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: 32
12
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


You do realize in one post you proved my point?

You started by questioning my ability to see reality and made the assertion that I am trying to shape the world as I want to see it. Pot, meet kettle.

You state that 9-11 was not about profiteering but make the finding that many "ruthless creeps" made a bunch. You bring forth the oft used excuse for any conspiracy; oil reserves! The fact that almost all of Iraq's oil is being used to generate profits for their own country's rebuilding is, of course, an inconvenient truth that you would like to ignore. You claim Ms. Rice and Mr. Cheney clearly state the reason for invading Iraq was over oil reserves. Only, they didn't actually say it; you inferred it. Of course, if I don't make the same jump to wild conclusions....I obviously haven't been listening!

You are correct that building were distroyed. You are utterly incorrect that two of the three were pulverized into "...powder...". It's true there were many things that were, in fact, turned to dust. Things like drywall, furniture, masonry, etc. Oh, and a bunch of concrete. There were also millions of tons of steel. Everywhere.

Do we need to question how it happened? No. It's all been well documented. Extensively, scientifically, photographically (moving and still), audio tapes, first hand witnesses, etc., etc.

Think about your position. You are discounting one of the most throughly documented (real time and post-mortum) tragedies in our country. There are miles upon miles of video tape. There are hundreds of people killed on the planes themselves (all of them, not just the two into the towers). The point I am trying to make is that the event was throughly documented by many disparate sources. Many with absolutely no love of the current administration.

Hydrogen bombs? Anti-matter? Theories that only work when based on technology that 'might' exist? Holograms!!!! People claiming explosives, shaped charges, TNT?

Of course, two large, fuel-laden aircraft traveling at high speeds impacting both towers is utter nonsense?




posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Dear SlightlyAbovePar,

Your recent post is invaluable because it raises classic questions that are on so many minds. I will try to answer them as precisely as possible.

1. Creeps, yes, awful people, made lots of money off 9-11. But this was a side-effect, not the driving force behind the event. The true reason is our immediate need for oil, and Israel’s refusal to allow us to purchase it from ‘undesirable entities’. On 9-11 that would have been Saddam Hussein. Today it’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — also know as aqua-velva-jad — in Iran.

2. I suggest we are pumping oil in Iraq on scales unprecedented. We’re running those wells wide open, full-tilt-boogie, extracting those fields dry with every technical trick we’ve got. You would have to be VERY naive to actually even imagine that we’re reporting what we’re taking. Our military is in absolute control (our tanks are parked there) of those Mesopotamian petroleum pumps. They’re OUR personal gas station now. Do you honestly think we’re charting down what we’re taking??

3. Richard Cheney’s view has always been that alternative energies are silly tree-hugger pipe dreams, that energy conservation measures are a ‘makes-no-difference’ waste of time, and that the ONLY way to keep our “non-negotiable way of life” is through acquiring new sources of texas-tea. And sweet Misses Condoleeza Rice’s staple statement is for the sake of “our strategic national interests”... She mentions that term EVERY time she talks! In translation, that nauseating expression means that if it suits us, we must do it, no matter what.

4. All the photographic 9-11 evidence clearly shows that WTC-1, 2, and 7 came apart like castles made of sand. And WTC-6 most certainly did have a huge — as in at least 50% of its building mass — geometrically round hole in it. It took energy to do that, lots of it. And hydrogen bombs fit the bill.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 



ok wiz, i gotta ask...how exactly does a nuke (generic term for any fission/fusion weapon in this case) cause a perfectly circular hole in building 6?

just wondering

and since this is one aspect of 911 im ignorant of ill ask as you seem to know such things. how far into the building does this hole go? was it uniform in diameter all the way or was it conical?

if it wasnt conical and the same type of device was used in the wtc towers then how did people on the lower floors survive? (seems that somoene else speculated that the survivors on the lower floors were outside the cone of the discharge so im curious.)

thanks for your answers in advance. im still TRYING to keep an open mind even if i do dissagree on the outset



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


Dear Damocles,

Alright, the hole wasn’t ‘perfect’. It was more of a stair-step type round, but it still looked pretty regular shaped.
WTC-6:


The twin towers were extremely tall, so it was inherently more difficult to keep the hydrogen bombs’ yield in a tight bundle for the entire length of the buildings. So the issue of conical versus uniformly formed explosion only became noticeable at WTC-1 and 2. WTC-6 and 7 were short and stout in comparison.

The primary detonation fundamentals that were applied at the WTC complex on 9-11 all seem to be related to shaped charge technology. If these principals — using a softly-lined metal ‘bucket’ to deflect explosions into a thin, concentrated stream of ‘energy’ — work with conventional explosives, then they should apply to nuclear bangs as well. Which is why our military is using it in nuclear-tipped bunker buster bombs.

As usual, I’m repeating myself here, and am likely to bore some of the ATS veterans. But it cannot be helped. So here is once again, a good link to a shaped charge technology discussion. Lawrence Livermore scientists blast hole through 11ft of steel armor plate.

Shaped Charge Test Team:


Shaped Charge Firing Fixture:


Shaped Charge Directed Upwards:


Shaped Charge Detonation Evolution:


Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Hey Wizard, have you seen this thread?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It's some of my more specualtive work on ATS, but I think it's on to something.

[edit on 6-12-2007 by twitchy]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
ok, based on the construction and design of the towers, i can see where, IF a mininuke was used, it would be effective of wtc1&2, but 6&7 were more traditionally designed buildings so in honesty, to me at least, the choice of that particular ordinance wouldnt have made a lot of sense.

i mean, thats like using a cannon to kill a fly



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


Twitchy,

Always good to hear back from an old hippie, even if it’s an angry one. Yes I am familiar with your thread. I read it the day you first posted it. However — you knew that was coming…— I cannot fathom how such a thing might be possible, the direct integration of explosives into concrete mix or other construction materials.

Maybe I’m not open minded enough, but I cannot think of any way to do such a thing. I guess for this theory to merit consideration, one would have to suggest — by name — what type of chemicals could be used in such a role. I read most posts on your thread pretty closely, but I cannot find anything technically SPECIFIC.

Therefore, I can’t back you up on this one, twitchy. I don’t believe demolition charges could have been incorporated into building materials during initial construction. If you think otherwise, try to define WHAT (chemical composition) was used and HOW (exactly). That would have had to have been one funky concrete ‘admixture’. 

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


Damocles,

From what I understand, WTC-7 was built fortress like. Didn’t it house an Edison power substation? That building had massive steel beams also, and still dropped at near free-fall speed (Here I go, using that term. Am I in trouble now?). And there too, the rubble pile was way too flat.

And under both WTC-6 and 7 the NASA imagery shows ‘hotspots’. Actually the highest temperatures were recorded under WTC-7 if I’m not mistaken.

Remember, these new nukes can be as small as necessary. That’s why the military’s gotta love em’. Approximately three or four years ago, the department of defense publicly announced — but mainstream media didn’t dwell on it — that we were going to ‘modernize’/ ‘overhaul’ large parts of our nuclear arsenal. Now what could they have meant by that?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


kind of my meaning. i mean take a nuke shape charge and fire it up and wipe out the core of the towers and they fall. if wtc7 had its supporting beams spread out throughout the building...wouldnt work the same.

but i guess im talkin out my tail here. griff probly have a better idea of that than i would.

thanks for the reply



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
That would have had to have been one funky concrete ‘admixture’. 


The rumor I've actually heard (supposedly from construction worker oral histories, which are apparently no longer existent, or at least I can't find them), was that each floor had to be cleared of everyone except those with special security clearance from the PA, before each floor's concrete was laid. Then those with the special clearance laid a thin layer, about 1/4 inch thick, of an orange substance across the whole floor. Then the other construction workers were brought back on to lay the concrete. Supposedly this was very controversial because it was holding up construction. A construction worker named Christopher Brown (not a WTC worker) says he remembers seeing an old documentary on the towers from PBS (also apparently missing) that said the towers had special "rust-proofing" or some such on the rebar in the floors and walls (also suggesting a concrete core wall, I know). This had to be insulated from air or else it would deteriorate, and half of what was implemented in WTC2 was compromised before construction was even finished (remember WTC2's big concrete block sticking up in the air while it was collapsing? -- its core?).

Obviously the documentary itself would help, but it's an interesting take on how so many "conventional" explosives could be brought in.

The Rockefellers were behind the WTC project from the start. I don't really have a problem believing they would do something like that, but that's just coming from my experience of who the Rockefeller family is.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   
It's pretty clear there were plenty of conventional explosives planted in all of the WTC buildings. Its a fact.

I currently think in terms of the towers, if ADMs were used there were multiple ones planted on every 27 floors or so, maybe more. The primaries (cutter charges and c4) were used to soften up the structure and that was occurring in between (and perhaps before, even days before) the first plane hitting and the second.

If not ADMs then some type of DEW, I am pretty sure even with the amount of explosives planted something much more powerful than conventional explosives were used. Approx. 99% of the concrete from the towers was reduced to gravel and very fine powder.

www.acebaker.com...



[edit on 7-12-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
It's pretty clear there were plenty of conventional explosives planted in all of the WTC buildings. Its a fact.

i must, respectfully, disagree with you. i think its far from being proven as fact and in my opinion based on my experience im going to disagree that its even a sound working theory. but everyone knows that i think that and anyone thats read my debate on the topic knows why

though anyone who's not read it yet, u2u me and ill send u the link.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Then those with the special clearance laid a thin layer, about 1/4 inch thick, of an orange substance across the whole floor. Then the other construction workers were brought back on to lay the concrete.


Bsbray,

The built-into-the-structure explosives scenario would have required that the architect (Minoru Yamasaki) and his team were in-the-know about this ‘feature.’

The Twin Towers Design Team — Minoru Yamasaki et altera


It is thinkable that a greedy developer might be okay with such an outrageously absurd arrangement (to place materials for construction and destruction of a new building at the same time), but it’s unrealistic to expect an architect to cooperate. It’s not part of their mentality. They want their work to last.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I'm sure Damocles will agree that the problem with the suggestion of explosives is the lack of the tell-tale signs of explosives - exploding. Things like blinding flashes, fireballs, shock waves advancing at supersonic speeds creating sonic booms just weren't there from any angle. The odd window popping out with a puff of dust & smoke behind it doesn't suggest any forceful explosions - well not enough force to sever those core columns.

If the suggested device created a necessarily massive heat source instantaneously there'd be a huge shockwave as the superheated air expanded at supersonic speed - after all that's how explosives do their work.

To borrow a line from a conspiracy master, this is just my opinion of course



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


That’s how CHEMICAL EXPLOSIVES do their work, since their yield is 100% blast. The hydrogen fusion bombs’ output would have been only 15% blast. 80% would have been silent, invisible, non-shockwave producing high energy neutrons, superheating everything in their paths.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Bsbray,

The built-into-the-structure explosives scenario would have required that the architect (Minoru Yamasaki) and his team were in-the-know about this ‘feature.’


Wow, really? Well, golly gee!

But seriously, why? Was Les Robertson "in" on planting a nuke device in there? Otherwise, no one would know where to put it because they weren't qualified as SEs!


You know the PA revised the plans for some months before the buildings actually went into construction, and that the final structural documents are still completely unavailable, right? Not to mention the architect wouldn't have nearly so much to do with that as the SEs anyway, not that I think any of the guys whose names you know were responsible.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'm sure Damocles will agree that the problem with the suggestion of explosives is the lack of the tell-tale signs of explosives - exploding. Things like blinding flashes, fireballs, shock waves advancing at supersonic speeds


So how do you see "shock waves advancing at supersonic speeds"?

A conventional explosion is the same thing as a really loud noise. So I'm just assuming you don't know what you're talking about. It sounds to me like you've seen too many hollywood movies. What Damocles was talking about with fireballs, was definitely not conventional explosives. I don't even have to go back to find the post you're referencing to tell you that.

If you have enough ordinance (whatever ordinance) to knock out the core columns, that pressure wave has to go through all of the office space (the open floors) and out of the perimeter structure of the building before it would be visible to anybody. I don't know that it would be able to do that, really. Any devices to severe core columns, one would imagine, would be placed really close to the columns (for obvious reasons). And even if it exited the building still with a significant amount of pressure, it would only be visible in the form of things blowing out of the side of the building. Which we saw plenty of. Call it something else if you'd like but what you call it is 100% as arbitrary as what I call it and you're not really doing anything but stating your already-formed opinion on it. I can post images illustrating many more 'squibs' right on the collapse wave than stuck out singularly that you're thinking of.

Each floor "popped out" as the building came down -- not just the "odd window." The "odd windows" are the things you're seeing below the actual "collapse wave." Most of the debris (masses) of both towers were ejected laterally and landed outside of the footprints of the building, not in a big heap at the bottom. That means that literally, most of each floor WAS popping "out," and NOT going straight down as pancake-like theories require. Have you ever had mechanics (physics)? It would probably help to understand vectors and momentum to realize how bizarre this behavior is and how it contradicts "pancake theory," which is mostly a straw man anyway since no government agency defends it anymore.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

i must, respectfully, disagree with you. i think its far from being proven as fact and in my opinion based on my experience im going to disagree that its even a sound working theory. but everyone knows that i think that and anyone thats read my debate on the topic knows why


That's fair enough but in my opinion it has been proven. Not only do we have video evidence of explosive flashes travelling up and around the WTCs like a god damn Christmas tree we have some accurate eyewitness reports and testimony to back that up that too. If your disagreement is based on the lack of noise then something you should consider is how much noise was on the streets from fire engines, police sirens, commotion etc. One lady said she tried to run into wtc6 and she saw timed explosives going off inside the lobby, she could here them popping in sequence too whilst she was standing in the doorway but she was promptly asked to leave by security guards blocking the entrance. Once she was back on the street she said it was so noisy on the streets the explosive pops couldn't be heard but she could still see them. Now considering how large and tall the WTC were and how much noise and commotion on the day its pretty reasonable to conclude the noise generated by all of that drowned out much of the pops generated by the explosives.

Tell me, what do you make of this testimony
killtown.blogspot.com...

And check this video example of the pre collapse detonations/flashes travelling up and around the building (Watch at 1:27 you will see):

There is plenty more footage of this out there too.


[edit on 7-12-2007 by Insolubrious]

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


It’s safe to assume that on a project of unprecedented scale, such as the WTC twin towers were at the time. Mr. Minoru Yamasaki would have ‘walked’ the jobsite — once or twice.
Had he seen anything unexpected he would have ‘asked questions.’ No?

All these discussions about conventional chemical explosives lead to believe that the crux of the hydrogen bomb hypothesis may not have been clearly explained enough. The nukes (fusion devices) destroyed the WTC’s by ‘burning’ the entire building mass and content from the inside out.

In a conventional explosion physical objects get smashed into pieces. In a ‘normal’ atom bomb blast, things get both — smashed and cooked. And in a fusion flash, objects mainly get fried. There is still some ‘smashing’ going on, which is why ‘objects’ (huge chunks of steel) were tossed around at the twin towers. But way more was heated beyond recognition into ‘nothing’.

Let’s address the energy requirement again, to rethink the secret orange coating of the rebar or concrete or whatever scenario. If, as good ol’ famous Jim Hoffman calculated, at a minimum 12,350 US tons of TNT were needed to pulverize each tower, then that would amount to 112 tons per floor, or 510 fifty-five gallon drums of nitroglycerine. To dump that much substance over a one acre area — the size of each WTC tower floor — is one heck of an undertaking. That’s enough nitroglycerine to cover one ace 1.25 (!) inches thick. It just doesn’t seem realistic for such a heavy coating — of ‘liquid dynamite’ to have been applied without anyone questioning it.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 12/7/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
It’s safe to assume that on a project of unprecedented scale, such as the WTC twin towers were at the time. Mr. Minoru Yamasaki would have ‘walked’ the jobsite — once or twice.


Maybe. Maybe not. Remember Yamasaki was afraid of heights. That's why he designed the windows as little slits instead of full size windows. Just saying.


Had he seen anything unexpected he would have ‘asked questions.’ No?


Of course.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join