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: 40
12
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
This is exactly the same picture on Ricekiller.com.
The identical bottle of Red Mercury.




posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
just found this to add, Tim Osman/Osama Bin Laden's shopping list:



Check out ITEM 6 USG approval and delivery of point D (Red mercury 2020 USSR). Also mentions of the A-Neutronic Bomb on EM6.e! What's that all about? Osama bin Laden, Red mercury and a-neutronic bomb all on the same USG list?



[edit on 1-10-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


I need to know more background on this document.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
here are some leads, probably a good place to start since it deals with the authenticity (make your own mind up i guess):
www.911myths.com...

Thread where I originally found it:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Labtop has started a great thread on the a-neutronic bomb here on ATS:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ted Gunderson has more information and some interesting story about Osama aquiring the A-Neutronic bomb.

www.tedgunderson.com...



Ted Gunderson carreer:

1977-79
Senior Special Agent-in-Charge*
Los Angeles, California

1973-77
Special Agent-in-Charge
Memphis, Tennessee and Dallas, Texas

1973
Chief Inspector

1965-73
Asst Special Agent-in-Charge
New Haven, Connecticut and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

1960-65
Special Agent Supervisor
FBI Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

1951-60
Special Agent


Do Terrorists Have Sophisticated U.S. Arms?
www.tedgunderson.com...

U.S. Armed, Promoted Accused September 11 Terrorist Mastermind
www.tedgunderson.com...


[edit on 1-10-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Thanks Isolubrious. I didn't think there'd be any new research on this theory, but you found something amazing. Red Mercury and Tim Osman in the same gov't document. That is astounding, keep up the good work.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


They are pictures from a guy claiming to be a civilian contractor in Iraq. I will post it here so others can see (the source requires a login).


"I also think the Red Mercury was a scam, but just the fact that Iraq bought some shows their intent, ya know? It just looked like regular mercury with reddish tint on the edge of the liquid. It was taken from me quite quickly, so I imageine tests were conducted."








posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Thanks for the good research Insolubrious.
Also Steve R. for the pictures of red mercury.
I have my suspicions that there are at least "fourth generation" thermonuclear devices.
That those were used on 911 as well, yes suspect that too.
In the 1950-1960 the US was contemplating nuclear devices for demolition of buildings.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Here's my thoughts

the idea nukes or mini H-Bombs given current 'known' technology were used is just crazy. The explosive force cannot be shaped, directed or controlled

Now if there are such things as isomer bombs or micro nukes they'd still have needed intitial stage conventional explosives or Thermite to start the collapse before using the
other methods to pulverize the concerte.

Starting the tower collapses with that many cameras on it, even micro nukes would have left some tell tale blinding flash, radiation, heat and light that would have looked out of place. Once the collapse was underway the dust cloud would disguise everything else.

Hence my binary theory.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney

I have my suspicions that there are at least "fourth generation" thermonuclear devices.



So have you conjured up an explanation yet for how an explosive yield of an absolute minimum of 1.5 kt went unnoticed?

Want to reduce the explosive yield 10x? How about explaining how 150 tons of TNT equivalent went unnoticed then? Keep in mind that this is about the equivalent of the "Davey Crockett" artillery shell.

It can't be ignored. IF you're gonna say a nuke was used, then you HAVE to explain how such a large explosive yield could go unnoticed.

Failure to address this is very telling about the level of denial necessary to continue having even a passing in terest in exploring this issue.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Perpetrator
 


If the entire core is taken out on some level, the perimeter columns will immediately begin to fail on their own from that point. The only "help" I can imagine would be needed would be equivalent to pre-cuts that would ensure symmetry, and not one side providing slightly more resistance than another so as to lead to leaning towards one side and developing inertia in that direction. If such a blast were completely internal to the core, I'm not sure what I would expect to see from the outside of the building, especially if such things had already been considered by the engineers.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
the idea nukes or mini H-Bombs given current 'known' technology were used is just crazy. The explosive force cannot be shaped, directed or controlled


Heard of bunker busters?


Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
they'd still have needed intitial stage conventional explosives


Red Mercury or Anti-matter.


Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
would have left some tell tale blinding flash, radiation, heat and light


1. Light is underground (basement) and contained by the structure. 2. The cloud of pulverized concrete was very hot. Cars parked nearby were incinerated. 3. There was nothing to detect radiation at the time.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


answers.yahoo.com...


Hg2Sb207, in which the compound had a density of 20.20 Kg/dm3


also


HgSbO, made by Du Pont laboratories and listed in the international chemical register as number 20720-76-7



According to the most consistent accounts it is a viscous amalgam of mercuric pyro-antimonate containing a small (~4%) amount of an actinide. This is used as a neutron provider and mirror whilst acting to compress the deuterium-tritium content of a 'pure fusion bomb' above its critical mass under the influence of trigger charges, producing a blast with a destruction radius of about 600 metres for a 500 cc bomb, flooding the area with fast neutrons, the fallout lasting for only about 2 days.


Apparently, 'someone' out there knows.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   
SteveR did you notice there is a contact? He has an address and phone number. Perhaps (hint hint) someone could call him and record a conversation, see what he has to say (if the number even works). I would love to hear what he has to say!

Mr. Battin SERIN
( BUYING , Nuclear Physic Engineer )

Company : SERCOM
Address : HAZIM ULUSAHIN IS MERKEZI, A-BLOK, TERASKAT 170, 42030KONYA, Selcuklu / KONYA, Turkey
Zip/Postal : 42030
Telephone : 90-535-618-7505
Fax : 90-332-237-8213




Damm i have Skype but no microphone, it would be dead easy to record the phone call with that.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Good article here for anyone who is interested,

www.deepbluesolution.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Pretty sure the advert is a scam. I can't imagine the real red mercury being on a site like that. However I'm not altogether sure I would want to link myself to him either.


[edit on 2008/10/2 by SteveR]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
What Is Red Mercury?


By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D


The science newsgroups have been a-buzz with tales of a 2-kiloton yield Russian red mercury fusion device, theoretically in the possession of terrorists. This, of course, prompts the question: What Is Red Mercury? The answer to this question depends largely on whom you ask. Is red mercury real? Absolutely, but definitions vary. If you had asked me before I did a bit of Internet research, I would have given you the standard cinnabar/vermillion answer. However, the Russium tritium fusion bomb is more interesting...

Cinnabar/Vermillion
Cinnabar is naturally-occurring mercuric sulfide (HgS), while vermillion is the name given to the red pigment derived from either natural or manufactured cinnabar.

Mercury (II) Iodide
The alpha crystalline form of mercury (II) iodide is called 'red mercury', which changes to the yellow beta form at 127°C.

Any Red-Colored Mercury Compound Originating in Russia
as in the cold war definition of 'Red'. I doubt anyone is using 'red mercury' in this manner, but it's a possible interpretation.

A Ballotechnic Mercury Compound
Presumably red in color. Ballotechnics are substances which react very energetically in response to high-pressure shock compression. Google's Sci.Chem group has had a lively ongoing discussion about the possiblity of a an explosive form of mercury antimony oxide. According to some reports, red mercury is a cherry red semi-liquid which is produced by irradiating elemental mercury with mercury antimony oxide in a Russian nuclear reactor. Some people think that red mercury is so explosive that it can be used to trigger a fusion reaction in tritium or deuterium-tritium mixture. Pure fusion devices don't require fissionable material, so it's easier to get the materials needed to make one and easier to transport said materials from one place to another. Other reports refer to a documentary in which is was possible to read a report on Hg2Sb207, in which the compound had a density of 20.20 Kg/dm3 (!). Personally, I find it plausible that mercury antimony oxide, as a low density (nonradioactive?) powder, may be of interest as a ballotechnic material. The high-density material seems unlikely. It would also seem unreasonably dangerous (to the maker) to use a ballotechnic material in a fusion device. One intriguing source mentions a liquid explosive, HgSbO, made by Du Pont laboratories and listed in the international chemical register as number 20720-76-7. Anyone care to look it up?

A Military Code Name for a New Nuclear Material
As I understand it, this definition originates from the extraordinarily high prices commanded and paid for a substance called 'red mercury', which was manufactured in Russia. The price ($200-300K per kilogram) and trade restrictions were consistent with a nuclear material as opposed to cinnabar.

chemistry.about.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Wm. Yerkes response to Dr. Helmenstine

With respect to your raising the ideas about “red mercury”, several ideas occur.

First, let us recall that in the early days of the Manhattan Project, December 1940 into January1941, and on, the Committee used code words for the “active” materials of the project, and for fission, especially fission with a “k”> 1. “k” > 1 being a self-sustaining fission chain reaction, e.g. the neutron flux increasing in a structure.

These code words were, for example “moonshine” for fission, “copper” for Pu239, “magnesium” for U235, and “tube alloy” for U238 (both in irradiated and natural states). Similarly, the various RADAR bands were assigned non-serialized designations that endure to this day. And there are numerous related examples, “Manhattan District” itself, for example.

I expect that our Russian brothers did and do the same, and it seems to me that this obfuscatory tradition probably continues with regard to “red mercury”.

I don’t think it’s a mercury derivative at all – I think the label “mercury” is a sort of metaphor, suggested by the proximity of the planet Mercury to the Sun and also, perhaps, by the association in the mind between temperature measurement and mercury. “How high is the mercury?” we say. Indeed. Very cute. “Mercury” seems to be an obscure and oblique reference to high temperatures and, therefore, perhaps, to fusion. And the name may well have been a project name, later adapted to the product itself. As to “red”, this is the color universally used to signify danger, and often to signify “heat” as well. Also apropos, if we assume the stuff exists. Assuming this, I’ll call it RM.

The story is that RM is shock-sensitive ballotechnic. I suspect that this too is related only in an obscure somewhat metaphorical way to the material. I suspect that RM is a stimulated gamma emitter. There is, as you know, online evidence of serious research on such materials. It is, possibly, hafnium 178m2 or another substance that, similarly, can be pumped to a high state and collapsed nicely with the attendant emission of high energy photon(s). I speculate that, stimulated by the input “shock” of a burst of gamma or possibly ionizing radiation from an electronic or radioactive “trigger”, the nuclei of the “pumped” RM atoms, if they exist, become extremely unstable and rapidly (5000eV. Open sources cite gamma radiation in excess of this level.

The ignition threshold for deuterium-tritium fusion (D+T) is, as I understand things, 5000 eV

Allow me to review at bit. As you know, in conventional, classical, atomic explosives using fission processes, neutron emission builds fairly slowly, and therefore, for achievable values of k, it is necessary to design high values of containment. Prerequisite component inertia in the dynamic process of implosion together with proper neutron “reflectors”, “initiators” and “tampers” provide both a rapid rise in the value of k and this brief but essential containment in order that a satisfactory portion of the materials may fission. Incidental to this process, again as everyone knows, thermal conditions exceed the D+T threshold. It is understood that in some thermo-nuclear designs Li6, being subject to very high neutron densities, transmutes in the fission phase to T and provides an elegant dynamic.

Neutrons, even the “fast neutrons” of the process are, compared to photons, quite slow. The gadget takes a long time to detonate, several millionths of a second, as I understand it..

In a speculative RM device the photon emission burst would, presumably, occur at the speed of light in the substance. Therefore, assuming an essentially instantaneous collapse and a very small size (a sphere perhaps < 2 cm), which would limit the significance of trigger irregularities and heterogeneous dimensions as well as structural and chemical imperfections, the necessary >5000eV might be achieved. If so, upon operation the RM device would produce a burst of gamma of very short duration, followed very quickly by a broad and more persistent spectrum of gamma, etc., as the D+T fusion occurred, followed on by a lethal neutron flux, followed by secondary thermal phenomena – “blast effect”. The key to ignition lies, therefore, in a near instantaneous release of primary gamma. In order to keep the process near symmetry, rather like the need in an implosion device, the trigger shock might well need to be applied at several points. Because the trigger event lacks neutrons, an Li 6 tactic would obviously fail, and therefore both D and T would have to be present in the quiescent device, possibly associated with Be, for example as BeH2, one of the hydrogen atoms being a D and the other a T. This would seem to preclude large devices built on the presumed phenomena and suggests that RM triggered fusion devices cannot be much beyond the 1 to 2 KT range – just as the gossip says. Because T has a short half-life and is radioactive the device would be both modestly detectable and have a definite shelf-life.

More philosophically, I note that there seems to be a resonance in historical progression. Chemical explosives predate chemical engines. The two combine in the warships and cannons of the 19th century. Atomic explosives (which are chemical- nuclear) pre-date pure atomic “engines” and the two combine in the submarines of today. The natural progression has been that various recumbent combinations of technology lead first, as we have seen, to chemical-chemical, then to chemical-fission, then to chemical-fission-fusion. It is reasonable to suspect that a “loop” or “leap” to chemical-fusion will take place. Perhaps it has.

[edit on 2008/10/5 by SteveR]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
In the 1950-1960 the US was contemplating nuclear devices for demolition of buildings.

Plowshare comparison to WTC. In this video they talk about excavation with rows of nuclear explosives to carve the terrain. Note no blinding flash, just huge pyroclastic flows. Considering this technology is almost 40 years old it would be no surprise to me if they had made advancements to the technique since then.



Anyone interested in checking out many days worth of declassified nuclear tests check this guys profile on youtube: uk.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join