Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

page: 42
12
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

INSANE and LITTLE are demeaning and insulting terms.
APOLOGISE to us all.NOW




posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by trueforger
 


You can't get a dog to apologize for anything it does. Any theory involving advanced nuclear technology will always be "insane" to these people. They can't think too much, or their heads will pop, you know. You have to keep it simple, like there were "bombs" in the building. Then their level of cognitive dissonance is more reasonable to deal with.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


Well, in regards to nanothermate, these pictures cannot be denied..





I would think that while neutron radiation superheats the water content of the concrete and pulverizes it in a phreatic reaction, the steel columns would remain intact and need a secondary solution to bring them down ensuring total collapse of the building. That's the way I'm looking at it, someone else who knows the science better than I do may be able to clarify it.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by YourForever
 


This one has repeatedly been shown and proven to be from the clean-up, months after September 11.



You've been had.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
The smallest nuclear wepaon ever fielded - W54 for "Davy Crockett"
recoiless launcher was 10 ton nominal yield (.01 kt). It would emit
lethal gamma radiation for radius of over 350 meters. No radiation
was detected at WTC site.


Don't be stupid. You are talking about something that was developed in the 1950's.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This one has repeatedly been shown and proven to be from the clean-up, months after September 11.


Prove they were cut during the clean up efforts...

Besides. If this image was taken "months" after 9/11, why should the rubble still be steaming?



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by YourForever
 


Because it was burning for months afterward

Look at these pictures - notice something? Ironworkers standing on piles
of rubble cutting the beams with a torch!

home.hiwaay.net...

As for nuclear weapons - what does the time W54 was developed have to do with it?

Will still emitt lethal radiation for considerable distance

Why dont you do some real research.....?



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Because it was burning for months afterward


Are you trolling this thread? You have been told more than once. NOTHING burns after it has been drenched with billions of gallons of water. This is not combustion, it is irradiation.


Originally posted by thedman
Look at these pictures - notice something? Ironworkers standing on piles
of rubble cutting the beams with a torch!


In your pictures the remaining facades are being cut, not the core columns. Why would clean up workers angle-cut the columns? It's a procedure used in demolition.


Originally posted by thedman
As for nuclear weapons - what does the time W54 was developed have to do with it?


It's incomparable. You cannot compare a vacuum tube computer (from the same time as the W54) to what you are using now. You are correct in what you said before, given the vastly outdated public perception of nuclear weapons, this really is "magic" in comparison.

They are pure fusion, they are clean, and they are miniaturized. There are publications on these things. You do the research.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Look at these pictures - notice something? Ironworkers standing on piles
of rubble cutting the beams with a torch!

Yeah I noticed something alright, I noticed on the front of the beam, the slag is on the outward facing side which means if it was cut with a torch like you guys keep contending, then the welder must have been a frigging contortionist to crawl inside that box column and cut outward.
I've also seen the other photos that used to accompany these, there were rescue personnell in them with survivor and body sniffing dogs, can you provide some source as to the date of these photos, or are you speculating?
I also noticed that in one post your telling us all about the possible sources for the elevated tritium, then a post later you're telling us that no radioactivity was found? It's against the rules to knowingly post false information here, so perhaps you can explain the self contradicting posts before someone assumes that you are spinning in circles of deception. Which is it, was there elevated levels of radioactive tritium, or was there no radioactive materials, you're not going to get away with contending both in the same thread, i promise you that. we're not that ignorant.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
On the day of 9/11 we had a Military Veteran General Wayne Downing (Commander of special operations) tell us this was an attack with 'weapons of mass destruction'. WMD falls into 3 categories, biological, chemical and nuclear. He asserts at least twice this was a WMD attack, which can only mean a nuclear attack.

His words are in this video:


Also, I think this video makes a nice comparison.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 





Yeah I noticed something alright, I noticed on the front of the beam, the slag is on the outward facing side which means if it was cut with a torch like you guys keep contending, then the welder must have been a frigging contortionist to crawl inside that box column and cut outward.




Columns were cut in this manner to make removal by crane easier and to keep sparks and slag away

Here are iron workers on high lift cuttling

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg




WTC Steel showing obvious torch marks. The torch was angled towards the lower part of the cut (not perpendicular to the column face), probably to keep the hot slag moving away from the operator. The thickness of the steel, combined with the angle of torch and the diagonal ("downhill") direction of the cut, makes for a cut that produces a lot of slag. Slag adhesion to such columns would be expected to vary with temperature, surface condition, and type of torch used. Note the apparent slag, circled in red, that's sitting on top of the loose debris. That could only get there after the collapse. What we don't see – on any WTC steel – is the deep vertical cutting and huge amounts of residue and slag that would be expected to come from the enormous amounts of thermite/thermate that some conspiracists claim was used. They would like us to believe that such an incendiary was used on this one sub-grade column. They are wrong.


Many of the larger columns were cut using Thermal lance

www.youtube.com...

The cleanup fotos are from December 2001 - note date stamp

home.hiwaay.net...



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by YourForever
 


You apparently have no concept how nuclear weapons work - a weapon designed in the 1950"s will still emit large burst of lethal radiation
as will one made yesterday.



Effects of a nuclear explosion
The energy released from a nuclear weapon comes in four primary categories:

Blast—40-60% of total energy
Thermal radiation—30-50% of total energy
Ionizing radiation—5% of total energy
Residual radiation (fallout)—5-10% of total energy
The amount of energy released in each form depends on the design of the weapon, and the environment in which it is detonated. The residual radiation of fallout is a delayed release of energy, while the other three forms of energy release are immediate.

A radioactive fireball tops the smoke column from a nuclear weapon test.The dominant effects of a nuclear weapon (the blast and thermal radiation) are the same physical damage mechanisms as conventional explosives. The primary difference is that nuclear weapons are capable of releasing much larger amounts of energy at once. Most of the damage caused by a nuclear weapon is not directly related to the nuclear process of energy release, but would be present for any explosion of the same magnitude.

The damage done by each of the three initial forms of energy release differs with the size of the weapon. Thermal radiation drops off the slowest with distance, so the larger the weapon the more important this effect becomes. Ionizing radiation is strongly absorbed by air, so it is only dangerous by itself for smaller weapons. Blast damage falls off more quickly than thermal radiation but more slowly than ionizing radiation.

When a nuclear weapon explodes, the bomb's material comes to an equilibrium temperature in about a microsecond. At this time about 75% of the energy is emitted as primary thermal radiation, mostly soft X-rays. Almost all of the rest of the energy is kinetic energy in rapidly-moving weapon debris. The interaction of the x-rays and debris with the surroundings determines how much energy is produced as blast and how much as light. In general, the denser the medium around the bomb, the more it will absorb, and the more powerful the shockwave will be.

When a nuclear detonation occurs in air near sea-level, most of the soft X-rays in the primary thermal radiation are absorbed within a few feet. Some energy is re-radiated in the ultraviolet, visible light and infrared, but most of the energy heats a spherical volume of air. This forms the fireball.

In a burst at high altitudes, where the air density is low, the soft X-rays travel long distances before they are absorbed. The energy is so diluted that the blast wave may be half as strong or less. The rest of the energy is dissipated as a more powerful thermal pulse.


Specialized FDNY units swept the area for radiation after 9 11 and found nothing

Neutrons released from nuclear burst would have left residual radiation

Should try reading through this

www.indopedia.org...

As for pile burning - debris in the rubble burned for 3 months, until mid
December.

Millions of gallons of water were used to extinguish the fires and cool the
rubble - I knew several FDNy members who spent weeks doing just
that. Deep seated fires are extremely difficult to extinguish



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Read the thread before you post. These misunderstandings have been addressed many times. We are not talking about fission bombs, or hydrogen bombs with a fission primary as in conventional nukes. That's where the lethal radiation comes from. Pure fusion bombs are 'clean' because there is no fission reaction involved.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Last time I'm gonna tell you. Your examples don't apply.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Hauling in and spreading sand and dirt around and continually spraying the area with water were they? "Street scrubbing" were they? Having to leave their contaminated clothes on site before they left? Hosing off the steel and hauling it away under the heaviest security ever given to scrap metal were they? These aren't clean up procedures for a collapse or a fire dude, they are Nuclear Industry Standard Procedures for 'Hot Spot' decontamination. Of course by the time the Berkley guys had arrived to measure radioactivity, the site had by that time undergone a rigorous decontamination regimen. Why do you suppose that the decontamination procedures were consistent with radiation contamination?
I wonder if benzene made Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia's teeth fall out, or burned Felipe David's face off then? What about the two women, or Brian Reeves (who originallly said he saw 'bright orange light' not a fireball, which is consistent with a flash of radiation in the retina as reported by American Soldiers exposed to blasts in the 50's) whom Larry king interviewed who said they weren't in or near a fire and they didn't kow why their faces were burned? What about the odd account of John Axisa who was getting off the WTC commuter train and said he felt heat on his neck at the same moment he heard the explosions? Gamma rays do this, not collapsing debris, burning jet fuel, or benzene and asbestos.
Occam's razor, as applied to the strange commonalities and phenomina experienced and well documented will lead us to compare jet fuel and collapsing debris or the detonation of a nuclear device... one explains all of them, one doesn't explain any of them.

What's the number of rescue workers that have or passed away from what is being termed the 'China Syndrome' now? The official story blames this syndrome on Benzene and asbestos and the like, but a little research will quickly tell you that these can takes years to show up as cancer, and some of these guys were into exceptionally rare cancers and lymphomas within in a few months and some of the rescue dogs died within a few days? Sure thing, why not the EPA said the air was safe enough to work in didn't they? Not to mention, rare cancers are called rare for a reason, and the rates these folks are dying from them is more than a little odd because all of them are common to and consistent with radiation exposure.

How exactly does jet fuel or falling debris create a pyroclastic cloud that literally toasted the area, or vaoprize all that missing office equipment, vanish roughly 1100 unaccounted for human bodies, create spherical blast patterns, sublimate construction grade steel, instantly flash-micronize concrete, cause sudden winds that throw people in some cases 100 feet, huge seismic spikes prior to each collapse, or vaporize a 50 ton steel press that was never found? Ask any Hiroshima or Nagasaki survivors if they've seen this sort of thing, no need to ask them actually, it's pretty well documented, and again strangely consistent with eyewitness accounts of 9-11.
I hope you understand there is evidence to suggest an emp here, aside from the tell tale loss of radio and cb signals at the moment before each collapse. If you have a basic understanding of an electromagnetic pulse, then you understand it primarily effects metals and electrical equipment, variances in strength and intensity, or damage, depends upon a number of factors such as range or angle to the blast, geographical or constructed sheilding.
Just one example would be the account of Patricia Ondrovic, EMT and eyewitness who said she saw bright flashes of lights as light bulbs were popping out and cars bursting into flame for no apparent reason at the same time we see the big spherical blast cloud hailing the destruction of the first tower. Her statements are corraborated by many others like Mike Pecoraro for example.
What, dman, do you suppose could caused all those cars in some cases hundreds of meters away to burst into flame, leaving the paper scattered around them untouched, or the door handles on the cars to pop off, and a building full of light bulbs to pop all at once, all the way across from the street from the towers?

Take a look,

admit it or not, this damage is consistent with exposure to a strong, localized EMP with partial sheilding, perhaps a building between the EMP and the back end of the car. Jet fuel or debris sure as hell doesn't explain this. Only an EMP, that I know of, is capable of burning paint off cars while leaving paper and other nearby nonmetallics untouched. Gamma and thermal rays, or EMP's are perfectly capable, in fact well known, to cause this kind of damage. Jet fuel isn't, neither is falling debris, or anything else for that matter, unless you believe in superman's lazer eye beams or something.

No you probably haven't heard about alot of the anecdotal depositioned evidence for an atomic device, most of it got buried here in a 12 thousand page collection of depositions of 503 firefighters, port authority cops, and EMTs that was completely and appalingly omitted by the 9-11 Commission.

You keep telling us to do some real research, to which I would reply, we have dude.

Enough arguing with Dman anyway, a question to the rest of you who aren't in a state of complete denial but still skeptical...
What else can explain all the anamolies, while still providing the unaccounted energy and prerequisites required to micronize concrete, sublimate structural steel, cause hundreds of meters of lateral ejection, heat steel to sufficient temperatures to cause it to remain molten for months, vaporize over a thousand missing bodies and equipment, create spherical blast patterns, disrupt electrical and radio communications, set cars on fire and pop light bulbs hundreds of meters away at the moment before each collapse, and cause an explosive increase of extraordinarliy rare cancers within several weeks? If there's a more plausible explination that takes these unaccounted for real world documented events into account with any measure of plausibility, I'd sure like to hear an alternative hypothesis because the use of nukes here really narrows the list of suspects down to a frightening few nationalities, one of which, I'm unafraid to add was caught dancing and celebrating the event they'd said later they were there to document.

I highly reccomend all of you guys give this site a good looking over while it's still there to look over...
wtcdemolition.blogspot.com...


[edit on 27-9-2009 by twitchy]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


You know nothing about fire department operations

The reason decontamination procedures were in place was because the
lower 1/3 of North Tower used asbestos in the fireproofing. Even without
the asbestos on scene the WTC was a stew of caustic dust from concrete,
glass particles, metal dusts including chrome, nickel, zinc from coatings
on steel, spilled chemicals and smoke from burning plastics .

Decontamination of gear is a must, but is not always followed. In my
department we have sent our bunker gear to a cleaning facility because
it was splashed with diesel fuel from a truck accident.

Filter masks were issued for people on scene to wear - many did not because they were uncomfortable and limited communication

The results are many rescue personnel are now afflicted with lung problems breathing the toxic dusts - they are nit suffering from readiation
related illness.

By the way I worked radioactive contamination while in college decontaminating uniforms from nuclear power plants - I am familar with
how to decontamine clothing and such

As you are not...



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 





I hope you understand there is evidence to suggest an emp here, aside from the tell tale loss of radio and cb signals at the moment before each collapse. If you have a basic understanding of an electromagnetic pulse, then you understand it primarily effects metals and electrical equipment, variances in strength and intensity, or damage, depends upon a number of factors such as range or angle to the blast, geographical or constructed shielding.


Now for part 2 of your idiotic statement....

You have no idea what EMP is - you simply parrot what some other clowns have wrote because it sounds cool

EMP (electromagnetic pulse) is burst of electromagnetic energy. It does
not vaporize people or cars or cause spontaneous combustion



The high temperatures and energetic radiation produced by nuclear explosions also produce large amounts of ionized (electrically charged) matter which is present immediately after the explosion. Under the right conditions, intense currents and electromagnetic fields can be produced, generically called EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse), that are felt at long distances. Living organisms are impervious to these effects, but electrical and electronic equipment can be temporarily or permanently disabled by them. Ionized gases can also block short wavelength radio and radar signals (fireball blackout) for extended periods.


Here is longer explanation

Read it (though doubt you will or understand it....)

nuclearweaponarchive.org...

It destroys electrical and electronic equipment by causing overloads

Now ift here was an electromagnetic pulse why was I listening to the radio
transmission from WTC all afternoon in my firehouse! The radios would have been fried by the energy burst

As for car fires - cars were first set on fire by burning debris. Fires spread
from car to car - Ever see a vehicle fire in parking lot? Been there when
3-4 cars burning at once. Fire started in one and spread to others

www.uwgb.edu...



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by YourForever
 


Because it was burning for months afterward

Look at these pictures - notice something? Ironworkers standing on piles
of rubble cutting the beams with a torch!

home.hiwaay.net...


funny, THAT is the only pic taken "the day of"...there was NO CLEAN-UP...only search and rescue...YOUR directing to pics of clean-up...like ALL you OS pushers do to try and discredit the pic....pretty shilly diversion



As for nuclear weapons - what does the time W54 was developed have to do with it?

Will still emitt lethal radiation for considerable distance

Why dont you do some real research.....?




Burning radiation is absorbed in steel so quickly that steel heats up immediately over its melting point 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F) and above its boiling point around 3000 C (approx. 5430 °F). Super hot groups of steel pillars and columns, torn from wall by pressure wave, are sublimized. They immediately turn into a vaporized form, binding heat as quickly as possible. Bursts upwards, are not possible for a gravitational collapse or for cutting charges which are used horizontally.

Radioactivity in air creates shades of brown.This is the reason why the FBI did not search the crime scene. Ground zeros of nuclear weapons are a health risk and belong to the FEMA.

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).

Source



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   



As for car fires - cars were first set on fire by burning debris. Fires spread
from car to car - Ever see a vehicle fire in parking lot? Been there when
3-4 cars burning at once. Fire started in one and spread to others



lol...and it just happened to leave ALL the knee deep paper that was ALL around....

what 'would' attack metal, but NOT AFFECT PAPER?



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
The part that I am really puzzled about in this theory being plausible...

The AT&T central telephone switch for NYC was located in the basement of the building (where the explosion took place) and was operating for over a week after the building collapsed on battery backup.

How exactly did this switch stay active when a fusion bomb affecting the rest of the building went off? It couldn't have.

As such, I know this theory to be a false one. There is no need to discuss the plausibility of micro-nukes. Heck, if sci-fi has them, why not the real world? However, when we look at the events of the real world, we can prove this never happened.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


You have no idea what you are talking about

Simply parroting idiotic nonsense because it fits you conspiracy fantasy

Steel does not absorb radiation and melt like you claim. Also the "brown cloud. you claim - large nuclear weapons cause nitrogen-oxygen molecules
to create nitric oxides from the intense thermal pulse. None of this was
present at WTC

Anti matter triggers? Beams ? Where did you get this from ? Some
conspiracy comic book?

At present state of technology to initiate a fusion reaction requires a
nuclear fission weapon of at least 250 tons (.25kt)

Fusion reactions release large bursts of gamma and neutron radiation -
why was none detected? Don't give the usual excuses - the neutrons
would have left background traces in common elements like zinc

Try reading this

nuclearweaponarchive.org...

nuclearweaponarchive.org...

Come back later when you have some understanding of nuclear weapons

In mean time stop wating our time....





top topics
 
12
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join