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: 38
12
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   

The knowledge of relevant advances regarding weapon technology is even rarer. Many of those who are up to date are bound by strict commitment of loyality – that is vigorously looked after. In some cases, they get executed (an 'accident' occurs).
The author of this text feels as his duty to spread mainly the advanced knowledge in explosives from a military point of view in public discussion as it is obvious that lacking this information the events observed around 9/11 cannot be explained.
The photographs attached in this non-profit distribution are for securing volatile, important evidence on 9/11 for discussion and education. Author hereby grants full permission to reproduce the drawing 'The Bombs in the WTC' and his writings. You are encouraged to mail, publish and mass produce these documents or your enhanced versions of them.




posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Two of the flights were probably nothing but fictious, real only on radar screens...


Naw, ALL four flights were fictitious!

Why do so many 9-11 researchers stop short of accepting this? Is it because we have ‘video’ of two ‘planes’ hitting the twin towers, but none of the Pentacon attack and Shanksville ? Has the work of the Naudet lovers/brothers – both Tisch film school (NYC) students – really had such a convincing and lasting impact?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I do not believe planes were used, I think missles were used and planes cut and pasted over the trajectory to conceal the missles. Plus contact demolitions did not do the destruction to the twin towers.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
I do not believe planes were used, I think missles were used and planes cut and pasted over the trajectory to conceal the missles. Plus contact demolitions did not do the destruction to the twin towers.


Wow...that would make it hard for the missiles to fly with airliners pasted to them.

Or are you another one of those that believe the government has a magic technology that allows them to place images on all the still and video cameras that captured the planes?



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
The strongest evidence for TV fakery is the plane entering the building which according to the laws of physics should not happen, only something like a bunker buster could do that.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
The strongest evidence for TV fakery is the plane entering the building which according to the laws of physics should not happen, only something like a bunker buster could do that.


Fine, then its up to you to explain how all the private video cameras and still cameras show the plane entering the building.

OR you could read up on physics......



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


Fine, then its up to you to explain how all the private video cameras and still cameras show the plane entering the building.


I just told you, only a bunker buster could do something like that. All the private video cameras and still cameras show a bunker buster (made to look like a plane) entering the building.

uk.youtube.com...





[edit on 18-8-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 06:17 AM
link   
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation”
Herbert Spencer



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 



A bunker buster made to look like a plane? SO, umm, what OTHER plane dropped this bunker buster? I dont think ive ever seen an airplane that big.....or are we going to have a self propelled bunker buster that big? Which again, means a few hundred people would have been involved...and yet no one has spoken....



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious


I just told you, only a bunker buster could do something like that. All the private video cameras and still cameras show a bunker buster (made to look like a plane) entering the building.



No you didn't say that!

Sweet Jesus that is funny.

STUNDIED!!!!



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Hi throat yogart, thanks for your constructive input and welcome to my ignore list.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Insolubrious
 



A bunker buster made to look like a plane? SO, umm, what OTHER plane dropped this bunker buster? I dont think ive ever seen an airplane that big.....or are we going to have a self propelled bunker buster that big? Which again, means a few hundred people would have been involved...and yet no one has spoken....


why do you think it would be so hard to keep secret? Especially if it were mainly a foreign operation? Manhattan project involved thousands of people yet they kept that under wraps pretty good and that was domestic. Also consider the drug industry and how secretive it is, we probably only stop 2% of all the drugs coming into the country.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
What is even more amazing is the nose of the airplane entering the building and coming out the opposite wall undamaged, It is on youtube and the video is called "no nose no plane." The poster did a pixel comparison of the nose of this plane the instant before it hit the exterior wall and then the nose of the plane exits the opposite wall with the nose and about twenty five feet of cockpit completely undamaged, Then the fireball roils up and hides the nose of the plane. The pixel comparison showed it was exactly the same plane with exactly no damage caused.


9/11 no nose no plane



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   
well if it was a bunker buster the reason for the 'nose out' could be because of slight inaccuracy of the targetting system. Seems they put enough on board to severly damage the core but 175 was slightly off center, thus it went all the way through.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
cars suffering from intense heat damage on 911
www.prisonplanet.com...
the "bunker buster was located in the basement of WTC1 and 2 it was not the initial elplosion at the site where the alleged planes penetrated "all the way through the building" , at least on the south tower. Those would have been simple missles with lots of napalm in them,
North tower steel sections, weighing 100's of tons were ejected more than 600 feet into the Winter Garden and American Express buildings. Where did the required energy come from?
[yvid]http://video.google.com/videoplay?
video of cutting charges
nomoregames.net...



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney Those would have been simple missles with lots of napalm in them


Why monkey around with napalm-tipped missles when many of the WTC offices were empty? And, therefore could easily be filled with all kinds of ‘fireworks’. (Drums of petroleum for fog-oil smoke machines, IED simulation devices, and any imaginable smorgasbord of explosives.)

UA175 ‘hit’ (we all should know that never really happened) the offices of Fiduciary Trust Co. International. A company of which the chief executive officer — Anne Tatlock — was on 9-11 just so coincidentally ‘hanging out’ with Warren Buffett and, later in the day President Bush and his entourage at U.S. Strategic Command Headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 8/24/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   


Deuterium and tritium can be loaded into a spherical capsule called a target and surrounded by a “hohlraum,” and then heated by means of laser bombardment. The heat causes the compression of these elements, creating a nuclear fusion micro-explosion. This so-called “inertial confinement” technique permits nuclear weapons scientists to study nuclear explosions in miniature.

In the most popular indirect heating scheme, the spherical fuel capsule is mounted inside a cylinder that is about the size of a large paper clip. This cylinder is called a hohlraum, and it is usually made of some heavy element such as lead. Energy beams are shined through holes at the end of the hohlraum, vaporizing its inside surface and releasing a burst of x-rays. These x-rays bounce around inside the hohlraum, heating the fuel capsule much like heat from an oven bakes bread. Indirect heating achieves a highly uniform compression and heating of fusion fuel without the precise positioning of incoming energy beams required for direct heating.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Deuterium and tritium can be ....heated by means of laser bombardment.


Again, ‘energy beams’, i. e. lasers (high-powered ones, not the keychain type
) require a (gi-normous) electrical energy source and conversion device to produce. Which means there has to be a huge contraption in place to initiate nuclear fusion. The basements of the WTC’s weren’t no Livermore lab. Therefore it’s implausible that lasers were used to set off the 9-11 twin tower nukes. Antimatter triggering makes much more sense — all the necessary energy and technology is already ‘built in’ (into the fusion activating substance, i.e. the antimatter).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 8/25/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Nikolas
 


if you go and look there is evidence of EMP, it took three months for a german engineering firm to restore power to that area.

anything containing sufficient mass to create an electrical charge from EMP would show signs of it.

look at the cars that are burnt out, radios went down, a camera on a tripod in hoboken shuddered a few seconds later the sound of a large explosion is heard.

There were other radio-active fusion by products measured at the site, other than tritium and a by product of a clean hydrogen bomb is water, of which plenty was found.

Also think about the energy required to damage the Bathtub, it is massive and was cracked. also two +2 magnitude seismic events before the towers begin to fall.
something powerful was attached to the columns they are connected to the bedrock, a detonation creates a seismic disturbance transmitted through the bedrock by the columns.

The dust in the air is a product of a phreatic reaction caused by a single high energy event super heating the water molecules in the cement, massive expansion turns it to dust.

The radiation a clean hydrogen bomb creates is in the UV range which is difficult to detect without the correct devices which cost around 40.000 dollars each.

the non hodgkins lymphona cancers at the site are caused by exposure to ionizing radiation, the size of the cancer cluster is indicative of exposure by lots of people to a high energy event.

i could go on.........



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   
The fact that it is not necessary to ignite a fusion reaction with a fission spark plug constitutes a clean hydrogen bomb.

Encarta Encyclopedia...
"The Hydrogen Bomb or H-bomb, weapon deriving a large portion of its energy from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen isotopes. In an atomic bomb , uranium or plutonium is split into lighter elements that together weigh less than the original atoms, the remainder of the mass appearing as energy. Unlike this fission bomb, the hydrogen bomb functions by the fusion, or joining together, of lighter elements into heavier elements. The end product again weighs less than its components, the difference once more appearing as energy. Because extremely high temperatures are required in order to initiate fusion reactions, the hydrogen bomb is also known as a thermonuclear bomb. The first thermonuclear bomb was exploded in 1952 at Enewetak by the United States, the second in 1953 by Russia (then the USSR). Great Britain, France, and China have also exploded thermonuclear bombs, and these five nations comprise the so-called nuclear club"nations that have the capability to produce nuclear weapons and admit to maintaining an inventory of them.
The presumable structure of a thermonuclear bomb is as follows: at its center is an atomic bomb; surrounding it is a layer of lithium deuteride (a compound of lithium and deuterium, the isotope of hydrogen with mass number 2); around it is a tamper, a thick outer layer, frequently of fissionable material, that holds the contents together in order to obtain a larger explosion. Neutrons from the atomic explosion cause the lithium to fission into helium, tritium (the isotope of hydrogen with mass number 3), and energy. The atomic explosion also supplies the temperatures needed for the subsequent fusion of deuterium with tritium, and of tritium with tritium (50,000,000 and 400,000,000, respectively). Enough neutrons are produced in the fusion reactions to produce further fission in the core and to initiate fission in the tamper.
Since the fusion reaction produces mostly neutrons and very little that is radioactive, the concept of a 'clean' bomb has resulted: one having a small atomic trigger, a less fissionable tamper, and therefore less radioactive fallout . Carrying this progression further would result in the suggested neutron bomb, which would have a minimum trigger and a nonfissionable tamper; there would be blast effects and a hail of lethal neutrons but almost no radioactive fallout.


After all - the USA tested nuclear weapons underground for about 30 years -from 1962 to 1992.
The designers were able to design the bombs to the yield that they wanted -and were able to figure out how deeply the bomb had to be buried so that the explosion would not break out of the surface. With the exception of a very few that "vented" - the explosions were well contained.
Since the bombs can be successfully designed to a particular yield - one
knows how much energy will be generated and how much soil is going to
be displaced.
The yield of a nuclear explosive CAN be controlled - the designer can
make the nuclear explosive generate the amount of energy necessary to
do the earth-moving job at hand.
Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join