Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

Or to disintegrate tow buildings in the blink of an eye.

By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: September 28, 1992
The Federal Government, which battled for decades to keep the workings of the hydrogen bomb secret, is beginning to declassify some of the most sensitive aspects of its design and to let American scientists publish them in scientific literature.
At times American scientists have been ordered not to attend meetings with foreign scientists, because they would have run the risk of discussing classified information.
In particular, friction arose over secrecy surrounding a concept known as indirect-drive fusion, in which powerful beams of particles or concentrated laser light is used to bombard tiny fusion fuel pellets for a split second, trying to heat and squeeze them to the point of ignition.
The trick, as with the hydrogen bomb, is to use a metal enclosure to insure that radiation pressure would be uniform. In a hydrogen bomb, energy from atomic reactions hits the bomb's interior casing, which then re-radiates huge numbers of X-rays to compress and ignite the fusion fuel. In controlled fusion experiments, laser beams are shot into a tiny metallic cavity (known as a hohlraum, from the German for hollow room) that surrounds the fusion fuel and re-radiates a crushing wave of X-rays that converge on the fuel pellet

Hello X,

Interesting post.

Originally posted by The X
a by product of a clean hydrogen bomb is water, of which plenty was found

Where did they find water? I thought the firefighters began spraying the site immediately.

Originally posted by The X
Also think about the energy required to damage the Bathtub, it is massive and was cracked.

What bathtub?

Originally posted by The X
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.

Best theory I've heard on that so far!

Originally posted by The X
The radiation a clean hydrogen bomb creates is in the UV range

I thought the energy was all over the spectrum?

Originally posted by The X
i could go on.........

Please do.

www.rense.com...
this vehicle was seven blocks from WTC. Explain what melted the doors.

The part I don't understand is who and why?

Assuming it was in fact an "inside job", who exactly were the insiders involved? All of the news media has been mentioned in the cover up, but who actually had the bomb installed? Did Congress secretly authorize this? Or did Bush just call up General Whoever and order him to blow up the WTC with hydrogen bombs? And General Whoever ordered some of his soldiers to go over to the warehouse and get a few of those mini nukes and put them in the basements of the WTC? And the soldiers think, "Hey this sounds like fun!" So they go to the mini nuke warehouse, pretend like they're just looking around, and stick a few nukes in their pockets. Of course none of them think it might be a bad idea to kill a few thousand US citizens, so they don't mention this conspiracy to anyone.

And then boom, and everybody is happy. The insurance companies (mostly owned by US stockholders) had to pay billions and lots of people died, but so what? We (whoever that is - Bush I guess) had the keys to Afghanistan, which has no oil to speak of, and Iraq which has very little oil compared to other Arab nations. So little in fact, that Iraq invaded Kuwait to try to get their oil, but that's another story.

So after we obtained the keys to Afghanistan and Iraq, what was the plan? To steal their oil, albeit at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars? If so, why haven't we stolen it? And why didn't we take Iran instead? Iran has huge amounts of oil.

I just can't get past these basic points for some reason.

- Harry

RED MERCURY
Pictures and statements of its existence:

Another find was a bottle of Red Mercury. Now this was a big deal for me. In order for a nuclear bomb to created fusion, you need fission, which is why nuclear missles are so complex. Back in the peak of the Cold War, the USSR came out with a story that stated they developed a chemical that could create fusion WITHOUT fission, thus creating the capabilites for the possibility of a small, cheap nuclear mega-ton bomb. It was called Red Mercury. Most people say it was just some urban legend that was whipped up by the Soviets to sell some crap on the black market for $200K-$300K per ounce (which they did). No tests have ever proved that this substance actually worked. It was produced on the USSR and Eat Germany, from what I know. It just goes to show what extent Iraq was taking to create something for mass destruction.

There is this janitor who worked in WTC, who was in the basement when things started to go to hell. He does testify that he felt and heard an explosion from underneath him, in the lower basements, but he is still around.. if there really was a nuclear explosion would he not have been turned in to a bloody mist ?

Well that is a good observaton.
One which I have not the necessary explaination for.
The fact remains over and above this mans survival is that the energy required to evidence the disintegration of WTC1-2 can not be explained in a gravity collapse.

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Well that is a good observaton.
One which I have not the necessary explaination for.
The fact remains over and above this mans survival is that the energy required to evidence the disintegration of WTC1-2 can not be explained in a gravity collapse.

But I proved to you that a nuke wasn't used, right?

Let's go over those numbers again:

1-I gave every advantage that I could think of.
2- I gave you all your talking points, regardless of how speculative they were.


And the end result is that it still would have taken a device with a 7.5 kt output to do what you claim......


I hope that at the very least, these figures have moved you to abandon the vaporized steel belief, because it's utterly ridiculous.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Seymour Butz,

You actually proved that nukes WERE necessarily used. Your energy calculations are a little undersized, but you’re ‘on the right path’. Two 25 kt explosions were needed just for pulverizing the concrete and creating the expanding dust clouds of WTC-1 and 2. (Further kilotons were used to vaporize the steel and WTC-7 and the core of WTC-6.)

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 9/6/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Originally posted by Phatcat
There is this janitor who worked in WTC, who was in the basement when things started to go to hell. He does testify that he felt and heard an explosion from underneath him, in the lower basements, but he is still around.. if there really was a nuclear explosion would he not have been turned in to a bloody mist ?

Depends of how close to the center of the blast he was, most likely he was right at the edge. Remember these towers were huge, the entire wtc site is 16 acres or there abouts. I think there were a lot of other explosive devices used too, they may of even had several gas explosions and/or very big fuel air explosives. If terrorists used nukes most likely it would be uranium based rather than plutonium.



[edit on 6-9-2008 by Insolubrious]

I just posted a link where a civilian contractor has pictures of red mercury among other things, here it is again. The janitor committed suicide recently.
www.ricekiller.com...
Another find was a bottle of Red Mercury. Now this was a big deal for me. In order for a nuclear bomb to created fusion, you need fission, which is why nuclear missles are so complex. Back in the peak of the Cold War, the USSR came out with a story that stated they developed a chemical that could create fusion WITHOUT fission, thus creating the capabilites for the possibility of a small, cheap nuclear mega-ton bomb. It was called Red Mercury. Most people say it was just some urban legend that was whipped up by the Soviets to sell some crap on the black market for $200K-$300K per ounce (which they did). No tests have ever proved that this substance actually worked. It was produced on the USSR and Eat Germany, from what I know. It just goes to show what extent Iraq was taking to create something for mass destruction.

Originally posted by Phatcat
There is this janitor who worked in WTC, who was in the basement when things started to go to hell. He does testify that he felt and heard an explosion from underneath him, in the lower basements,
"and he evacusted at least one person with burns over most of their body.
He committed suicide very recently.
but he is still around.. if there really was a nuclear explosion would he not have been turned in to a bloody mist ?

reply to post by fmcanarney


All right guys,

What’s the difference between red mercury and bigfoot? Bigfoot’s been spotted!!

Sorry, but ya’ll know I don’t believe in red mercury. Until someone can — theoretically — explain what the ‘stuff’ EXACTLY is, it belongs in the hoax category, right along with Sasquatch. No one in the scientific community is talking about this substance (save Samuel Cohen, but he may have an ‘agenda’). And there is a reason for this. There is no theoretical basis for HOW and WHY red mercury or whatever, packs so much energy.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

www.abovetopsecret.com...
the janitors suicide link

the link I posted has pictures of RED MERCURY Wizard.
The container has markings of being made in Germany/Russia.
Can you look at the pictures and be absolutely certain it is not the fabled "RED MERCURY"

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods


Wrong.

What I proved is that only the truly delusional believe that nukes were used.

Thank you for providing an example.....

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods

+

just because no one is talking about it does not mean it does not exist, in fact from the atomic people that is status quo to not talk about it because it does exist.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
reply to post by fmcanarney

 

All right guys,

What’s the difference between red mercury and bigfoot? Bigfoot’s been spotted!!

Sorry, but ya’ll know I don’t believe in red mercury. Until someone can — theoretically — explain what the ‘stuff’ EXACTLY is, it belongs in the hoax category, right along with Sasquatch. No one in the scientific community is talking about this substance (save Samuel Cohen, but he may have an ‘agenda’). And there is a reason for this. There is no theoretical basis for HOW and WHY red mercury or whatever, packs so much energy.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

on the contrary WITW there is some info and explanation. Red mercury is supposed to be a 'ballotechnic'. There is a description of how it's supposed to work and has been for the most part classified. Research performed on ballotechnics originates from Sandia National Laboratories, the researchers involved primarily focus on chemical and simulation research, not nuclear weapons research. Other research has been performed at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Just because we don't see it, doesn't mean its there.

Cohen claims that the almost certainly mythical "red mercury" is in fact a powerful ballotechnic material, and that the Soviets have perfected its use and used it to create a number of softball-sized "mini-nukes".

Cohen claimed that Saddam Hussein was in possession of about 50 of these devices and planned to use them against the United States during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. To date none have been reported found.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Insolubrious


Perhaps we are misunderstanding one another. But my question is, by which physical process does the fabled ‘red mercury’ release its energy? Chemical, fusion or fission??

As a reminder, here are the MAXIMUM theoretical energy densities of these reactions:

chemical 10 kJ/cm3
fusion 100,000,000 kJ/cm3
fission 1,000,000,000 kJ/cm3
antimatter annihilation 10,000,000,000 kJ/cm3

Where does ‘red mercury’ — which I say is a hoax — fit in??

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

Perhaps we are misunderstanding one another. But my question is, by which physical process does the fabled ‘red mercury’ release its energy? Chemical, fusion or fission??

As a reminder, here are the MAXIMUM theoretical energy densities of these reactions:

chemical 10 kJ/cm3
fusion 100,000,000 kJ/cm3
fission 1,000,000,000 kJ/cm3
antimatter annihilation 10,000,000,000 kJ/cm3

Where does ‘red mercury’ — which I say is a hoax — fit in??

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

It's supposed to be a pyrophoric like chemical and it's energy density may be as high as 10 times that of the best explosives which is a high enough energy density to be useful as a replacement for fission.

I found a ton of tnt has an energy density of 4,184 MJ, which is 4,184,000 KJ. Times that by 10 for red mercury gives us 41,840,000 kJ.

Unpublished materials of martyr the Sheikh Abu Khubaib Al-Masri (AQ chemical expert) claims the existence of "Red Mercury".

www.adrive.com...