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: 34
12
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by StudioGuy
 


As you can see, I've been here under my current user name since 2002, I was a member here prior to 2002 but was banned a few times. I've repeatly told my story over and over again, pointed out where I was actually standing, what I observed and experienced that day.......but it is ignored.

It seems that most here just wish to argue their point of view and not actually look at facts.




posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
It seems that most here just wish to argue their point of view and not actually look at facts.


It would be easier to believe you if you could supply proof though. Don't you think?

One would think that even if someone didn't have a camera at the time, one could easily pick up a disposable one. I know I would at least be taking some pictures of the most historic thing that happened in my lifetime. Especially if I walked by it everyday. It's not like you didn't have time to take a photo or 2 over the months that it took to clean up.

Again, I'm not calling you a liar, but it would just be nice to see some kind of proof.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Griff -

On that day when you have personally watched (1) air plane fly into the towers, watched people jump to their deaths, witness the collapse of a 110 story building while only being 600 feet away......ones mind is a little more occupied with survival than trying to find a disposalbe camera to take picutres of the carnage.

I can't forget what I saw that day....I would not want to have any photos of what I experienced.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ferretman2
 


That is actually understandable.

A pay stub to a mod would also work as verification. Or any other way to verify. It's just really easy to say something on the net without proof. Again, I have spoken with you before and I tend to believe what you say. It just might be helpful to have "back up" when someone questions you.




posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by ferretman2
 


That is actually understandable.

A pay stub to a mod would also work as verification. Or any other way to verify. It's just really easy to say something on the net without proof. Again, I have spoken with you before and I tend to believe what you say. It just might be helpful to have "back up" when someone questions you.



I have no problem with that......I'll scan in info at home and e-mail a MOD, do you have any personal preference on the MOD?



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ferretman2
 


Nope. Also, I'm not the one who asked you to prove it to begin with. In my conversations with you, I have come to the conclusion that you are truthful in what you say.




posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ferretman2
 


Ferretman, I'm the one who originally asked that you provide proof of your first-hand knowledge. Please understand that I'm in NO WAY trying to call your credentials into question. In another thread, a person was claiming to have first hand experience of the attacks on the Pentagon and I thought that was in terribly bad taste unless he has the information to back it up. To be fair, as Griff pointed out to me in that thread, it shouldn't matter what information the person is claiming. If you claim to have first hand knowledge, you should be able to prove it.

I have no reason to doubt what you say. In the other thread, I did find that poster to be a bit questionable, based on his writings. Please don't take my request as anything other than verification that your stories from that day carry far more weight than the speculative ramblings of those of us who weren't there.

I can't even imagine what it must've been like.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by StudioGuy
 


Also, it adds credibility. But, like I've said, I ,myself, have found no reason to doubt ferretman.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
On that day when you have personally watched (1) air plane fly into the towers, watched people jump to their deaths, witness the collapse of a 110 story building while only being 600 feet away......


Ferretman2,

I’m not sure how you interpret your personal 9-11 observations. It seems you’ve concluded that flights AA11 and UA175 caused the disintegration of the WTC structures. This, because you saw one air plane fly into a WTC tower and neither felt nor spotted any explosions when the buildings later crumbled (when you were only 600 ft away).

Your personal understanding of what took place in NYC on 9-11 appears to follow the logic, “I saw the plane — then I saw the buildings collapse. Therefore the two events must be inevitably linked.”

When all is said and done, yes, it does matter what your own two eyes perceive. But our sensory organs cannot always keep up with the physical reality of occurrences as they unfold, especially if the happenings are never found in nature. Our innate five senses can fail us miserably in such cases (e.g. miniaturized nuclear fusion hydrogen bomb detonations).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Great thread Wizard!!

Carry on!!



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Great thread!.. Thanks for the info....

I do agree this is a valid question, with merit, and a very god possibility.

But I think the bigger questions to ask is. How third world terrorists could get their hands on such tech?...


No seriously, If this is what happened, and it could be proven beyond any reasonable doubt, then I think we have a very strong case to point the finger of blame on the American establishment. Because either they did it, or they gave away some of the most advanced tech in the world to terrorists. Either way it bods not well for Bush and Friends!

Thanks again for the for the info, I really enjoyed read about the micro scale H-bombs.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Actually I think your wrong there. If the trigger wasn't so advanced (think Red Mercury) its quite likely a foriegn terrorist network or organisation bought it from a rogue nation or establishment. Maybe even stole it some how (I doubt) but not impossible. Israel, Pakistan, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Africa certain areas in Asia could all be suspects for the trafficking of WMD unfortunately. Just because the government didn't do it doesn't mean they don't need a whitewash of the facts.

Now perhaps if this were the case you see why its such an issue and why they need to keep it quiet, since they would literally have to start WW3 to really sort it out properly!


Check out Ballotechnics
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 19-12-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by untouchable

But I think the bigger questions to ask is. How third world terrorists could get their hands on such tech?...


Untouchable,

Do you really think, had 9-11 been a ‘real’ terror attack, President Bush would have remained seated in that Florida classroom reading My Pet Goat?

Do you honestly believe, had 9-11 been a true assault by hostile outsiders, Defense secretary Rumsfeld would have promenaded across the Pentagon lawn entertaining reporters, practically asking them to ‘dance with him’?

Do you, in your heart-of-hearts, actually suppose that had 9-11 been indeed committed by ‘Muslim’ fanatics, that we would have considered turning over our port security to an Arab company, “Dubai Ports World” on 02 March 2006?

It is true that we share our most advanced military technology with one of our allies in particular. The last president who refused to do so (share nuclear secrets), had his brains blown out. But 9-11 was not a foreign-led operation. We may have allowed/welcomed/seeked the assistance of other nations’ agencies, but this doesn’t even begin to absolve us from being solely responsible for this granddaddy of a false flag event.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Dear Everybody,

SkepticOverlord has recently started a thread with a must-see video.
New 9/11 Conspiracies Debunking Video From Mark "Gravy" Roberts

It shows — definitively — why conventional chemical explosives couldn’t have been used as the primary means to annihilate WTC1, 2, 6 and 7. They would have been WAY too loud.

As has been postulated on this here ‘nuke’-thread, a combination of hydrogen bombs (device with lowest noise to destructive power ratio) and thermate cutting charges fits the 9-11 observed effects best.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   
WITW, would you like to postulate why thermate cutting charges were even needed in concert with a nuclear weapon?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


SteveR,

Conventional cutting charges allowed for an as tightly focused (nuclear) shaped charge as possible.

Just like pellets from a shotgun are ‘choked’ into specific (narrow) patterns for maximum effect, the neutrons from the hydrogen bombs were directed upward within the WTC structural footprints as much as possible. It seems it would have been impossible to have them exactly ‘stop’ at the outer edge of the perimeter columns. But those exterior building grids (strong and very much load-bearing) needed to come down also. Hence the thermate charges to chop them up. And, it appears they were cleverly timed to happen underneath the clouds of superheated concrete, hidden from our view.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


Good answer! Thankyou for clearing that up.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


It is plausible until radiation levels were measured to prove or disprove it around the WTC and other parts of NYC. Were there any radiation levels tested at the site and in surrounding areas?

The Pentagon had high radiation levels immediately after an alleged 757 commercial passenger jet was stated to have impacted the Pentagon. Why there would be high radiation levels extending 12 miles out from the DC Pentagon area, due to what is alleged to be the impact of a 757 commercial passenger jet, is indeed highly puzzling.

www.rense.com...

"High-Ranking Army
Officer - Missile Hit Pentagon
Radiation Expert Claims High-Radiation Readings
Near Pentagon After 9/11 Indicates
Depleted Uranium Used
By Greg Szymanski
8-19-5

Two high profile radiation experts concur Pentagon strike involved use of a missile. Also Geiger counter readings right after the attack shows high levels of radiation 12 miles away from Pentagon crash site.

A radiation expert and high-ranking Army Major, who once headed the military's depleted uranium project, both contend the Pentagon was hit by missile, not a commercial jetliner, adding high radiation readings after the strike indicate depleted uranium also may have been used.

"I'm not an explosives or crash site expert, but I am highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear radiation contamination. What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used," said radiation expert Leuren Moret in a telephone conversation this week from her Berkeley, CA home.

Moret, who has spent a life time working in the nuclear field, first as a staff scientist at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory in California, is now a member of The Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), a privately funded group studying the devastating effects of depleted uranium especially in Iraq and Afghanistan."



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

I’m not sure how you interpret your personal 9-11 observations. It seems you’ve concluded that flights AA11 and UA175 caused the disintegration of the WTC structures. This, because you saw one air plane fly into a WTC tower and neither felt nor spotted any explosions when the buildings later crumbled (when you were only 600 ft away).


Actually, that is all any of us on the outside actually saw. We saw plane shapes, of no clear identification or model, flying toward buildings. We then saw massive balls of dense black carbon smoke and orange flames. We then saw holes and no planes. The same happened at the Pentagon. Then we were told by the media that in NYC it was two 767 commericial passenger jets and in DC one 757 commercial passenger jet.

Is anyone familiar with the UV KC-767 used by the military? It is pictured in Peter Tiradera's book 9-11 Coup Against America! The Pentagon Analysis.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


Right on man, you rock!

I was being sarcastic
, I agree with everything you said here.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join