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: 33
12
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
The ' dustification ' of the concrete takes place right in front of us. Some energy force is reducing the concrete and people..seemingly any water bearing material, to a dust the consistency of flour. The buildings literally explode out and downward turning into dust and sections of the outer cladding.

The fact that the core also turns to dust means that either super heat was conducted totally thru the steel frame or a DEW that vibrated trhe thing to dust. I am no scientist. But I have eyes and could see the Towers turning to dust, along with the core.

Limited number of possibilities.




posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So how do you see "shock waves advancing at supersonic speeds"?


If you were ever a live witness to a powerful explosion like 500lb or more of HE for example (hollywood type pretend explosions don't count) you wouldn't have to ask and yes I have witnessed such demonstrations. Just consider what it is that produces the sound and the expanding zone of destructive force that are characteristic of any large explosion. Also consider where that destructive energy is at its peak which is at the source of the explosion.

I have tertiary qualifications in engineering that required a large component of physics/maths and I've been employed in the heavy mechanical/electrical engineering field for over 40 years. If there was a sure sign of large enough explosion(s) to destroy a 500 000 ton object I'd expect it to be extremely obvious to everyone, qualified or not.

Any hypothesis requiring continuous embellishment with increasingly fantastic technology to make it work seems to indicate it's on the wrong track.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Any hypothesis requiring continuous embellishment with increasingly fantastic technology to make it work seems to indicate it's on the wrong track.


You mean like NIST's computer models?



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
You mean like NIST's computer models?



That's the beauty of computer modelling. You can play around with variables until you get a result that's similar to the observed real event but in the end it's all guesswork of an educated kind.

How many fusion devices were used in the NIST modelling program?



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
If you were ever a live witness to a powerful explosion like 500lb or more of HE for example (hollywood type pretend explosions don't count) you wouldn't have to ask and yes I have witnessed such demonstrations.


So what would a pressure wave coming out of the towers look like?



I have tertiary qualifications in engineering that required a large component of physics/maths and I've been employed in the heavy mechanical/electrical engineering field for over 40 years. If there was a sure sign of large enough explosion(s) to destroy a 500 000 ton object I'd expect it to be extremely obvious to everyone, qualified or not.


When did I say a single massive bomb destroyed each entire building?



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
How many fusion devices were used in the NIST modelling program?


They might as well have used 100, because their models never reflected reality anyway when realistic parameters were plugged in. And that was only in a computer simulation of heat transfer to the columns where they were aiming for some arbitrary point. They never tested their major hypothesis and they never even tried to touch the global collapse mechanism(s).



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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...


Just a wild conjecture on my part, but as noted in reply to post by Insolubrious
 

while the films of Project Dugout do evince similarities to the WTC demos, these tests were non-nuclear. Look at the video, around 4 minutes in, we see a cartoon of an explosive orange substance being pumped into underground spheres. In comments, "techguy" suggests nitromethane is the explosive. Is this plausible in the case of the WTC?

And, are you familiar with the statements of Paul Laffoley



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0ivae


Just a wild conjecture on my part, but as noted in reply to post by Insolubrious
 

while the films of Project Dugout do evince similarities to the WTC demos, these tests were non-nuclear. Look at the video, around 4 minutes in, we see a cartoon of an explosive orange substance being pumped into underground spheres. In comments, "techguy" suggests nitromethane is the explosive. Is this plausible in the case of the WTC?

And, are you familiar with the statements of Paul Laffoley


Thanks for the heads up. I looked into this claim and indeed you are correct it is detonations of underground chemical explosives, Nitromethane (although I am not sure that is the case for all of them, it may well be). Could it be used to take down the WTC? I guess that is also possibility and I would not rule it out without more info. I would be open to hearing more on this idea too. Perhaps Damocles could shed some light on that possibility.


From Wiki (note the OKC example)

Nitromethane was not known to be a high explosive until the 1950s when a railroad tanker car loaded with it exploded. After much testing it was realized that nitromethane was a more energetic high explosive than TNT, although TNT has a higher velocity of detonation and brisance (shattering power against hard targets). Both of these explosives are oxygen poor and some benefits are gained from mixing with an oxidizer, such as ammonium nitrate. One graphic example of this was the use of nitromethane and ammonium nitrate on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building at Oklahoma City. Pure nitromethane is an insensitive explosive with a VoD of approximately 6200 m/s, but even so inhibitors may be used to reduce the hazards.

----



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0ivae
Just a wild conjecture on my part, but as noted in reply to post by Insolubrious
 

while the films of Project Dugout do evince similarities to the WTC demos, these tests were non-nuclear. Look at the video, around 4 minutes in, we see a cartoon of an explosive orange substance being pumped into underground spheres. In comments, "techguy" suggests nitromethane is the explosive. Is this plausible in the case of the WTC?


Thanks for posting that link. Some of those explosions send debris flying in arcs that look exactly like the debris coming out of the Twin Towers, which really grabs my attention. Before this I had only seen underground nuclear explosions create blasts like that.


six

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   
A question to all, and if it has been discussed in the 33 pages before this please forgive me. What about the survivors that were in the building? They didnt report a large explosion. They would have been directly in Wzards inverted cone hypothisis. Are they suffering from radiation sickness? Did they report anything unusual? It would seem that they, most of all, would be the first ones to show the signs of radiation poisoning seeing as how they were still in the building. Should/would they have survived a hydrogen bomb going off right under them?



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I was 600 feet away when the first tower collapsed. There was no explosion, just a very load and long rumbling. And yes, I did watch the the top collapse before turning away and running.



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

I'm not ready to discount anything at this point really, but there's some creepy stuff that has yet to be examined by the conspiracy community.
It's my understanding that Yamasaki was a favored contractor of the Bin Laden Construction group, and that Paul Laffoley guy we mentioned earlier said that the Bin Laden construction group was on the site during construction during a conversation with them they had mentioned how odd it was to be planting explosives in a building that wasn't even fully constructed yet. Innothingwetrust brought some of that up in the thread I linked to earlier...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Of course if we look outside of that box we can follow the Bin Laden Family all the way up to James Bath, Arbusto, Bush and god knows who else.
"Lucky me. I hit the trifecta'' always bothered me, something behind that smirk when he said it. While unrelated to that quote, I think we should consider the possibility of three different operations all ultimately with the same intended result of bringing down the WTC complex. What about throwing around the Hypothesis that three of them, preplanted explosives, the planes (or missiles), and an SADM were all employed as a means of assuring the final results. Triangulation of fire so to speak.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
I was 600 feet away when the first tower collapsed. There was no explosion, just a very load and long rumbling. And yes, I did watch the the top collapse before turning away and running.


In the interest of fairness, if you're going to make claims of first-hand knowledge, you need to be prepared to prove you're in a position to have that knowledge. There's a world of difference between what you read, what you've heard, and what YOU have experienced. If you're telling the truth about being there, I think your story will carry far more weight than others.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


ive personally never used nitromethane myself. ive said a bunch of times that my FIRST HAND experience with demo is military grade stuff. now, we had a lot of training on improvised ordinance and NM was listed as something to mix with anfo instead of diesel fuel much like the okc bombinb.

so all i could offer is speculation. to do any real damage it would take a significant sized device and im not sure that it would have escaped notice...in jersey. but thats ONLY my opinion.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
to do any real damage it would take a significant sized device and im not sure that it would have escaped notice...in jersey. but thats ONLY my opinion.


This is what holds me back also. How much noise does a directed energy hydrogen device emit? Does anyone know? I'm just curious.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


see thats the rub as it were. despite all of the speculation and all of the conclusions drawn from snippets of info on the net, these weapons do NOT OFFICIALLY exist. ergo, we have NOTHING to observe and make comparisions to the events at the WTC.

so, regardless of how good the data may be, its still speculation, and no debate or discussion can win over speculation.

I would think it would make some noise, it is afterall releasing a lot of energy. however, with nothing to compare it to, it may be as quiet as turning on a flashlight.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
This is what holds me back also. How much noise does a directed energy hydrogen device emit? Does anyone know? I'm just curious.


It produces a rumble. There was such a sound when the towers fell. If you heard a 100 story building fall before, perhaps you could have a good frame of reference to extrapolate the sound.. but as it stands, most will attribute the sound to all the material.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

It produces a rumble.

i would be interested to know where you form this opinion in all honesty.


There was such a sound when the towers fell.

is there any way to know for sure though that this rumble was not caused by things falling inside the building before the top fell and the sides of the building started to peel away



If you heard a 100 story building fall before, perhaps you could have a good frame of reference to extrapolate the sound.. but as it stands, most will attribute the sound to all the material.

i have the same opinion of that in regards to hearing large quantities of HE going off, but most people jsut think im being persnickity...



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
i would be interested to know where you form this opinion in all honesty.


Hello Damocles, every audible recording of a nuclear weapon detonation is a rumble. A very consistant rumble.


is there any way to know for sure though that this rumble was not caused by things falling inside the building before the top fell and the sides of the building started to peel away


Controlled demo's have a different sound to my ear, more varied, more material crashing sounds. The rumble on 9/11 was again, very consistant beginning to end.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Hello Damocles, every audible recording of a nuclear weapon detonation is a rumble. A very consistant rumble.

yes and unless im mistaken there are two reasons for this. one is that they're primarily underground (anyone seen an above ground test with audio?) and secondly that fusion devices still use a fission device to start the reaction. should WITW be correct about the nature of any device hypothetically used in the wtc buildings, wouldnt have had a fission trigger.

so, doesnt that leave us back in the realm of speculation?



is there any way to know for sure though that this rumble was not caused by things falling inside the building before the top fell and the sides of the building started to peel away


Controlled demo's have a different sound to my ear, more varied, more material crashing sounds. The rumble on 9/11 was again, very consistant beginning to end.

well yes, cd's do sound different, mostly in that in addition to the material of the building falling you can still hear follow on charges beign detonated. (not sure if youve ever ready anything ive posted but im not a huge CD theory supporter, to put it mildly lol)

so i guess what im wondering is if it is at ALL possible that the rumbling sound before the visual start of the collapse could come from things inside the building starting to break away and fall, thereby causing an area around the impact zone that is suddenly not supported as well as it needs to be thus causing the outter walls to give way and initiate the collapse we've all got burned into our memories.

as this was the first time such a large structure came down by any means, we dont really have a basis for comparison to how it sounded vs how it SHOULD have sounded yeah?

i mean, in the interest of open minded discussion its possible isnt it?




top topics



 
12
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join