It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 35
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:47 AM
If micro-nukes were in fact deployed at the WTC, here are some recent leads - courtesy of the "Sybelline prophetess" Sibel Edmonds - as to the who and the how by which they could have gotten there... from the London Sunday Times article...

The Turks and Israelis had planted “moles” in military and academic institutions which handled nuclear technology. Edmonds says there were several transactions of nuclear material every month, with the Pakistanis being among the eventual buyers. “The network appeared to be obtaining information from every nuclear agency in the United States,” she said.

They were helped, she says, by the high-ranking State Department official who provided some of their moles – mainly PhD students – with security clearance to work in sensitive nuclear research facilities. These included the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico, which is responsible for the security of the US nuclear deterrent.

Los Alamos being a research center of nuclear as well as directed energy systems, and apparently the sythesis of these weapons technologies.

The article goes on...

The Turks, she says, often acted as a conduit for the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s spy agency, because they were less likely to attract suspicion. Venues such as the American Turkish Council in Washington were used to drop off the cash, which was picked up by the official. Edmonds said: “I heard at least three transactions like this over a period of 2½ years. There are almost certainly more.”

The Pakistani operation was led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, then the ISI chief.

Intercepted communications showed Ahmad and his colleagues stationed in Washington were in constant contact with attachés in the Turkish embassy.

Intelligence analysts say that members of the ISI were close to Al-Qaeda before and after 9/11. Indeed, Ahmad was accused of sanctioning a $100,000 wire payment to Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, immediately before the attacks.

The latter a well emphasized point in 9/11 research, along with Ahmad's meeting with high-ranking US officilas in the days around 9/11.

This establishes that 9/11 was to at least a certain degree an "inside job"... Edmonds is yet reluctant to name names, but here is her State Secrets Privilege Gallery

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 08:06 AM
reply to post by 0ivae

Personally, I strongly suspect that Sibel Edmonds is ‘working for the other side’. I. e. I think she’s a mole, an agent for the 9-11 cabal, a super red-herring. I cannot prove this of course. But everything she says is so out of line with what actually happened on 9-11 that there is no other explanation for her ‘insights’.

— Fusion nukes and not fission nukes were used at WTC1, 2, 6 and 7.
— Fusion nukes would have been of the most advanced technology available, i.e. state of the art antimatter triggered. Only the most select groups of people have access to these types of devices — else we’d know by now (things would be blowing up everywhere!).
— There were no 9-11 hijackings
— There were no 9-11 plane crashes
— There is no Islamo-terrorism in the U.S.
— There is no Al-Qaida
— The ‘Global War On Terrorism’ is an invention as a pretext to conquer Iraqi oilfields

The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 1/15/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods


I think the way Edmonds has been treated is an extremely strong indication otherwise, unless we are so deeply down the rabbit hole that everything is indeed its opposite.

Actually, her findings/contentions/revelations have much more to do with arms-dealing, corruption and nuclear proliferation among the US, Israel, Turkey and Pakistan, and jives completely with what we already know of the subject--i.e., that US nuke secrets are being pillaged by Israeli moles and others and being sold on the black market to the highest bidder.

In a way, this is collateral damage; it's clear--to me, at least--that this operation was uncovered because of 9/11: they simply got her to go through a four-year backlog of intercepts and lo and behold, she found that this ring was in operation before and after 9/11.

It does not mean, however, that this was a cause of, or even a contributing factor to, 9/11. The two are distinct operations and should not be conflated.

Both, however, stink to high heaven.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:28 PM
reply to post by gottago


What I find so highly suspicious about Sibel Edmonds is the way she keeps harping on and on about ‘Al Qaida’. An institution which simply does not exist other than as a contrivance of our very own CIA.

Also she doesn’t go anywhere near speaking about the influence of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). According to Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, 60% of our Democratic Party’s fundraising and 35% of that for the Republicans comes from Jewish-funded Political Action Committees (PACS).

I do agree with you that weapons peddling is an issue worth discussing on its own however separate from 9-11 it is.

The Wizard In The Woods

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:13 PM
Sibel worked in the Turkish section and not the Israeli section translating intercepts. She cannot now everything about each and every issue. She has been validated by the FBI Inspector General and they said she was in fact fired for alerting her superiors of illegal actions. these actions were not slated to stop and would have exposed a vast ring of Neocon treachery so it was squashed and they slapped her with an Official secrets Act mandate and made even her birthdate calssified.

The bad guys in the system, and there are many, up to the very top , know that if she ever gets on TV here and tells her story, the people will wonder why the congressmen and such that already have heard it all covered it up. Hers is a story that needs to be told and she has proved thru polygraphs and many other means that she is on the up and up.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:57 PM
reply to post by eyewitness86

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me, Sibel Edmonds’ ‘purpose/mission’ is to lead us to believe, either incompetence or purposeful neglect (of warning signs of an impending ‘terror attack’) were the reasons 9-11 came to pass. Which is naturally the familiar theme of LIHOP advocates.

This is a convenient excuse because it appears plausible to so many. E. g. many in the rest of the world think of Americans as clumsy klutzes who haven’t got a clue. Our spy agency (CIA) is — probably purposely — portrayed as utterly incompetent, despite having by far the largest budget compared to other nations’ similar institutions.

Truth is, our CIA knows full and well what’s going on.

The Wizard In The Woods

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:12 AM

Originally posted by OrionStars
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?

Yep, elevated Tritium levels, I think it was seven times what was expected after three months of being sprayed with water mind you. And don't let the skeptics fool you with the watches and exit signs as the source, the exit signs were taken out and replaced long before 9-11. There's only a few things that would explain the high levels of tritium still present after that kind of dilution. Actually SADM's would explain alot of the anamolies, the molten steel, the atomization of the concrete, the lateral ejections, the high temperatures weeks and months later, the rush to clear the debris, the mysterious illness of the workers on the site. There's also some evidence of some kind of electromagnetic interference just prior to each collapse, radio communication and cell phones all went out.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:40 AM
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods


I do see your point and agree with your fundamental assessment of AQ, and don't want to sidetrack the thread, but will bend it a bit anyway to answer, as the question is quite interesting and suggests Edmonds may be playing her strong card--the nuke secrets dealing--and towing the official line on AQ to steer clear of that minefield and not to paint herself as a "tinfoil hatter" so that she retains credibility and lessens the inevitable attacks upon her.

In light of her position this would be a very wise course to follow. She's fighting by playing to her strong points.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:49 AM
A quick correction to my previous post, that was 55 times the normal level of tritium that was found, my bad I was half asleep.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 02:59 AM
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods

I do not think hydrogen bombs were used in the attacks.

Reasons for this is I think:

- Hydrogen bombs were not used to bring down the WTC's because the buildings fell from the top down to the ground. If a hydrogen bomb was used and detonated at the base of the building, the buildings would have broken from the lower levels first, yet they did not.
- If hydrogen bombs where detonated at the top of the building, its explosion ield would have effected allot, if not all of New York City.
- An electro-magnetic pulse would have been detected, and knocked out computers surround the buildings. I am not aware of a reporting that detected an EMP.
- New York City would have shown radiation levels in the range that pose a danger to humans.
- The party responsible for the attacks would not use hydrogen bombs as they are easily detectable.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 03:45 AM
That rense site certainly doesn't let the facts spoil a good story

I'd ask 55x compared to what

Lawrence Berkely National Labs performed the analysis of samples taken as early as Sept 13th and here's the abstract of their report on it:

Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at [the]World Trade Center
(WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A method of ultralow-
background liquid scintillation counting was used after distilling HTO from the samples. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.174 plus or minus 0.074 (2s) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53 plus or minus 0.17 and 2.83 plus or minus 0.15 nCi/L, respectively. Several water and vegetation samples were analyzed from areas outside the ground zero, located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Kensico Reservoir. No HTO above the background was found in those samples. All these results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by Nikolas


Your remark about how the buildings fell from the top down is a common one.
It is being suggested that the fusion nukes did indeed detonate at the base of the WTC buildings. Their yield was shaped and directed upwards, first taking out all the concrete floor slabs (all 110 for WTC-1 and 2). Thus leaving only a hollow shell of exterior perimeter columns with a ‘steaming’/sublimating inner set of 47 core columns.

It has been discussed many times here on ATS how the top of the North Tower seems to rotate and tilt before it drops down and quickly disintegrates in the clouds of dust beneath it. Could it be that at that point this was only an empty grid of perimeter columns already devoid of its interior structural mass? There would have been nothing left to tie it in with the center core column framework — which might explain why it moved so freely.

After all the floor supports were ‘cooked’ (superheated) and blasted out of the way and out the top — i. e. vertically and much less horizontally — the perimeter grid 14”x14” box columns were chopped up with thermate cutting charges. Lastly — and not as so often assumed firstly — the heavy core members would have disintegrated.

Here is a (crude) image to illustrate said scenario.

Also, courtesy of gottago, I am showing this picture as well because it is new.

The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 1/17/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:15 AM
Hello everyone. Kudos to you WITW, for bringing this to our attention. It sure is a wild claim and i can understand how regular truth troopers find it inconvenient to their quest for legitimacy. Still it is such a valid topic. Most of us (sorry damocles) agree that some sort of explosives were used to finally bring those building down, so the question of what type was used is a logical one, due to the unconventional specifics of an otherwise conventional demolition. Especially the sound part. The "silence" of such massive, instantanious destruction is a bit boggling. It is therfore no stretch of my imagination, to include directed energy munitions of somewhat unknown character to the "box".

It has taken ages, but i have actually read through most of this whole thread. And it is clear to me that hard-core non believers rest on speculative assumptions of how these nukes work. Others try the shame-game, trying to fight reason with emotionally charged statements like "my aunt was there, are you calling her i liar?"-rhetoric. As much as i feel compassion for those involved and those who lost loved ones that day - i feel this is below the belt and beyond the point. And many of these comments suggest, indirectly, that we who did not see the events "with our own eyes", or lost family, are incapable of grasping the nature of the events of 9-11. This type of reasoning is just plain inconsiderate and rude to me.

This about some nay-sayers. On the other hand the proponents of the nuke idea also rest on assumptions of how these 4:th generation mini nukes would work. There has been no real answer to the EMP question, to my liking. Both have arguments that are feasable, but no point of fact about the dynamics of EMP in relation to charge-size or detonation parameters han been brought forth. If one could have some professional input on that subject-matter it would do the discussion good, i think.

One last note; what if some type of demo method was used that incorporated not only cutting charges but also some resonance method of pulverizing material with, say, high power ELF waves in some manner?

Steady as she goes!

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:52 AM
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods

A hydrogen bomb would have left radiation in danger levels. No danger levels were detected from my knowledge. Cam-corders and CCTV cameras in the area functioned through out the attacks, therfor no electro-magnetic pulse was present. If a hydrogen bomb powerful enough to vapourise the buildings was used, it would have let off an EMP powerful enough to knock-out computers near by.
Mushroom's are not soley a signiture of atomic/nuclear weapons. They can be produced from a large enough conventional explosion.

From the knowledge I have of atmoic/nuclear weapons, logic doesn't add up in the 9/11 WTC scenario of hydrogen bomb being used.
It is possible that a weapon was used beyond my knowledge.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:40 AM

Originally posted by razor1000
It was two planes that hit those buildings i saw them and thats that, i was watching the live coverage from my airforce base in NC and trust me it was the real thing because they locked down the base immediatly after and out came the guns and chem gear because they didnt know who was going to get hit

Funny... They didn't lock down the president.

*edited to add that I'm not saying your story isn't true, only funny due to the fact that the president was still vulnerable.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by Sublime620]

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Nikolas
A hydrogen bomb would have left radiation in danger levels.

Your whole post seems to assume the kind of technology we had 70+ years ago when we bombed Japan.

What is "radiation" and where does it come from, and what role does it play in a nuclear device? What is the relationship between the explosive yield of a device and its radioactive output? Does it vary? Can it therefore be tweaked? Is it fission or fusion and what elements were involved? What exactly are all of the features of a nuclear device and their exact functions and necessities?

You can ask similar questions for an EMP and the rest. The only nukes that have generated impressive EMPs were monstrous in their yields, and would most certainly be visible if planted in the cores or even underground the towers. You have to go into megatons of explosive yield to reach the 1000 volt-meter range for an EMP's peak. If you reduce the size of the device to a device of only a few hundred tons, for example, that would leave you with EMPs that would be in single volts at best. This may cause temporary noise and static on audio and video lines but it wouldn't do much else, and it may not even do that much.

In the case of radiation, this is actually a kind of "undesired" effect (at least in terms of getting a whole mass of radioactive material to all go critical). One of the bombs dropped on Japan had 60 kg of radioactive material. Less than 1% underwent fission. That's not that great, in absolute terms. It's pretty horrible. Therefore over 59 kg of radioactive material was distributed around Japan. That would be a lot of residual radiation, and would definitely be very unhealthy and very easily detectable.

If one made a much more efficient device, that caused, say, 70%, or 80%, or even 90% or more of the radioactive material to go critical, you would have less residual radiation afterwards. And if, on top of that, you didn't use much radioactive material in the first place (since it would be a much smaller bomb), then that would be even less radiation. And if you used an unconventional reaction, or developed a way to initiate a fusion reaction without a separate fission bomb, then you can see how a "nuke" might not behave quite as the typical American would assume, just because most Americans immediately associate nuclear reactions with big explosions and radiation and not a whole lot else.

You say something beyond your knowledge could've been used, but consider that our nuclear research has also advanced beyond public knowledge in these past few decades of Cold War spending and etc. Billions or trillions of (officially reported) dollars have been poured into that kind of research. At least it wouldn't surprise me.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:45 AM
reply to post by bsbray11

You know all about nuclear technology because you are a nuclear scientist! You also know what the USA has in its secret arsenal in relation to nuclear weapon technology... You where also wrong claiming I said technology beyond my awareness could not be used. I infact said the opposite; the last line in that post.

My advice to you is to read my posts properly before coming along and acting as though your someone your not. XOXO

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:46 AM
The topic, not each other please.

Carry on.

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 07:00 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Nikolas

The only nukes that have generated impressive EMPs were monstrous in their yields, and would most certainly be visible if planted in the cores or even underground the towers. You have to go into megatons of explosive yield to reach the 1000 volt-meter range for an EMP's peak. If you reduce the size of the device to a device of only a few hundred tons, for example, that would leave you with EMPs that would be in single volts at best. This may cause temporary noise and static on audio and video lines but it wouldn't do much else, and it may not even do that much.

You would not have some sort of understandable graphs or tables/figures for these kind of variations? It would be interesting to try and grasp!

[Edit typo]

[edit on 20-1-2008 by EarthDweller]

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 08:50 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you reduce the size of the device to a device of only a few hundred tons, for example, that would leave you with EMPs that would be in single volts at best. This may cause temporary noise and static on audio and video lines but it wouldn't do much else, and it may not even do that much.

You DO see a problem with this don't you?

A few hundred tons of TNT going off would have been a little noticeable.

And this is assuming that your figures are correct about yield/volts.

top topics

<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in