shock me to have glowing steel, even molten pools of the stuff considering the massive amount of potential energy contained in any of the WTC buildings, to be released by just little old gravity.


So falling buildings naturally produce molten steel? I'm not going to comment; this speaks for itself imo.




posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grey
How in the hell you came up with the conclusion that hydrogen bombs were used to bring down the towers is just insane.


Who's come to this conclusion? The very name of this thread is "Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis".

There are collapse features that are not explained by pancake-type collapses, high explosives, or thermite. Doesn't have to have been nukes; I'm just wondering if anybody has any other possibilities in mind, that would actually check out.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Dear Everybody:

Here's another famous photograph clearly showing some sort of explosion well beneath the floors where the fires were burning.




All right now, let's get back to work at our day jobs everybody -- we're not getting paid to research 9-11 events.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Here is a slightly different edge, I read a theory just recently that clandestine nuclear reactors were actually built deep beneath Manhattan during or after the manhattan project and the original wtc bombings were actually an attempt to knock out the cooling systems to make the reactors go critical(!)

www.reopen911.org...

Here are some quotes from the PDF..


The high correlation between [Th] and [U] is self evident.
The presence of these two elements in such high concentrations
(particularly in the two girder coatings at WTC 01-08 and 01-09) in such
a close mathematical relationship is further incontrovertible evidence
that a nuclear event has taken place.




The enormous peak in Strontium and Barium concentration at WTC 01-
16 is readily apparent. The concentration of the two elements reaches
3670ppm and 3130ppm respectively or over 0.3% by weight of the dust.
This means that 0.37% of the sample was Barium and 0.31% of the
sample was Strontium by weight at that location.
This is higher than even the Titanium concentration at WTC 01-16 of
0.25%.
This is quite simply astronomical. Barium and Strontium compounds are
not valid constituents of concrete or any other building material such as
glass, aluminium, plaster and steel. They should not be there.



In the dust, they found high levels of chemical elements that had no
business being there. Extremely rare and toxic elements. Elements
such as Barium, Strontium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum, Yttrium. Even
some elements that only exist in radioactive form.
These elements are forensic evidence of the event that caused the
disintegration of the towers. They form a distinctive hallmark and
signature of a certain well known chemical process.
Nuclear Fission.
What was the enormous source of energy that caused the destruction of
the WTC? It was not a few thousand gallons of jet fuel. It was not even a
few thousand pounds of conventional explosives. It was a Nuclear
Explosion. Two Nuclear Explosions.
But even more than that, these were not just atomic bombs. The
explosions were caused by the deliberate core meltdown of two
clandestine nuclear reactors buried deep beneath the towers.



.... I can't really believe this or take it totally serious, nuclear reactors? Perhaps they draw this conclusion as it seems to best fit their research. I try to approach with an open mind and I really don't know enough to say this is totally false but seems pretty far fetched. But there you go, another take on the possibility.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Originally posted by dperry4930
3. quick math tells me it requires roughly 3.6 kg of TNT to throw 22 tons of anything at around 80 fps, which is how fast it would have to go to reach 200m in about 7.5 sec.


Then your math is wrong. Set 3.6kg of TNT under a car, which isn't even 22 tons, and set it off. If you can get the car to even lift off the ground, take a video of it and I'll send you $50.


bsby, thats called changing the scope of the problem, which belies either ignorance or willful deceit, your pick. The problem as described was to bring a piece of material of 22 tons (20000 kg) to a velocity that would (in about 7 seconds, the amount of 'free-fall' time to fall 250 m) push the chunk of material out to 200 meters. That amount of energy (in KJ) would be 8000 KJ (using KE = 1/2 mv^2, making the amount of TNT even smaller as I left of the 1/2 originally!)

Let me see, checking wiki for KJ to TNT equivalent conversion, I get 4.2 KJ per gram of TNT. Dividing 4.2 into 8000 gives 1.9 kg of TNT (like I said, off by half in the smaller direction as I left of the 1/2 before.)

So, to sum up, 1.9 kg of TNT can accelerate 22 tons of material to 28.17 m/s, which if the object is falling for 7 seconds would place it 200 m away.

Don't you love math? If I send the scratch paper I used to you can I still get the $50?


Originally posted by bsbray11


Originally posted by dperry4930
5. frankly it doesn't shock me to have glowing steel, even molten pools of the stuff considering the massive amount of potential energy contained in any of the WTC buildings, to be released by just little old gravity.


So falling buildings naturally produce molten steel? I'm not going to comment; this speaks for itself imo.


I don't think to many people have personal experience of the energies involved in the conversion of the potential energy of a 900+ ft building made of steel into kinetic energy. So by all means comment on your experience (or lack thereof) in the matter. I will look around but something tells me that that number alone can explain much of the catastrophic amount of damage (that people somehow insist could only have been caused by some sort of magical fusion device.)

I say magical because the defenders of this theory when confronted with anything contradictory (based on known effects of nuke weapons) it somehow morphs into something that no one has seen or heard of, but these people are sure it exists just because...?

[edit on 4-10-2006 by dperry4930]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Dear Dperry4930:

Comparing sources of energy via calculations “on paper” can be tricky. Because it does not take into consideration “the quality” of the energy reviewed. I. e. the ability of that energy to actually “do work”. That is determined by “how well organized” the energy under discussion is. I. e. how high or low its degree of entropy is. An example would be — you can happily drink a full pot of hot high-entropy coffee (at least I do all the time) and it wont hurt you a bit. Apply the same amount of kinetic energy that’s in the water of that coffee as low-entropy electrical current and it would easily “blow a hole in your heart”. The energy coming from a hydrogen bomb is of much “higher quality”, i.e. lower entropy, than the same amount of energy released by TNT — and can therefore do much more “work” (damage).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dperry4930
Don't you love math? If I send the scratch paper I used to you can I still get the $50?


The math is wrong; it does not apply.

You're assuming all of the energy is not only directed but goes 100% towards the propulsion of the mass, and even then I'm not sure your calculations are correct for air resistance and all of that. But I promise you that your amount of TNT, even if PURE, all the casing and etc. discounted, is not going to eject a 22 TON SECTION OF STEEL through the air laterally in a speed that is measured in meters per second.

There are explosives experts here. Who thinks 1.9kg of TNT is going to launch 22 tons of steel 600 feet laterally?

You can juggle numbers all day; just because you can plug numbers into a formula does not mean that formula reflects reality in any way, in the way you apply it. I want to see you launch an object weighing even one ton any distance with a couple pounds of TNT.


Here is a video of 10 lbs of C4 (more powerful than TNT) being detonated:

video.google.com...


Here are the sections of columns launched laterally:






Use a little imagination, please. Or if you want, try it yourself with objects even just 200 pounds or so heavy.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
nuclearweaponarchive.org...

I thought this might come in handy, enjoy.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Compelling research with links

This is some of the most compelling reading I found on this, with TONS of links and references.

Amazing



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Dear Everybody:

Like a bad cold, the notion about Al-Qaida as a "terrorist" group keeps arising. So I feel compelled to post the following analysis.

Alright, let’s use a little flow-chart style logic here. Are we having fun yet?
It can be proven — beyond a doubt, any doubt – that there were bombs and explosions in the WTC buildings. See picture below.



No matter what type of explosives were used these had to be placed — in advance of 9-11 — a big job in any case, it must have taken months. Either our government did this or our government allowed “Al Qaida-operatives” themselves to enter the buildings to place these. Since it’s highly unlikely that large numbers of Al Qaida operatives were able to secretly “waltz around” in these buildings for weeks and weeks and do “their thing” it must have been our own agents who placed the demolition charges.

Or perhaps we should believe that our government “employed” Al Qaida members as “professional terrorists” to prepare the buildings for takedown. And that we dressed them up in nice little plumber outfits for disguise. Well in this case they would have become “government workers” as employees or volunteers depending on whether or not they were paid. It doesn’t matter — in such a case we could no longer label them as “terrorists”. Unless of course our department of labor has created a new job category called “terrorist”.

So in conclusion, if our government — as the countless visual documents prove — blew up the WTC buildings and therefore carried out the critical events of 9-11, why should we believe that planes were “high-jacked” by “terrorists”. And why should we care? How can we label Al Qaida a “terrorist” organization if at best their members served only as stooges in an operation they had no active role in whatsoever. I mean what did they actually DO? Please tell me. Flew the planes? I’ve spoken to commercial Jumbo-jet pilots and they said that they themselves (as professional pilots) couldn’t have pulled this off. So, all that the terrorists contributed was their pictures and passports — and warm bodies if you happened to still think they actually boarded planes. Who cares I ask?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The math is wrong; it does not apply.

You're assuming all of the energy is not only directed but goes 100% towards the propulsion of the mass

There are explosives experts here. Who thinks 1.9kg of TNT is going to launch 22 tons of steel 600 feet laterally?

You can juggle numbers all day; just because you can plug numbers into a formula does not mean that formula reflects reality in any way, in the way you apply it. I want to see you launch an object weighing even one ton any distance with a couple pounds of TNT.


Discount all you like. Last I heard KE = 1/2 mv^2 still held true. What about that do you not understand? Whatever is lost due to the inefficiencies due to air resistance, omni-directional blast, etc. can simply be made up for by adding some more TNT. The (simple) point I made (whether you choose to grasp or not) is that a quite realistic amount of conventional explosive can reproduce the effects described. No magical or special weapon (no one has ever heard of or a lick of proof that exists) is required.

Oh I am quite sure explosive 'experts' will come out of the ATS woodwork and attempt to explain how 'real' explosives don't operate under the simple laws of physics.

Of course what is truly entertaining is that I don't even buy into the CD theory to begin with! I just had to expose with simple freshman level mechanics and some common sense what a true farce this latest CT is.

Thanks again!



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

WTC aftermath


Chernobyl aftermath


There are clear similiarities here I feel and it is one of the only visual comparisons I have been able to make against wtc.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
hit the post twice :x

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Look at this video and look at where the top section is bending as it collapses. Thats not a hydrogen bomb.

www.youtube.com...

Heres a more close up view of the south tower. The video says north, but the author made a mistake.

www.youtube.com...

And look at this video where the dust or smoke coming out. Is this "explosion" happening before the tower is collapsing or after?



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

WTC aftermath


Chernobyl aftermath

To me there are clear similiarities here I feel and it is one of the only visual comparisons I have been able to make against wtc. Anyone else found any similar photos to compare with WTC?



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

This is a video showing a very tall building being demolished. Similar to the twin towers' destruction?



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I am more referring to the aftermath at ground zero not the collapse.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Dear Insolubrious:

Fantastic pictures! Not to be outdone! And they're new, at least I’ve never seen them. I did not realize that much base material was left standing at the WTC site. Thanks for sharing these.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Insolubrious:

Fantastic pictures! Not to be outdone! And they're new, at least I’ve never seen them. I did not realize that much base material was left standing at the WTC site. Thanks for sharing these.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


Your welcome, plenty more here:

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
oh and just a reminder for those of you unfamiliar with the term ground zero:



Ground zero is the exact location on the ground where any explosion occurs. The term has often been associated with nuclear explosions, but is also used in relation to earthquakes, epidemics and other disasters to mark the point of the most severe damage or destruction. Damage gradually decreases with distance from this point.

The term may also be used to describe the impact point of any exploding bomb. In the case of a bomb which explodes above ground, the term refers to the point on the ground directly below the bomb at the moment of detonation (see hypocenter).

The term was military slang—used at the Trinity site where the weapon tower for the first nuclear weapon was at point 'zero'—and moved into general use very shortly after the end of World War II (see Manhattan Project).



en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 4-10-2006 by Insolubrious]





top topics
 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join