Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

Originally posted by Nikolas
You know all about nuclear technology because you are a nuclear scientist!

No, I only know there may be a lot more to it than "it will blow up all of Manhattan and give everyone on the East Coast cancer" that everybody comes along with.

You where also wrong claiming I said technology beyond my awareness could not be used.

I never said that. Re-read my post, I said "could've."

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
You DO see a problem with this don't you?

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

I never said a few hundred tons of TNT went off. I never said what "went off."

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

I assumed a linear relationship between the yield and the EMP, but it would take a pretty radical curve to create a very impressive EMP from this theoretical reaction small enough to take place within the towers in the first place.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
You DO see a problem with this don't you?

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

I never said a few hundred tons of TNT went off. I never said what "went off."

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

I assumed a linear relationship between the yield and the EMP, but it would take a pretty radical curve to create a very impressive EMP from this theoretical reaction small enough to take place within the towers in the first place.

What? Are you saying that therefore a hydrgen bomb going off sounds so unlikely that we could call it debunked?

Finally, a voice of reason. I applaud you.

reply to post by Richard Gizinu


Hey, what about me, do I get any applause?

Actually I suggest that the energy equivalent of 12,000 (twelve thousand) tons of TNT went off — PER TOWER — and not a paltry few hundred. This is what would have been required alone to ‘powder-ize’ the concrete.

What about the noise? Well, in an explosion it’s the blast effects and the blast effects alone which make a ruckus. With TNT the entire yield is nothing but a pressure wave (=blast). In a hydrogen fusion reaction, only 15% of the output is a mechanical shock force expansion. 85% of the energy released are various types of — silent and invisible — radiations.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Hey, what about me, do I get any applause?

Actually I suggest that the energy equivalent of 12,000 (twelve thousand) tons of TNT went off — PER TOWER — and not a paltry few hundred. This is what would have been required alone to ‘powder-ize’ the concrete.

What about the noise? Well, in an explosion it’s the blast effects and the blast effects alone which make a ruckus. With TNT the entire yield is nothing but a pressure wave (=blast). In a hydrogen fusion reaction, only 15% of the output is a mechanical shock force expansion. 85% of the energy released are various types of — silent and invisible — radiations.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

There you go....

Actually, what you're describing sounds more like a neutron bomb - ie energy released as radiation rather than blast effect.

So explain why hydrogen bombs were/are seen as the pentultimate use of the atom for bomb design when there are little or no blast effect when they go off.

Also, where did you get the idea about the concrete being powderized? Maybe 10-20%, but definitely NOT all. Take a look at cleanup photos.

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Also, where did you get the idea about the concrete being powderized? Maybe 10-20%, but definitely NOT all. Take a look at cleanup photos.

It's going to be a lot more than 10-20%. I'm not saying it was all nano-powder or whatever but I am NOT seeing 80-90% of the concrete intact or in large chunks. The only large chunks of concrete I've seen were from the basements and even they weren't that big, unrelated though they are to the theoretical "pancaking" of the upper floors. Everything else was dust for all intents and purposes.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Also, where did you get the idea about the concrete being powderized? Maybe 10-20%, but definitely NOT all. Take a look at cleanup photos.

It's going to be a lot more than 10-20%. I'm not saying it was all nano-powder or whatever but I am NOT seeing 80-90% of the concrete intact or in large chunks. The only large chunks of concrete I've seen were from the basements and even they weren't that big, unrelated though they are to the theoretical "pancaking" of the upper floors. Everything else was dust for all intents and purposes.

Hey, I'm trying to throw him a bone here.

Less "powderized" concrete would mean a less powerful device. At least THAT would start edging toward the realm of the possible. Definitely nowhere near it, but at least taking a step in the right direction.

reply to post by Richard Gizinu


You are correct. A neutron bomb is nothing other than a (small) hydrogen bomb. HOWEVER they are still fission triggered, i.e. they need a good ol’ atom bomb to get started. Which is why our military never put them into full scale production, being that in the late seventies there was a new type of trigger material about to become available — antimatter.

Why Sam Cohen, the one who ‘invented’ this tailored toward enhanced radiation of neutrons two stage hydrogen bomb gets praised as being some sort of genius has always baffled me. I mean the man wanted to nuke the North Vietnamese. What for? Because half of Vietnam wanted to be communist and half didn’t and we felt entitled to play decision maker? It’s a good thing people like him (normally) don’t get ‘their way’.

The hydrogen bombs on 9-11 at the four WTC’s were triggered by non-fission primaries such as antimatter.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
reply to post by Richard Gizinu

 

You are correct. A neutron bomb is nothing other than a (small) hydrogen bomb. HOWEVER they are still fission triggered, i.e. they need a good ol’ atom bomb to get started. Which is why our military never put them into full scale production, being that in the late seventies there was a new type of trigger material about to become available — antimatter.

Why Sam Cohen, the one who ‘invented’ this tailored toward enhanced radiation of neutrons two stage hydrogen bomb gets praised as being some sort of genius has always baffled me. I mean the man wanted to nuke the North Vietnamese. What for? Because half of Vietnam wanted to be communist and half didn’t and we felt entitled to play decision maker? It’s a good thing people like him (normally) don’t get ‘their way’.

The hydrogen bombs on 9-11 at the four WTC’s were triggered by non-fission primaries such as antimatter.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

So how did the core remain standing, with the survivors in the stairway?

Don't say because the cone of damage was too small, etc. If the cone was that small, it could NEVER spread enough at the same time to completely "powderize" the concrete on complete floors like you're claiming.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

The hydrogen bombs on 9-11 at the four WTC’s were triggered by non-fission primaries such as antimatter.

On the contrary to this we also have Ballotechics. Here is some so called 'wild speculation' on this type of device:


Ballotechnic Fusion Bomb

There just might be another way to generate the incredible energy necessary to initiate a fusion reaction in a bomb. A class of chemical pseudo-explosives called ballotechnics have extremely high energy densities, far larger than any traditional chemical explosive. I say pseudo-explosive because although they generate incredible amounts of heat very quickly, they do not actually release rapidly expanding gasses, which is the technical definition of an explosion.

They may pack enough punch to directly initiate a fusion reaction without an intermediate fission reaction, resulting in "pure" fusion. Specifically, it may be able to trigger deuterium-tritium fusion — the easiest form of fusion to initiate. The process is very much unlike the fission approach. Rather than create a massive shockwave around the fuel, the ballotechnic material simply generates enormous heat and pressure when it is set off. The result would be a very small, very simple, relatively inexpensive fusion device.

Red Mercury

The most famous ballotechnic substance right now seems to be red mercury, a mercury antimony oxide (Hg2Sb2O7) semi-liquid believed by some to have been created in Russia under difficult to reproduce circumstances. The components are kept under neutron bombardment under high pressures in a nuclear reactor for a long time, and when the process is over the result is a ballotechnic material. If red mercury exists, it may have been sold to rogue nations such as Iraq or North Korea for exorbitant prices.

The problem is, all sources of information on red mercury and its nuclear applications can be traced back to a single source — nuclear physicist Samuel Cohen — and, to put it gently, he has been wrong before. Complicating matters are counterfeit supplies of red mercury sold to gullible buyers, actually inert and benign materials designed to match the description of the "real" substance. Additionally, red mercury may have been used from time to time as a cover name to smuggle controlled and illegal substances, possibly even fissile material.

Just on the topic of Ballotechnics and the formula 'Hg2Sb2O7', try doing a search on google for Hg2Sb2O7 and you may find some very interesting things.

It is MERCURIC-STYBIC HEPTOXIDE - Hg2Sb2O7


www.google.co.uk...


Check out this! Someone trying to sell it, or a sting operation in the works?



www.chem.co.kr...

MERCURIC PYRO-ANTIMONATE / Hg2Sb2O7 , IN LIQUID BLACK FORM
Company: NASRA CO
Person in charge: IBRAHIM EL MAHMOUDY
E-mail :[email protected]
MERCURIC PYRO-ANTIMONATE / Hg2Sb2O7 , IN LIQUID BLACK FORM IS A NON-RADIOACTIVE PRODUCT. OBTAINED BY HEATING IN A CLOSED CONTAINER AT A CONSTANT HIGH TEMPERATURE FOR EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIMES. OUR ANNUAL IMPORTATION EXCEEDED $9 MILLIONS , MEANWHILE OUR NEEDS EXCEEDING $18 MILLIONS .

THEREFORE , AGENTS FOR RUSSIAN FIRMS ARE MOST WELCOME .

AT "MSN" WE ARE :nasra21cen

PS.

PLEASE , DO NOT WASTE BOTH OF OUR TIMES BY CONTACTING US FOR ANY OTHER CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS OR PRODUCTS



NASRA CO.

IBRAHIM EL MAHMOUDY.

INT'L PURCHASING DIV.,Mgr.




anyone want to buy some?


Company: Nasra Co
Email:
Address: Ibrahim El Mahmoudy Nasra Co P.O.Box 3, el GIZA Egypt
Zip/Postal: N/A
Telephone: 20-118583918
Fax: 20-233684341

I am tempted to phone this guy up to get some more information.





[edit on 23-1-2008 by Insolubrious]

reply to post by Insolubrious



Great work Insolubrious. There are many leads to this if you read up. You might also want to look at South Africa and Israel nuclear weapon programs, both have actively sought Red Mercury.

Well if ‘Red Mercury’ isn't radioactive then there is a ‘problem’.

The maximum theoretical energy released by a chemical reaction process is 10,000 Joule/cm3.
Nuclear fission processes (atom bombs) release up to 1,000,000,000,000 Joule/cm3 and antimatter packs a whopping 10,000,000,000,000 Joule/cm3 — ten times more than radioactive decay and one billion times more than the mysterious ‘red mercury’ could.

It might very well be that there are actually people selling this stuff — Red Mercury. But what it might be good for remains yet to be explained. Until it has been at least theoretically established how this ‘substance’ is supposed to work, I think it’s a hoax, a way for shyster arms traders to fleece fools. But hey, this is strictly my personal opinion. In any case I think it’s good were discussing this.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Do we know in all certainty that "10,000 Joule/cm3" is not enough to initiate deuterium-tritium fusion?

Moreover, do we know that the Red Mercury process conforms to that theoretical limit?

Questions questions ...

How does the collapse of the towers- leaving aside their manner of destruction- NOT resemble a pyroclastic flow?

Pyroclastic Flow

It doesn't have to be a pyroclastic flow, but isn't it true that the basic physics of the tower collapses have more in common with a high mass high speed outpouring than with some truly magical H-Bomb effect?

Also for the H-Bomb theory to be a theory and supportable, the theory needs to maintain its details accurately- either you posit H-Bombs or you don't. And when you stop positing the thing you began the thread with, well that's the end of the theory AND the thread isn't it?

Originally posted by DogHead
some truly magical H-Bomb effect?

Where did you pop out from? The 30's?

Originally posted by DogHead
either you posit H-Bombs or you don't. And when you stop positing the thing you began the thread with, well that's the end of the theory

I don't think any proponents here have stopped 'positing' the H-Bomb. Consensus exists on the method of demolition. Rather, the debate has turned to the mechanisms and specifics of the weapon.

If you wish an 'end' to the thread, the simple option is not to participate.

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by DogHead
some truly magical H-Bomb effect?

Where did you pop out from? The 30's?

Maybe the 2030s... Maybe around about then we can look forward to some of the more George Jetson-esque weaponry people are talking about.

Red Mercury is referenced in eg "Brotherhood of the Bell" and its companion Black Sun book, and similar fringe publications. It is also referenced by dodgy sales agents like the Egyptian dude mentioned above.

Nowhere else. It is all anecdotal. To quote Fry from Futurama, it's a "widely believed fact" except it isn't widely believed.

Why would the conspirators go all out to try and pull of thermodynamic miracles for their grand deception when way cheaper and MUCH more efficient strategies were available?

And the basic thing is, the whole point of seeing 9/11 as a PNAC "Pearl Harbor" is that- Pearl Harbor was truly attacked by the enemy! The treachery was in allowing it to happen! All that the 9/11 conspiracy needs to be is allowing the enemy through the gates to create the provocation for war. Now sure there's evidence every which way for more than just a simple "letting the terrorists win one" scenario. Some really odd stuff. But H-Bombs? Really?

The South Park episode on 9/11 made way more sense than this thread.

When did extraordinary (or in this case truly hallucinatory) alogical assertions stop needing some substantiation to be credible?

reply to post by DogHead


DogHead,

You appear to be from the LIHOP (Let-It-Happen-On-Purpose) school of thought. Well, for those of us who are convinced of MIHOP (Made-It-Happen-On-Purpose), 9-11 is nothing like Pearl Harbor where at least there was a real enemy attacking us. On 9-11 we ‘stuck the knife’ into ourselves completely by ourselves. There were no ‘hijackers’ or Al-Qaida.

H-bombs are under discussion here because no other device seems to meet the necessary energy requirements to destroy the WTC complex in the way we observed it.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

I always thought the philosophy behind weapons such as the neutron bomb was to produce a massive blast of radiation (neutrons of course) while minimising the physical blast and the fallout. Why - well the general aim was to produce a weapon that wiped out 99% of the population instantly while leaving as much of the infrastructure as possible intact IE remove the population and still be able to move in fairly fast and occupy/use the city for strategic purposes.

In this case we see the exact opposite with people escaping while the building falls down?

About the 'red mercury' - wasn't it also being flogged as a 'stealth' coating for planes?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
About the 'red mercury' - wasn't it also being flogged as a 'stealth' coating for planes?

from what I gather Stealth use iron ball paint as a RAM coating, which is an entirely different composition.