Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

reply to post by Damocles


Thanks. All I was trying to do was dispel the "it's impossible to even concieve" argument. I too am still on the fence with thermonuclear devices used.

well on the surface for me it follows the CD theory of "wheres the kaboom?! there was supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom!"

i mean the lack of radiation and emp i can overlook if this is theoretically a pure fusion device (not sure of the emp on something like that as we KNOW a fision device emits one and officially all fusion bombs start off with a fission trigger) but if there was an actual detonation, i dont see it.

so if the theory was more of an emitter type device than a bomb, i could NEARLY give that real thought, cuz then yer essentially talking about a particle beam weapon no? kind of like the DEW theories but rather than it being from space it would have been in the basement?

or am i just too blasted to really understand whats being discussed here?

ill openly admit that of the araes i worked in in the military, chem/bio/nuke/demo nuke was my weakest area.

Originally posted by Damocles
so if the theory was more of an emitter type device than a bomb, i could NEARLY give that real thought, cuz then yer essentially talking about a particle beam weapon no? kind of like the DEW theories but rather than it being from space it would have been in the basement?

I agree that it is probably more plausible than a "bomb".

or am i just too blasted to really understand whats being discussed here?

I think you've got it. Thanks Dr. Woods for starting the "space beam" DEW theory. It just sounds too sci-fi to the average joe IMO.

Originally posted by Griff
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.

Not much available, but here are a few links: some terrorists convicted in a British sting operation for wanting to purchase it reported by the BBC, here's a hearsay article that lays out the basics; and another from Rense (I know, but the quotes from Sam Cohen are legit) here.

All pretty much a thin gruel of hearsay, but Cohen's interest in red mercury is intriguing. Hopefully someone can come up with more.


[edit on 5-12-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by Damocles
well on the surface for me it follows the CD theory of "wheres the kaboom?! there was supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom!"

Damocles,

Boom…here comes the boom! (cool song by p.o.d.)

Anyways…if — as theory dictates — only 15% of the yield of a pure fusion hydrogen nuke are blast effects, then only 15% of the overall energy released are theoretically available for producing a ‘boom’. And in the case of the twin towers much of that boom was directed upward, into the ‘sky’. Had to have been, else why were feathery 100 ton sections of steel flying upwards and sideways?

If so much of the blast was released into open air, much less would have been left to ‘move the earth’.

Dr. Judy Woods’ ‘particle beam weapon’ or whatever would need an energy source three or four times greater than the 12 kiloton nukes hypothesized here. Therein lies the theoretical weakness of her theory.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

I was wondering, would this type of bomb emit an EMP?

If it does, can anyone explain how all those firefighter's locating "crickets" were chirping the day after the collapses?

It seems as if those devices would have been fried by an EMP.....

reply to post by Haroki

That it s good question. We use the same SCBA's as FDNY. The PASS devices are built into the airpack itself and are electronic. Those firefighters would have been directly in the "cone" of the explosion. Even if the emp was limited some how, surely those electronic devices would have been affected.

'Red Mercury' seems to rank up there with Unobtanium and UnUnPentium plus has claimed properties suitable for coating stealth fighters as well as initiating fusion. IE more fictional than real.

Its primary use to date has been to apprehend would-be purchasers of basic components of nuclear weapons ('sting' operations) but the real stuff remains elusive.

There were helicopters etc in the air over NYC that day and yet no deaths among them due to exposure to a massive burst of radiation directed upwards. If we expect (rightly) that such a blast diminishes with distance from the source wouldn't the buildings have failed from the ground up which is the total opposite of what really happened? Not to mention the force of a blast sufficient to move heavy material over 500' above it would hardly go un-noticed by the live audience especially as it would have to remove all those floors in between before it affected the highest sections. How would this theory fit in with material being ejected progressively during the entire collapse? - from a logical viewpoint it wouldn't .

Sorry - just can't accept the use of nuclear weapons in any form or any other weapons apart from plain old aircraft, fuel explosion, fire & gravity in this case.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
fire & gravity

Honestly, these collapses looks fire related to you?









I always wondered 'How does propaganda trump common sense?', Milgrams answered that question for us in 1963...
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by twitchy


Thanks for the images Twitchy –— damned hippie! This one is particularly representative of a nuclear explosion.

Photo courtesy of twitchy.

Greetings,
Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 12/5/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
'Red Mercury' seems to rank up there with UnUnPentium

Both are very real I assure you.

Originally posted by Haroki
I was wondering, would this type of bomb emit an EMP?

Look up the magnitudes of the EMPs of the big bombs (they're usually measured in things like volt-meters, like 10,000 vm, etc.), and compare them to how big those bombs were in megatons of TNT equivalent. If this is any rough estimate, then, proportional to the size of the bombs we're talking about, you'd be dealing with EMPs that would be measured in single volts, and fractions of volts. That's not going to fail any components, which would have to happen by exceeding their power ratings. It would probably just cause "static," noise, etc., temporarily.

reply to post by bsbray11


Question for you then...Kinda up your alley...These packs have a battery source for the PASS device. It takes 1 9v battery to power this device. Would this theoretical device have emp's that are powerful enough to fry these electronics? Alot of the firefighters were very close to the bottom levels of the WTC and their PASS devices were still sounding. Wouldnt being practically ontop of the device have any bearing?

It seems to me that there was a massive amount of heat generated at the very lowest levels of the core..at bedrock and just above. How else to explain the core members turning to dust? the steel was heated so high that it lost its structure. What could cause a heat blast like that with only the levels of damage seen by the men at the lower levels? There was extensive damage, 50 ton press disappeared, etc..so there was a massive blast.

But unless the DEW is the answer I say some nuke type or fission type device created heat beyond belief but not much of a blast. Molten pools of steel weeks later cannot be explained by any other means .Only certain things create that kind of heat all at once.

There's lots of aspects that don't line up with this hypothesis and even without going into lack of EMP and radiation:

If the blast were focussed upward from below the building wouldn't the lower levels have sustained the most damage? IE the buildings would have collapsed very differently starting at ground level.

Before the blast could exert a physical force on the higher parts of the building all the lower parts need to be obliterated first don't they?
Problem is some people who were in the blast zone actually did get out alive.

How does a fusion explosion keep 'exploding' for the duration of the building collapse? or even keep fires hot enough to melt steel for weeks afterward as some seem to claim.
The nature of a such a bomb is that it releases all its energy in an instant IE one flash and you're ash.

Summary: There was no fusion device or any other device apart from what was seen and recorded. Building fatally wounded by 100 000kg object travelling at 200+ m/sec, 90 000L of fuel exploding, fire weakening enough remaining structural steel to the point where it could no longer support the weight of the building above the impact zone - gravity did the rest.

Originally posted by six
Question for you then...Kinda up your alley...These packs have a battery source for the PASS device. It takes 1 9v battery to power this device. Would this theoretical device have emp's that are powerful enough to fry these electronics?

I'd have to see the schematics and try to look up the power ratings for the components but I really doubt it. If any components could fail with a brief pulse across them of only a few volts then I would really be surprised. I'd say the circuits could easily handle at least 15V input sustained without heating too much. Chips designed for 5V inputs are often rated up to 30V inputs. It's the same kind of "redundancy" that structural engineers implement, except versatility in different kinds of circuits seems the goal rather than just safety. They just mass-produce cheap chips that can stand a range of inputs, and use them for all sorts of small circuits. Even if the circuit puts out some nasty noise for a second, nothing should fry.

[edit on 5-12-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Summary: There was no fusion device or any other device apart from what was seen and recorded. Building fatally wounded by 100 000kg object travelling at 200+ m/sec, 90 000L of fuel exploding, fire weakening enough remaining structural steel to the point where it could no longer support the weight of the building above the impact zone - gravity did the rest.

Do you have any evidence for that, or are your straw-men supposed to compensate for that? Because we know how much damage the impacts did, and it wasn't much (

Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you have any evidence for that, or are your straw-men supposed to compensate for that? Because we know how much damage the impacts did, and it wasn't much (

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Sorry I'm not familiar with this 'straw-man' term although I see it a lot round here - perhaps someone could enlighten me as to meaning.

A "straw man" is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone misrepresents someone else's argument. Like, if I say 9/11 was an inside job, and you attack the idea that George Bush did it. I don't believe Bush did it, so what who would you be arguing with? You would be attacking a "straw man."

The symbolism implied by the term is that of someone attacking an opponent made of straw, rather than attacking a real opponent. I think straw men used to be used for military practice some centuries ago.

In this case you represent the general idea that a nuclear device was used, with another idea that also involves a nuclear device but is much more specific (planted in the base and directed upwards). Maybe it doesn't make sense that a single device was placed at the bases and directed upwards, but it would be a logical fallacy to say therefore no nuclear devices could have been used. This was the suggestion I got from one of your last posts, though.

The abundant evidence (recorded and live witnesses) indicates just what I stated.

Well damn, I missed it.

As to the state of the steel and the percentage undamaged, well that's just conjecture

Well then your theory is also conjecture, because the amount of damage is central to it.

But actually, FEMA gives good diagrams in their report of the exterior column damage (chapter 2.2), and NIST modeled the worst-case-scenario they could come up with for the core column damages. This is where I get the

So, if we have a logical impass on the realities of 911 we're all trying to look after our personal 'straw men' if we have different opinions - I can live with that

I believe I made my case clear but I'm not closed to new revelations as long as they fit all the points that, to me at least, make logical sense. The suggestion of nuclear devices doesn't meet that criteria so it fails (to my logic).

Don't go thinking I'm opposed to the suggestion of conspiracy/cover-up of aspects of 911 as there's plenty of highly questionable things that happened as yet not satisfactorily answered but none of those for me involve nuclear weapons, DEWs or holograms.