Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

page: 44
12
<< 41  42  43    45 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by YourForever
reply to post by pteridine
 


Whoever said fission SADM? SADM is the term for any nuclear device that fits the purpose of demolition, hence the name, no?

At least try to read the thread. You know how to read, don't you?


Thank you for your concern over my reading abilty. That is also one of the many concerns I have about your abilities.

Your post showed references to a fusion weapon triggered by antimatter.

In the abstract of the paper it says "While there seems to be
no theoretical obstacles to the production of 10^18 antiprotons per day (the amount required for triggering one thermonuclear bomb), the construction of such a plant involves several techniques which are between 3 and 4 orders of magnitude away from present day technology."

This means that it is beyond present day capabilities and would be exceptionally expensive. Building a device requires storage of the antiprotons in a confinement vessel, a trigger that would initiate intteraction of the anti-protons with the fuel [Li2DT and DT] and a method of containing the fuel while reaction occurred. The paper shows such a configuration but doesn't show how it would be done. Explosive compression is well known but the storage of the antiprotons as antihydrogen is the problem. This is the "3 and 4 orders of magnitude away" part.
Aside from the fact that this would be a long way around to demolition, the towers fell from the top down; an explosive in the basement would have initiated a collapse in a much different fashion. The fireball would have been noticeable, the blast would have been noticeable, the crater would have been noticeable, and the radiation would have been noticeable and killed off many people in the area over the next weeks and months. You should look into this last and calculate gamma and neutron flux when you calculate the size of the device you propose was detonated.
An off the shelf weapon would have been a fission bomb. It also has the characteristics that I point out above, none of which was evident in the WTC events.
Please re-check your logic circuits and rethink the "ultra-expensive super-secret nuke in the basement scenario" because it does not fit any of the evidence.




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Your post showed references to a fusion weapon triggered by antimatter.


My post shows that these devices are not magical, not fantasy, but accepted as real possibilities in the realms of science. It is there to refute the posters who have claimed "antimatter doesn't exist" and that "antimatter can't be collected."

If you have read the thread you will have seen the Penning trap.

"Portable antimatter reservoir"




Originally posted by pteridine
This means that it is beyond present day capabilities and would be exceptionally expensive.


This, of course, was the sentiment of many scientists while the U.S. Government was producing and testing the first atomic bombs.

It stands to reason that because some establishment scientist has stated the design is several "orders of magnitude" away from being feasible, there are others who can keep from the prying eyes of the public and foreign nations, have much bigger budgets and facilities, and are taking this to the next level in secret.

The document does not show the forefront of research but merely the accepted viability, which alone speaks volumes. How far ahead the black projects are we do not know, only that they have successfully produced pure fusion devices as evidenced on all film of 9/11.


Originally posted by pteridine
Aside from the fact that this would be a long way around to demolition


The "long way around" is covertly loading the towers with many thousands of tons of conventional demolitions. That idea is almost as laughable as fire causing the collapse. We are talking about the largest man made structures that have ever fallen from external factors.


the towers fell from the top down; an explosive in the basement would have initiated a collapse in a much different fashion


The towers fell in a way that was consistant with a pure fusion nuclear detonation. Top down indeed, much of the core upto the impact point being vapourized.


The fireball would have been noticeable, the blast would have been noticeable, the crater would have been noticeable, and the radiation would have been noticeable and killed off many people in the area over the next weeks and months.


You expect a fourth generation nuclear device to have a damage profile like the early atomic bombs? Not even close. Many things were noticeable that you have not noticed, mainly because you are too lazy to have read the two-year thread and evidence presented.... I suppose you expect me to dig it all up for you.



Originally posted by pteridine
You should look into this last and calculate gamma and neutron flux when you calculate the size of the device you propose was detonated.


Absorbed by the structure, as evidenced in large scale steel sublimation and micronization of nearly all concrete in phreatic reaction.

"Fusion radiation is short lived, approx. 7-12 hours, can only be detected by $40,000 instruments, and is contained by the continuous spraying of water."


Originally posted by pteridine
An off the shelf weapon would have been a fission bomb. It also has the characteristics that I point out above, none of which was evident in the WTC events.


Agreed... If you think a fission bomb has any part in this hypothesis, you have posted on the wrong thread. It is plain you are too lazy to read the wealth of material here.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by YourForever
 


"The towers fell in a way that was consistant with a pure fusion nuclear detonation. Top down indeed, much of the core up to the impact point being vapourized."

How do you think a pure fusion detonation would behave? Why would a pure fusion nuclear detonation be directional? Note the design in your referenced paper. Collapse onto a frozen pellet of anti-hydrogen. What do you think the symmetry of the explosion will be?
Vapourizing the core for 80% of the structure, vertically, without breaking through the skin with one device won't happen. The spherical symmetry of nuclear weapons says you are blowing smoke, indeed, and blowing hard.
Time to rethink this, 'Forever, because calling out a magical device via "super-secret advanced technology" is a sign of having nothing to argue with.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I see my suggestion to actually read the thread you are commenting on has fallen on deaf ears... none of the material contained within has been debunked, or credible alternative explanations offered. It is unchallenged. I see that you are not up to the job, and only wish to argue one very specific and unnecessary point.

Can 4th generation nuclear devices be employed in directional/focused explosions? Possibly, neither of us know with absolute certainty. It may be that you are right, and it is impossible. It may be that there are techniques. The only difference it makes is the number of nuclear devices used, i.e. one or more.

The "skin" of the building as you call it, the outer columns, the facades, were not damaged directly since the detonations were limited to the center of the building (the source of structural integrity).



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by YourForever
reply to post by pteridine
 


Can 4th generation nuclear devices be employed in directional/focused explosions? Possibly, neither of us know with absolute certainty. It may be that you are right, and it is impossible. It may be that there are techniques. The only difference it makes is the number of nuclear devices used, i.e. one or more.

The "skin" of the building as you call it, the outer columns, the facades, were not damaged directly since the detonations were limited to the center of the building (the source of structural integrity).


Now you argue for more than one explosive charge that will destroy the core columns up to the point of collapse. So we must conclude that a sequential series of explosions destroyed the core columns ["vapourised" was your word] allowing the building to fall and not only did the fusion bombs keep their noise completely within the core, they kept their fireballs and radiation inside the core also. Those obedient, advanced fusion weapons melted all the steel in the core and didn't let one photon escape. As the building was collapsing around its molten core, did anyone notice any fusion bomb noise or radiation or did the top of the pancake keep the cork in? One video showed a non-molten core for a few seconds, how did that happen? A miscue of an antimatter weapon?

If two layers of 5/8" firecore drywall can completely contain a fusion weapon, we should be using it as tank armor.

Your position is untenable. Have some tea and scones and rethink your theory.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


You must be fascinated when watching videos of underground nuclear tests. Not a single photon escapes, what a mystery!


Drywall is opaque, so is concrete and steel. Since the light of a nuclear blast is instantaneous not constant, I'm not sure what you expect in this case. I would suspect you are simply not thinking.

Those underground nuclear test videos sure are puzzling. Where is the fireball? If there's a nuclear explosion there must a fireball to accompany it, or no nuclear explosion occured!

The WTC was constructed mainly of earth crust materials. The demolition behaved like an underground explosion, containing sound light and most of the heat. The surface (or top floors) exploded laterally due to the overpressure.





When 400,000 cubic yards of concrete micronizes into a dust cloud, it obscures anything. What do you think would cause such a uniform micronization? Fire, kinetic collapse? Even conventional explosives? None of them explain it. What does explain it is neutron radiation superheating the water molecules and exploding the concrete from within in a phreatic reaction.


the dust analysed found that;

35% was < 75 microns
46% was 75-300 microns
19% was > 300 microns

of the sub 300 micron cluster

35% 3 microns
20% 0.3 microns
5% 100 microns
5% 0.1 microns


As for radiation, I refer to my previous comment.

"Fusion radiation is short lived, approx. 7-12 hours, can only be detected by $40,000 instruments, and is contained by the continuous spraying of water."

The hundreds of cases of rare cancers afflicting 9/11 first responders are well known and documented. By definition there are no heavy metals (uranium, plutonium, etc) in pure fusion weapons, so the radiation profile is incomparable with conventional nukes. They are called "clean" for a reason.

Pteridine, have you still not read the thread?? This is the last time I will ask you. Your insincerity is becoming apparent.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by YourForever
 


1,000 feet of dirt and rock has a little more resistance than 1.25" of drywall. This is not about sincerity, it is about physics. Why wasn't the exposed core a molten mass? How did the drywall contain the explosions? Multiple explosions would have broached the core during the fall.

The dust included a great deal of drywall dust. Both the drywall and the concrete are frangible under the impact loads of collapse. Neutrons are not necessary.

You are still appealing to magic with the "super-advanced technology" and have no rationale for the use of the most advanced explosives in history to knock down a few buildings.

You have no case, only speculation.

[edit on 10/13/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by YourForever

The towers fell in a way that was consistant with a pure fusion nuclear detonation. Top down indeed, much of the core upto the impact point being vapourized.



This is insane.

How much, in tons, do you propose vaporized?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
1,000 feet of dirt and rock has a little more resistance than 1.25" of drywall.


Neither here or there. Both will block a flash handily...


Originally posted by pteridine
Both the drywall and the concrete are frangible under the impact loads of collapse. Neutrons are not necessary.


Of course they'd break under a collapse. We're not talking broken concrete. Half a million cubic yards instantly micronized (along with the contents of the building). Neutrons superheating the water content of concrete producing a phreatic reaction, end result is uniform micronization. I'm repeating myself here.


911research.wtc7.net...


Originally posted by pteridine
Why wasn't the exposed core a molten mass?


It was.

You're wasting both our time.


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
How much, in tons, do you propose vaporized?


Where was the World Trade Center, Joey Canoli? You have some debris but nowhere near to account for the mass of the building that fell.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



It would be a "bunker buster" pointed upwards.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Your Forever, pteridine is not reading the posts nor does he comprehend the subject matter.
I am one who has researched the fourth generation thermonuclear devices and have concluded that several were used on 9/11.

The societal issue is that the public has little experience of nuclear device detonation except for the classic 1945-1960 models with the mushroom cloud and radiation.

This field is four generations beyond those mushroom clouds, and a majority of the development was secret, military financed weaponry systems.

Nothing can explain ablating, subliminating steel, and vaporization of concrete via phreatic action like a bunker busting, directional suitecase nuke. I repeat, nothing.

So you continuing to have a monologue with pteridine, and it is a monologue, because he is in the identical place that I found and left him a year ago, reminds me of a old nursery rhyme.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
This thread symbolises the stupidity of the truther movement. Now if a hydrogen bomb had been used New York wouldn't exist today in 2009.
Yet this has been a popular thread for the truthers. How does that one piece of truth feel eh?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
john124
thank you for proving my earlier post: you know the one where I implied that the public knowledge (you are a member of the public here) of nuclear devices is retarded at the 1945-1960 era of mushroom clouds.




“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

[edit on 13-10-2009 by fmcanarney]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
reply to post by pteridine
 



It would be a "bunker buster" pointed upwards.



You may have researched this online but I think you are mistaken about how such devices work. If this is more than a poorly thought out speculation, you shoud have ready answers for these questions.

1. Do you propose more than one explosion per building?
2. How big an explosion or explosions do you calculate for each building? 3. How did you determine that drywall could contain a nuclear explosion? 4. What evidence do you have for the production of an anti-matter fusion bomb?
5. Why would the conspirators use the most advanced weapons in the world to destroy the buildings when to start a war they needed only an attack?
6.How did at least two nuclear weapons explode without anyone noticing? 7. The core that was visible during the collapse video was not melted or even hot. How do you account for that?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by YourForever
 


Both will block a flash handily? If concrete was vaporized and steel was melted, the overpressure may be a bit higher than drywall can handle. Of course you did this calculation or found a reference to such drywall.

You really don't have any idea what you are talking about, do you? One of the pitfalls of using a few web pages to cook up a theory is that your lack of technical training prevents you from seeing the obvious inconsistencies in your theory.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by YourForever

Where was the World Trade Center, Joey Canoli? You have some debris but nowhere near to account for the mass of the building that fell.


SInce you provide no numbers, that would be zero?

Then how can you claim that steel got vaporized if you have no data?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney

I am one who has researched the fourth generation thermonuclear devices and have concluded that several were used on 9/11.



Even a super "clean" 4th generation bomb as suggested in the links have blast effects that are beyond ridiculous to accept.

The theory that a 4th gen nuke was used is nothing but an appeal to magic.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
In the debate of how small nuclear bombs could have destroyed the WTC, some (likely intel shills) post that “if nukes were used, Manhattan would have been vaporized.” The U.S. regime has admitted to plenty of very small nukes that wouldn’t have done that— but could have “done” the WTC.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I always wondered what alla that continual testing was for out in Nevada."Don't they know how to blow stuff up,already?",I used to wonder.And I remember how there seemed to be issues with fallout back in the 70's but later it was only on special occasion.I thought they just had better testing facilities.
Now I'm thinking,they were getting 'em smaller and smaller,having less and less fallout because the blast was smaller.MIHOP scores another logical conclusion.
If we win,do we get an investigation?There is no statute on murder,nor treason.A real inquiry with no dual citizogs,popular science guyz,and plenty of oaths,lie detectors and science.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by trueforger]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 



Originally posted by john124
This thread symbolises the stupidity of the truther movement. Now if a hydrogen bomb had been used New York wouldn't exist today in 2009.
Yet this has been a popular thread for the truthers. How does that one piece of truth feel eh?


And this post symbolises the stupidity of the "debunkers" who actually have no idea what they are debunking, because they haven't bothered to look into it. Go back and read the thread before you bother to post further inane rubbish.





top topics
 
12
<< 41  42  43    45 >>

log in

join