Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Dear Everybody:

We've been getting some really good posts with visual documentation -- very helpful! I'm adding more photos as well now, since it seems some still have reservations about the possible use of explosives in the WTC towers. But perhaps I’m misinterpreting words. In any case — just for good measure — here are two more snapshots of events on that dark day in our history called 9-11.




Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods




posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Two things:

1. This isn't funny, making a joke out of it is disgusting. Nothing is funny about this.

2. Are you attempting to prove that demolitions or nukes were used? Because I'm confident that demolitions were used, but I consider the nukes as silly as holograms. I'm wondering how showing obvious squibs tie in to nukes in the basement.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
i think its quite likely its both were used, as the Finnish military expert explains.





The Ground Zero here is in the original sense of word, a nuclear blast site. The thermal energy may absorb heat at a rate of 10 E 23 ergs / cm2 sec and near the bomb all surfaces may heat to 4000 °C or 7200 °F igniting or vapourizing violently. Source: US Department of Defense & US Department of Energy, Glasstone – Dolan: 'The Effects of Nuclear Weapons' (1980).


The thermonuclear bomb used was a 'pure' hydrogen bomb, so no uranium or plutonium at all. The basic nuclear reaction is Deuterium + Tritium > Alpha + n. The ignition of this is the fine part, either with a powerful beam array or antimatter (a very certain way to get the necessary effect of directed energy in order not to level the adjacent blocks of high-rise buildings, as well).


I would suggest reading this:

www.saunalahti.fi...



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChapaevII
Compelling research with links

This is some of the most compelling reading I found on this, with TONS of links and references.


Thanks man. From the link:


Declassified August 1958: "Mere fact that the U. S. has developed atomic munitions suitable for use in demolition work." Declassified January 1967, "The fact that we are interested in and are continuing studies on a weapon for minimizing the emerging flux of neutrons and internal induced activity." Declassified March 1976, "The fact of weapon laboratory interest in Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) devices. The fact of successful development of MRR devices."


There is a link embedded within that paragraph, and afterwards, is tons of good info, just as you suggest. I'll read through it more thoroughly a bit later and post anything else that strikes me as worth it.



Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Insolubrious:

Fantastic pictures! Not to be outdone! And they're new, at least I’ve never seen them. I did not realize that much base material was left standing at the WTC site.


For clarity, and maybe you already knew this, he was comparing to Building 6 in that photo.

WTC1 and 2 were the Twin Towers, and hardly anything remained in their footprints. A stack of debris barely reaching the lobby height at its tallest in WTC1's footprint, and the bulk of that seems to be material from the collapsing "spire" and actually the lowermost section of above-ground core structure that was still standing. WTC2 seems to have had much less in its footprint. Everything was scattered radially, though primarily in four directions, with the vast majority of the mass being outside of the footprints.

WTC3 was crushed by falling debris.

WTC4 suffered TOTAL collapse across most of the building, but the part that remained standing, remaining standing in relatively great condition as if someone had made a clean slice through it.

WTC5 suffered isolated and internal collapses, as well as monstrous fires.

WTC6 is the building in the picture; it suffered weaker fires than WTC4 and 5 apparently but also has that enormous hole in the middle. There were reports of a series of explosions going off in its lobby about the time of WTC2's collapse.

WTC7, of course, had some fire, and then fell straight down at free-fall speed like a conventional demo.



Not totally relevant, but I thought I'd just sum that up for anyone interested in looking further into the other buildings besides 1 and 2 and 7.


Originally posted by dperry4930
Discount all you like. Last I heard KE = 1/2 mv^2 still held true.


Hey, how's your reading comprehension man?


Originally posted by bsbray11
You can juggle numbers all day; just because you can plug numbers into a formula does not mean that formula reflects reality in any way, in the way you apply it.


Just curious.


Oh I am quite sure explosive 'experts' will come out of the ATS woodwork and attempt to explain how 'real' explosives don't operate under the simple laws of physics.


You just admitted that your own formula does not account for various other variables by saying you could make it up by adding more explosives. So then why are you pre-emptively discrediting anyone that has actually WORKED with explosives that's going to say the same thing?

I also don't understand the need for the string of immature remarks and suggestions that were not at all necessary to post, and contributed nothing of value to the discussion.


Originally posted by deltaboy
Look at this video and look at where the top section is bending as it collapses. Thats not a hydrogen bomb.


Right; it's probably thermite/thermate. That's also why there was molten iron being spewed from the corner of WTC2.

Personally, I think if nuclear demolition munitions were used, it would have been from the basements, upwards-directed, destroying the core. I still think thermite and HEs were also placed, as evidenced by the above initial failures (thermite), and clean diagonal slices on certain removed columns.

The pic Insolubrious just posted gives a rough idea as to what *may* have happened (I'm not going to venture to be that exact!), just without the initiating thermite.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I read an eyewitness account of explosions happening in WTC6 and that crater is pretty suspicious. So perhaps WTC 1,2 and 7 weren't the only buildings with explosive devices. WTC6 really does resemble Chernobyls features. I have heard that the plane debries may of hit WTC6. The officials say that crater was caused by debries from the twin towers. I am doubting this, I found another ariel snap and you can see how black and charred the ground is.

The ground looks scorched. Some massive source of heat must of been present.

Notice how black everything is inside? I don't think this is a shadow.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Dear Insolubrious:

Thank you again for your research. Your pictures are truly shocking. I’ve just been accused by “Astygia” that I’ve been joking around. Well, I don’t think any of this is funny in the least. He’s probably referring to an imaged I posted above. I didn’t insert the comment into it and I don’t think it’s out of line.

Anyways, when reviewing your photographs it’s nearly impossible to believe that most of America still firmly believes that “planes” caused all this destruction. I simply cannot fathom this. Is everyone “comatose”? But I must admit, on 9-11 I myself accepted about half of what was officially said. Just what exactly was I thinking — or was I thinking at all?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Originally posted by dperry4930
Discount all you like. Last I heard KE = 1/2 mv^2 still held true.


Hey, how's your reading comprehension man?


Originally posted by bsbray11
You can juggle numbers all day; just because you can plug numbers into a formula does not mean that formula reflects reality in any way, in the way you apply it.


Just curious.


Oh I am quite sure explosive 'experts' will come out of the ATS woodwork and attempt to explain how 'real' explosives don't operate under the simple laws of physics.


You just admitted that your own formula does not account for various other variables by saying you could make it up by adding more explosives. So then why are you pre-emptively discrediting anyone that has actually WORKED with explosives that's going to say the same thing?

I also don't understand the need for the string of immature remarks and suggestions that were not at all necessary to post, and contributed nothing of value to the discussion.


Well, how shall I begin? You continue to discredit an elementary tenet of physics any highschool student (taking physics) would know. Do you think I am somehow making this up? Have you never worked out a simple mechanics problem? How can you even hope to discuss complex engineering problems if you don't know (refuse to consider) the absolute basics? I will take from your exclamation as to how basic formulae don't take into account things like wind resistance that you truly don't know why. Suffice it to say that the main reason basic physics texts start with these simple derived equations is because they are close enough, well within an order of magnitude. Easily proven by any kind of rudimentary labwork, and not anything high tech...

The reason why I immediately take with a huge grain of salt some individual suddenly weighing in with his or her expert opinion on high explosives is because how often have you read posts on this very board where people portrayed themselves as an expert or knowledgable in some arcane field, with no proof whatsoever?

Calling to question my reading comprehension was truly a master stroke. However you just can't get past the simple point I have succesfully made which points out that a realistic amount of conventional explosives could cause the effect in question. I have proven it, and you do nothing other than say I am wrong. It would be entertaining to see you actually prove otherwise. Again, there is not a single shred of those 20 or so 'strong' observations that require a nuclear device.

Thanks for the discussion!



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Anyways, when reviewing your photographs it’s nearly impossible to believe that most of America still firmly believes that “planes” caused all this destruction. I simply cannot fathom this. Is everyone “comatose”? But I must admit, on 9-11 I myself accepted about half of what was officially said. Just what exactly was I thinking — or was I thinking at all?

I too accepted the official story and parts of me still want to, but i can't see any other logical way except extremely powerful explosives being used to bring down those buildings.

But my paradox is that it takes so much planning and prep - it doesn't make sense. How could they get away with this un-noticed and without it leaking? As normal demolitions go they take too much time and prep, too much work and a large group of individuals with the right access, expertise, and they even need to weaken the building first. This was two of the biggest buildings in the world! If it were an official demolition it would of been a record breaker, the size of these things would be requiring so much extra effort to bring down correctly.

But you see, why bother with controlled demolition that takes months of careful planning when you can just fly a plane into the building and it will take care of itself an hour later? Shouldn't controlled demolition be out of a job by now?

Ok some debris hit WTC7, and it collapsed perfectly. So, why bother with controlled demolitions when we can throw some random debris at a building and it will take care of itself?

Its a bit like shooting a tree with a gun and then expecting the tree to turn into a pile saw dust 10 minutes later, or turning your stove on hoping it won't melt into a puddle if you leave it on for too long.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Dear Dperry4930:

Welcome back!

I had originally posted these comments on another thread but I think they might at least — partially — apply to your recent post. They definitely tie in to my high-entropy versus low-entropy energy post.

Conventional explosives are much “louder” and much more “visible” than nuclear explosions RELATIVE to their effective yields. Again, I’m only saying RELATIVE to their yields. Using them on a large scale definitely wouldn’t have been “low-profile” or “covert”. Merely wrapping them around all the central steel beams would have been a chore — especially while trying to keep them concealed from the occupants of the buildings.

The inner cores of the WTC were hell-strong. They were designed to carry all the weight. The outer beams’ function was “only” to stiffen up the buildings, to keep them from swaying in the winds. To get the inner cores to actually vanish, i.e. sublimate would have been near-impossible with thermate or other conventional explosives. I say near-impossible because I don’t have the guts to say anything absolute. Never say never is my motto.

In any case, had the inner cores been destroyed with chemical explosives it would have been ear-deafeningly noisy and very, very visible, i.e. fireball-city. It would have been obvious to everyone — even the daftest of the daft — that a demolition had taken place.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Wizard in the Woods, other than the label pointing to an asserted "bomb blast," got an factual evidence that supports that indeed it was a set-off "bomb blast"?

The problem I have repeatedly seen, time in and time out, in my time here at ATS is that all of you think that linking diagrams and photos back the/your half-fact and half-conjectured theories when in truth, they do not.

As soon as I get back on campus, I have a Terrorism professor who has some New York WTC fire department documentries that where taken by a French training film crew (from a Parisian fire department) that caught the two airplanes as they hit the towers, etc.--ie: from the time of 1st and 2nd impacts to the time that both towers fell. I will post up the needed information for you and others to obtain them when applicable. You, as with some others here, might be very interested in watching them, or not, because they are well filmed and 'in the midst' of what actually happened, which is quite contrary to the conspiracy notions being pushed here by you, as with multitudes of other past WTC-9/11 conspiracy 'specialists' that have graced ATS.

At any rate, the truth will never be known, will it, but then again, "truth" is simply a matter of perception and "perception," as we all know, is a matter of opinion, correct?

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dperry4930
You continue to discredit an elementary tenet of physics any highschool student (taking physics) would know. Do you think I am somehow making this up? Have you never worked out a simple mechanics problem? How can you even hope to discuss complex engineering problems if you don't know (refuse to consider) the absolute basics?


I think you're just a little full of yourself. Your figures still assume 100% of the energy released going towards the propulsion of the steel, regardless of how you badger me. I point out air resistance and your response is simply 'add more explosives', while continuing to berate me for how stupid I am that you were able to use such a *complex* formula. I am impressed. The rest of your post was about the thread in general, and was nothing but bitching imo, so I'll let it go.


Originally posted by Insolubrious
But my paradox is that it takes so much planning and prep - it doesn't make sense. How could they get away with this un-noticed and without it leaking? As normal demolitions go they take too much time and prep, too much work and a large group of individuals with the right access, expertise, and they even need to weaken the building first. This was two of the biggest buildings in the world! If it were an official demolition it would of been a record breaker, the size of these things would be requiring so much extra effort to bring down correctly.


Was this rhetorical, as in you don't think they were rigged with more conventional items? I'm not sure how to interpret this. Just wondering.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
I read earlier.. cant remember where, but htere are actually people out there placing extremely bogus claims about the towers coming down, trying to discredit the notion of ' conspiracy theory ' with such outragoues claims...


I believe this is one.

Demolition, and explosives... yeah I can see a case for someone investigating that.


hydrogen bombs... errr... thats just stupid!



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
As soon as I get back on campus, I have a Terrorism professor who has some New York WTC fire department documentries that where taken by a French training film crew (from a Parisian fire department) that caught the two airplanes as they hit the towers, etc.--ie: from the time of 1st and 2nd impacts to the time that both towers fell.


You mean the Naudet Brothers' film? What do you think we would gain from something we've already seen, and how exactly does it refute anything we're saying?



Look familiar?


fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman1: Then you just sort of ... this cloud of s___
just chasin' you down
fireman4: Where did you go?
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman2: You couldn't outrun it.
fireman1: You couldn't outrun it.
fireman4: So what did you do?
fireman2: I jumped behind a battalion car,
I hid under the car, I was waitin' to die.


911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Conventional explosives are much “louder” and much more “visible” than nuclear explosions RELATIVE to their effective yields. Again, I’m only saying RELATIVE to their yields. Using them on a large scale definitely wouldn’t have been “low-profile” or “covert”. Merely wrapping them around all the central steel beams would have been a chore — especially while trying to keep them concealed from the occupants of the buildings.

The inner cores of the WTC were hell-strong. They were designed to carry all the weight. The outer beams’ function was “only” to stiffen up the buildings, to keep them from swaying in the winds. To get the inner cores to actually vanish, i.e. sublimate would have been near-impossible with thermate or other conventional explosives. I say near-impossible because I don’t have the guts to say anything absolute. Never say never is my motto.

In any case, had the inner cores been destroyed with chemical explosives it would have been ear-deafeningly noisy and very, very visible, i.e. fireball-city. It would have been obvious to everyone — even the daftest of the daft — that a demolition had taken place.



This is exactly what I am getting at, a very stealth operation with advanced devices seems to be the logical way. The operation would of had to of been done in the most minimal of time frames, with ease, reliability, set up by very few people as possible and with nobody noticing or foiling the plan. We could be talking about devices that could be the size of a rucksack or smaller, easily smuggled into the bulding and easily planted, un-noticable and hidden from any staff with minimal amounts of work required or suspisions raised.

I also agree with the wizard about thermite, thermite alone could not produce what was seen. Relative yield too is a very important point and the sheer noise of equivelent c4 or other explosives would of be blatent and require too much work, people would know and they wouldn't be able to scapegoat the planes and fire damage.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I read earlier.. cant remember where, but htere are actually people out there placing extremely bogus claims about the towers coming down, trying to discredit the notion of ' conspiracy theory ' with such outragoues claims...


I believe this is one.


I wouldn't exactly go on TV with this one myself. But who cares anymore man. There were still large sections of steel being ejected trailing thick vapor, cars exploding during the collapses, and extremely heated steel laying around afterwards. And the military is known to have been looking at low-yield weapons for demolition purposes, that released minimal amounts of residual radiation (MRR) as detailed in one of the links presented above.

Take it or leave it, I'm just looking at it, but it's not like I'm trying to pull a fast one on you. I'll tell you right now that this isn't something you need to tell people if you're trying to present the alternative stuff to them.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Would that be the mother of all assumptions, bsbray11?
Did you not notice the mention of "documentaries" versus a sole documentary: the one by the Naudet Brothers? You think this was the only French filming crew or a film crew period?

Bit of advice, do not 'assume'?

Furthermore, to "refute" implies a considerable amount of evidence when considering the attitudes of you 9/11 conspiracy specialists, huh? You guys sit down conjure up this garbage, then roll it around, spit it out and spew it on the internet like it was the "truth." Then you expect everyone to debunk *your* notions with evidences, etc, when in truth, it should be the other way around. In all this time, neither, you or anyone else has conclusively proven that the towers were "pulled" or demo'd down; there is nothing but continued speculation, educated guesses, and half-backed spewed out theories. How many years since the towers fell? How many more years of spewing before it stops? Where is the undisputable and conclusive proof at, bsbray11, where? Let me answer it for you since you and others think it is "we" who are in denial--in all truth, it is you all who are in denial--the waited for with open mouths indisputable and conclusive proof has yet to be unveiled and brought forth. In other words, there is NO indisputable and conclusive proof, just the continued swirl of insubstantiated theories. Please.....

Just because there are mentions of "as if they had detonated" and "as if they had planned to take down a building" does not, in no way shape or form, prove nor affirm the conspiritorial notions that have flooded out of 9/11, does it? Thought not. Key word notice here in case you and others missed it: IF....

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Conventional explosives are much “louder” and much more “visible” than nuclear explosions RELATIVE to their effective yields. Again, I’m only saying RELATIVE to their yields.

I can't say I agree mainly because I like most have no first-hand experience with observing a nuclear detonation. However, I have never heard anything to respect to a nuke being quieter or less visible (albeit relative to yield). A nuke, much like a conventional explosive, is simply a release of thermal energy. That coupled with a massive release of radiation is what makes up a nuclear explosion. I know of no physical quality or property that can mute the sight or sound of such a release. Is there some record or empirical data that backs up what you are putting forward?


Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
To get the inner cores to actually vanish, i.e. sublimate would have been near-impossible with thermate or other conventional explosives. I say near-impossible because I don’t have the guts to say anything absolute. Never say never is my motto.

Well, again I don't subscribe to any portion of the building as simply vanishing. Did the inner cores have to completely vanish for the building to collapse?


Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
In any case, had the inner cores been destroyed with chemical explosives it would have been ear-deafeningly noisy and very, very visible, i.e. fireball-city. It would have been obvious to everyone — even the daftest of the daft — that a demolition had taken place.

There is no physical difference in the thermal energy released by a nuclear device than that of a conventional explosive, other than the vast difference in quantity. Heat is heat, just a matter of how much.

Again, there is no reason to have to include a nuclear device to bring down the towers or to explain a great number of the observations made on that website. Lets go with a more simple chain of events.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Would that be the mother of all assumptions, bsbray11?
Did you not notice the mention of "documentaries" versus a sole documentary: the one by the Naudet Brothers? You think this was the only French filming crew?

Bit of advice, do not 'assume'?


You said first impact to last collapse, or whatever, in addition to the French thing. Naudet Bros were the only ones to capture the first impact and everything that followed to my knowledge. Thus if you have a single video that has all of that, and it's not the Naudet Brothers, then direct me to it and I'll apologize for my assumption. Otherwise, wtf are you talking about?

The rest of your post was like a really long whine, and I don't take it personally, so good luck and hope you get over it man.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Dear Seekerof:

I can only speak for myself — of course everything I’ve posted so far is “speculative”. I wasn’t in NYC on 11-Sep-2001 and for sure wasn’t in any of the buildings at the time — else I wouldn’t be here now, would I? Furthermore, I haven’t been physically present at practically any of the important events in history. So I have no choice but to judge world events based on indirect information. And that’s by definition always “speculative”. But I still would like to think it’s reasonable as long as I keep my premises logical.

So, no I have no factual evidence that that “spurt” in the picture is a bomb blast. But being that the buildings did collapse seconds later I think it’s “legitimate” to assume that it was indeed an explosion and not a water pipe breaking. Some readers have proposed that it was air blowing out a window after being compressed due to the collapse above. But to me that seems unlikely. However this is a matter of personal choice.

I can prove, however — and so can you if you wish — through personal experimentation with commonly available materials, e. g. steel and concrete, that these substances do not turn to dust by merely dropping them (from height below the stratosphere only please).

By all means if you can obtain film footage please present it to us. That’s what this site is for. Even if it were film shot by the Naudet brothers — some say their footage was “staged”. But who knows, let’s let everyone form their own opinions! Here is the website about the Naudets www.serendipity.li...
Vive la France!

Moi, je cherche la vérité — toi aussi?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.



[edit on 10/4/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You said first impact to last collapse, or whatever, in addition to the French thing. Naudet Bros were the only ones to capture the first impact and everything that followed to my knowledge.

Key words here: "To my knowledge."
Thus you made an assumption, correct?




Thus if you have a single video that has all of that, and it's not the Naudet Brothers, then direct me to it and I'll apologize for my assumption. Otherwise, wtf are you talking about?

I guess you missed my other mention: "when I get back on campus".........
I work on a campus; I do not LIVE on the campus.






The rest of your post was like a really long whine, and I don't take it personally, so good luck and hope you get over it man.

Yeah, of course it was a "whine," but here is the kicker: you, as traditional with 9/11 WTC conspiracy 'specialists,' have still failed to provided indisputable and conclusive evidences. Ironic, huh? Just when, exactly, do you all plan to conclusively prove these multitudes of 9/11 conspriacy theories?

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Seekerof]





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join