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.
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?
Originally posted by pteridine
Your post showed references to a fusion weapon triggered by antimatter.
Originally posted by pteridine
This means that it is beyond present day capabilities and would be exceptionally expensive.
Originally posted by pteridine
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
Originally posted by pteridine
1,000 feet of dirt and rock has a little more resistance than 1.25" of drywall.
Originally posted by pteridine
Both the drywall and the concrete are frangible under the impact loads of collapse. Neutrons are not necessary.
Originally posted by pteridine
Why wasn't the exposed core a molten mass?
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
How much, in tons, do you propose vaporized?
Originally posted by fmcanarney
reply to post by pteridine
It would be a "bunker buster" pointed upwards.
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.
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.
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?