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: 30
12
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:
six

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 

Except in the Wiz's hypothosis, he says it is a inverted cone, like a flashlight shown downward, so the wide is at the bottom. I think that that is a fair question for wizard to answer.




posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Never say never.


But even in the early 1930s such illustrious physicists as Ernest Rutherford and Albert Einstein could see no way of artificially releasing that energy any faster than nature naturally allowed it to leave. "Radium engines" in the 1930s were the stuff of science fiction, such was being written at the time by Edgar Rice Burroughs.


en.wikipedia.org...

Ten years later, we dropped the first bomb.

Just saying to keep an open mind. That's all.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
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.


I didn’t say antimatter was being used to make a bomb. I said antimatter was being used to TRIGGER a bomb. Like the sparks from your sparkplugs in your car engine, antimatter only sets off the (hydrogen fusion) explosion it doesn’t ‘fuel’ it.

Plenty of oil? Really? I guess we’re just putzing around in the Middle East for fun then. When we could be getting oil from all that oil shale in Canada. My are we stupid. Or could it be that separating that gooey mess of dirt and oil isn’t possible, neither technically nor theoretically in a way that actually ‘nets’ energy?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Originally posted by jfj123

Although the quote mentioned an anti-matter bomb, I didn’t say you were inferring that antimatter was being used to make a bomb. If you read my post, you would know that containment is a problem. Here let me post it again.

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.


Here's the key part
"you cannot use it to store energy"


Plenty of oil?

YES

Really?

I said YES.


I guess we’re just putzing around in the Middle East for fun then.

In the short term, it's cheaper for the oil companies to import oil so they don't need to spend money on equipment, personnel, research, additional refineries, etc... You see, people are starting to look away from oil as a source of energy due to some major advances in other energy technologies. If the oil companies invest long term now, they will start seeing the short end of the stick before they start getting a return on their investments. They are trying to make as much money now before it's too late.


When we could be getting oil from all that oil shale in Canada.

There is approx 2 trillion barrels of oil buried beneath parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming in the form of shale oil. Recently SHELL oil applied for a patent for a process to CHEAPLY extract oil from shale.

also,

Several companies including Chevron Corp. have tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that could boost the nation’s reserves by more than 50 percent.


My are we stupid. Or could it be that separating that gooey mess of dirt and oil isn’t possible, neither technically nor theoretically in a way that actually ‘nets’ energy?

See above for your answer.


[edit on 4-12-2007 by jfj123]

[edit on 4-12-2007 by jfj123]

[edit on 4-12-2007 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Yes 10 years later not right now. Maybe 10 years from now we'll be able to deal with anti-matter containment issues but not right now. So yes it's still fantasy.

By the way, I have a very open mind but I know the difference between science fiction and science fact.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
By the way, I have a very open mind but I know the difference between science fiction and science fact.


Do you think in the '40s that the makers of the bomb would have let the world know what they were up to?

Do you believe if they have solved the containment issue for anti-matter, that they would let the world know what they are up to now?

Think about it.

Showing that you don't even consider it a possibility is the definition of closing your mind to the idea. Just saying.

Furthermore, do they even now let the world know their secrets when it comes to fission and fussion?



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
By the way, I have a very open mind but I know the difference between science fiction and science fact.


Do you think in the '40s that the makers of the bomb would have let the world know what they were up to?

Do you believe if they have solved the containment issue for anti-matter, that they would let the world know what they are up to now?

Think about it.

Showing that you don't even consider it a possibility is the definition of closing your mind to the idea. Just saying.

Furthermore, do they even now let the world know their secrets when it comes to fission and fussion?


CERN is one of the WORLDS leading research organizations in many area's including anti-matter. Either they are lying and they are part of the conspiracy or they are telling the truth. If they are part of the conspiracy, we're now talking about thousands more people who can keep their mouths shut.
The problem is, the bigger the proposed conspiracy is, the less likely it is true. Every time you accept something as fact, the conspiracy grows.

I'm not being close minded, I'm being realistic. There is a HUGE difference. For example, do you believe Flying, invisible, purple Wombats destroyed the WTC towers? By your definition, if you don't, then you're closed minded too
Just something to think about



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
CERN is one of the WORLDS leading research organizations in many area's including anti-matter. Either they are lying and they are part of the conspiracy or they are telling the truth. If they are part of the conspiracy, we're now talking about thousands more people who can keep their mouths shut.
The problem is, the bigger the proposed conspiracy is, the less likely it is true. Every time you accept something as fact, the conspiracy grows.


Where did I ever say that they are part of THIS conspiracy?

If they have the technology, do you think that they would be telling us yet? I highly doubt it. There's no "conspiracy" involved in keeping technology a secret.

So, there goes your 1,000's of people in on it idea.

BTW, 1,300 or so people worked on the Manhattan Project but kept it secret.

So, there goes your 1,000's of people in on it idea again.


I'm not being close minded, I'm being realistic. There is a HUGE difference. For example, do you believe Flying, invisible, purple Wombats destroyed the WTC towers? By your definition, if you don't, then you're closed minded too
Just something to think about


Since purple Wombats aren't known to exist, then yes, I would be closed minded to the idea of it. Understand?

I will freely admit when I am being closed minded on a subject.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by jfj123

CERN is one of the WORLDS leading research organizations in many area's including anti-matter. Either they are lying and they are part of the conspiracy or they are telling the truth. If they are part of the conspiracy, we're now talking about thousands more people who can keep their mouths shut.
The problem is, the bigger the proposed conspiracy is, the less likely it is true. Every time you accept something as fact, the conspiracy grows.

Where did I ever say that they are part of THIS conspiracy?

CERN claims that the technology to contain anti-matter for any type of explosive, doesn't exist. If you say it does, you are saying they are lying.


If they have the technology, do you think that they would be telling us yet? I highly doubt it. There's no "conspiracy" involved in keeping technology a secret.

So then they are lying which means CERN and other institutes that research anti-matter must be complicate.


So, there goes your 1,000's of people in on it idea.

No it's still there. See above for details.


BTW, 1,300 or so people worked on the Manhattan Project but kept it secret.

Thousands of CERN employees.
Thousands of people behind the scenes for the actual 9/11 work.


So, there goes your 1,000's of people in on it idea again.

No still there STILL



I'm not being close minded, I'm being realistic. There is a HUGE difference. For example, do you believe Flying, invisible, purple Wombats destroyed the WTC towers? By your definition, if you don't, then you're closed minded too
Just something to think about


Since purple Wombats aren't known to exist, then yes, I would be closed minded to the idea of it. Understand?

The technology to contain anti-matter for any type of explosive, isn't known to exist. Understand?


[edit on 4-12-2007 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
The total number of people "in on it" isn't as relevant to consider as the number of people that would have to know what they were actually doing. There are concepts like "compartmentalization," "need-to-know," etc., that happen to exist within the intelligence community.

List out every person/institution/agency you think would necessarily be required to have full working knowledge of the operation, justify why they would have to be fully "in on it," assuming this was ultimately directed by, say, the Joints Chiefs of Staff (just for the sake of argument, and since they did come up with the Northwoods stuff).

And then maybe we can reason and be realistic, and realize that most of the people you're going to try to list could easily do what they personally needed to without knowing exactly what they were actually aiding in the larger scheme of things. And if this is true, that they could either fully know what they were doing, or be confused, ignorant or misled about what they were doing, then which of the two would someone actually "in on it" opt for, when looking for ways to coordinate everything correctly?



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
The technology to contain anti-matter for any type of explosive, isn't known to exist. Understand?


Yes Sir/Maam, Jfj1!!!


Image of a non-existent portable antimatter storage device — a Penning trap.

Since the children are our future, I’ve reposted this image already shown earlier in this thread. Look, scientists tend to be ‘nerds’. No offense here, but that’s the way it is. Their love for research tends to blind them toward understanding how their work is being used. Which means their discoveries are readily hijacked for military purposes.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 12/4/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
CERN claims that the technology to contain anti-matter for any type of explosive, doesn't exist. If you say it does, you are saying they are lying.


And Lockhead Martin kept denying that the F-117 existed until they couldn't anymore.


The F-117A's first flight was in 1981, and it achieved Initial Operational Capability status in October 1983.[1] The F-117A came out of secrecy and was revealed to the world in November 1988.[2]


So, where they involved in some sort of conspiracy?

BTW. I'm NOT claiming that anti-matter containment does exist. I'm just saying, let's be more open about the possibility that they aren't telling us the whole truth just yet. K?


So then they are lying which means CERN and other institutes that research anti-matter must be complicate.


Why does it have to be a conspiracy for you? Don't you think that there is technology not being told to the public as of yet? Are they involved in the 9/11 conspiracy also? Just because their technology is secret right now?


Thousands of CERN employees.
Thousands of people behind the scenes for the actual 9/11 work.


I don't believe it would have taken thousands, so you're going to have to do better than that to convince me that it would take that many people.


The technology to contain anti-matter for any type of explosive, isn't known to exist. Understand?


You said it right there. Isn't known to exist.

Back in 1981, the F-117 wasn't known to exist either. But it did. Didn't even involve a conspiracy. Now do you understand what I'm saying?

Or do you believe that ALL technology that exists is known to us?

[edit on 12/4/2007 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


That was a terrific post. I'm not sure he gets the idea. Corporations, governments, etc. are allowed to keep secrets. Some things just aren't our business. I gave you a star.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 



Nice.


Currently Penning traps are used at CERN to store antiprotons.


en.wikipedia.org...

And to add.


A follow-up to the ACMF and ICAN is Antiproton Initiated Microfission/fusion (AIM) and AIMStar. Here, a small concentration of antimatter and fissionable material is used to spark a microfusion reaction with nearby material.


and


The AIM engine requires just 5x108 antiprotons per reaction; this amount can be readily obtained from Fermilab and CERN.


and


The Fermi National Laboratory is currently constructing the Main Injector ring, which can produce 14 ng of antiprotons in one year's time. A recycling ring can boost production by a factor of 10. This is adequate for ICAN, but under the levels for AIMStar.


www.engr.psu.edu...

Are we still going to argue that it is totally unplausible?


[edit on 12/4/2007 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Also this:


A modified Penning-Malmberg trap that could store a small cloud of antiprotons for a relatively long time (weeks) has been developed.



This work was done by William H. Sims and James Martin of Marshall Space Flight Center, and Raymond Lewis of RLewis Co. For further information, access the Technical Support Package (TSP) free on-line at www.techbriefs.com/tsp under the Physical Sciences category. This invention is owned by NASA, and a patent application has been filed. Inquiries concerning nonexclusive or exclusive license for its commercial development should be addressed to the Patent Counsel, Marshall Space Flight Center, (256) 544-0021. Refer to MFS-31780.


www.techbriefs.com...

So basically, yes, I feel the guy from CERN was lying.

[edit on 12/4/2007 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Griff,

Thank you for all the fine listing of sources for the Penning trap. I didn’t know there were so many readily available references. I too give you a ‘star’.

The guy from CERN wasn’t lying. He has only been ‘misunderstood’. But still he is a dork. There’s no doubt about that. What that scientist is saying that one cannot (yet) make a bomb solely out of antimatter because it is impossible to keep/contain enough of the stuff in one spot at the same time. He is correct about that. But what he either doesn’t understand or is hiding, is that antimatter can very well be used to initiate fusion/fission processes since only small amounts of antimatter are needed there.

And the crazy thing is, CERN will ship — via common carrier, FEDEX etc. — antiprotons to Universities all over the world, no questions asked. And who knows what an outfit like, say, MIT in Cambridge, MA will do with such substance, after all, they did originate the ‘pancake theory of collapse’, so we know they have no morals.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 12/4/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   
here is something WITW won't agree with but goes in favour of the nuke conspiracy and that is a red mercury based trigger which apparently has been around a for quite a while now and would (compared to an anti matter trigger) be relatively cheap and easy to obtain for the likes of a high class terrorist organisation. If 'red mercury' exists then that would be an ideal culprit for a very low yield atomic demolition munition trigger. But that's a whole other story and conspiracy in itself.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
MIT in Cambridge, MA will do with such substance, after all, they did originate the ‘pancake theory of collapse’, so we know they have no morals.


Ha. I liked this. Made me laugh.

I guess "lying" is harsh. I'm just so used to it from the official story believers being thrown around at a whim.


Edit: BTW Wizard. Starred and flagged you also.


[edit on 12/5/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 12/5/2007 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


I've heard of "red mercury". Haven't really looked into it other than reading about it here sometimes. I'll have to research that some. Any sugestions on a good scientific site? Thanks for the info.




posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   
see this is why i respect some of ya'll with this theory (yes wizard, even you hehe) more than a lot of straight CD theorists.

they get data from lethal weapon movies.

the Hbomb theories at least have some research and science behind them...this isnt to say i agree. theres a far leap from concievable to proof in my mind. but with this theory theres at least some science and technology that can be demonstrated as, if not actually existing, at least researched.

from a good number of CD theorists i get "well, it LOOKS like a CD so..."

Good finds Griff.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join