Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

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?


Why don't you see if I am correct before making this a would've/could've been wrong soap opera. I could have easily left the "to my knowledge" part off; I'm just conservative like that I guess. But now: I am right. Now what? I'll apologize if you show me wrong. I won't continue this off-topic crap, though, and I don't care for wherever the hell you're trying to go, so just give me a heads up if I was wrong about the footage. Don't feel like discussing old philosophy on this thread.



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?


No, here is the REAL(!) kicker: You beat your dog. You, as a dog 'beater', have failed to provide the means to stop beating your dog. Just when, exactly, do you plan to stop beating your dog? Your poor dog, man.


If you want answers, don't come to me for them. You're just insulting yourself, not to mention it's lazy. And I have no obligations to you in the first place.




posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dperry4930

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
....
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?.


gee, spose this is where i chime in.

well, my own credibility hasnt been attacked, i guess thats cuz even when i post how much i do NOT believe that the twin towers were demo'd, the data i provided on how HE works has always been beyond reproach...(even though 90% of my body of posts were inadvertantly deleted in august...sad really, cuz theres no way im reposting all the demo data i typed up)


SO, having said that...ill say this

assuming that the data on TNT is accurate (remember that anyone can post to wiki like they are god, and keeping in mind none of us ever had to know the potential energy of a gram of TNT) then i suppose under ideal conditions, ie ALL of the released energy from your demo block is doing exactly what its supposed to, then sure, what the hell, your math may be right in theory.

but, thats the problem with theories, they dont always, or even often hold up in the real world

some other fun theories that didnt work out so well...

the nuclear powered car (think theres still two guys encased in concrete somewhere in montana)

communism (who'd have thunk that the problem was that there was no money in it)

oh and my favorite, that the twin towers were brought down with demolition charges. that one always makes me chuckle

but, maybe i misread something in this thread, the theory now is that we've managed fusion wihthout residual radiation? cuz if there were any types of nukes set off id love to know what the alpha adn beta particle numbers in the dust (read fallout) were

[edit on 5-10-2006 by Damocles]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
It melts thru the steel armor plating and how big are those rounds? Not too big I would imagine.


Just a bit of nitpick- DU penetrator doesn't melt through the armour. It pushes its way through the same way a rifle bullet tears through wood. Or the same way the tungsten projectile penetrates armour.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
From the Federation of American Scientists (www.fas.org...), "RESTRICTED DATA DECLASSIFICATION DECISIONS 1946 TO THE PRESENT":


This document provides a historical perspective on the sequence of declassification actions performed by the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies. It is meant to convey the amount and types of information declassified over the years.


www.fas.org...

Alright, so here's what it has to say, relevant to our discussion, under "MISCELLANEOUS":


B. THE PLOWSHARE PROGRAM

1. Mere fact that the U.S. has developed atomic munitions suitable for use in demolition work. (58-8)

2. The cost of fabricating and firing a device 30" in diameter and of a few kt yield, all from fission, would approximate $500,000 when made available in small numbers. (58-9)


Emphasis in bold is mine.

Further, under "RELATED DEVELOPMENTS" (E):


1. Enhanced Radiation Weapons (ERW)

a. The mere fact that the U.S. is interested in pursuing a program to determine the characteristics of an "enhanced radiation" weapon (neutron bomb). (63-5)

b. The fact that the W-79 is an enhanced radiation weapon. (78-1)

2. Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) Weapons

a. 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. (67-1)

b. The fact of weapon laboratory interest in MRR devices. (76-3)

c. The fact of successful development of MRR devices. (76-3)


3. Nuclear Directed Energy Weapons (NDEW)

a. The fact that DOE weapon laboratories are engaged in a research program to explore the feasibility of a nuclear explosive driven directed energy weapon. (82-2)

b. The fact that research is being conducted on the specific concept of a nuclear pumped X-ray laser. (82-2)

c. The fact that the DOE is interested in or conducting research on NDEW concepts of certain specified generic types of output; i.e., visible light, microwaves, charged particles, kinetic energy. (85-4)

d. The fact that underground tests at the Nevada Test Site have been and are a part of the NDEW research program. (85-4)


And it goes on, with information on further interests and research.

Again, taken from www.fas.org... , which is based upon declassified documents.


Btw, the above information is decades old. It's apparently something they've been "interested" in for years already.

Notice that devices for demolition were already available, devices for "a few kt yield" were already available, and they were looking into a "shaped" charge, directing energy.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
MOS: 12E Atomic Demolitions
was an actual army job, they used very small sized nuclear weapons.

the description given to me by a drill sgt who had been a 12E until the job was shut down was "you spend hours packing a bridge with C4. i walk out into the middle, drop my backpack, leave, and a few hours later theres a manmade lake where the bridge was"

small nukes, but still nukes. all the radiation, big ole mushroom cloud...just not a missile.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by Damocles]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
the description given to me by a drill sgt who had been a 12E until the job was shut down was "you spend hours packing a bridge with C4. i walk out into the middle, drop my backpack, leave, and a few hours later theres a manmade lake where the bridge was"


Yeah, like this:



Except you don't have to parachute down to wherever, I'm sure. But that's pretty old tech by now anyway, decades.

It was also clearly expressed in the declassified documents cited above that weapons that left minimal amounts of radiation were being researched and developed, that there was an interest, and that there had already been laboratory tests done. And note the word "successful" in front of "development" in the above post.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
yeah, but the neutron bomb was not a traditional nuke in that it didtn go boom so much and wipe out cities. i may be way off on this and ill admit that, tis been a LONG time since ive read anything on it, and the stuff i was reading wasnt exactly something i could quote anyway...but if memory serves (which it may NOT, i COULD be thinking of another project all together, but lets pretend im not until we know for sure. im always willing to post a retraction) the neutron bombs didnt actually damage any structures. they killed people with a burst of radiation and left the enemies infrastructure in place. with no residual ratiation we could pop their area, then walk in and help ourselves to their stuff.


the NDEW is discussions of what became regans star wars project. particle beams etc. these arent nuclear bombs.

also remember when you are talking "low yeild" in terms of nuclear weapons...5KT is concidered "low yeild"...but thats still equivilant to 5000 TONS of tnt. even .5kt is still 500 tons of tnt. there is still radiation. theres still a massive fireball. theres still a blinding flash of light. (the same flash that blinded japanese people over great distance evn though their eyes were closed) and theres still a boom to make a rock concert seem like a quiet whisper.

there are just some things we havnt gotten past yet.

any nuclear technology that could produce an explosion without all that other incidental stuff (fireball, sound, radiation etc) could easily be harnessed for safe power production and someone in a private research facility would have stumbled on it by now. u think someone at MIT wouldnt find this and throw it out on the web so fast the govt couldnt shut him up?



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
yeah, but the neutron bomb was not a traditional nuke in that it didtn go boom so much and wipe out cities.


Neutron bombs are fusion aren't they? I've heard the same of them, only harming biological stuff and electronics, but wouldn't know, and they're not really being specifically referenced here anyway.


the NDEW is discussions of what became regans star wars project. particle beams etc. these arent nuclear bombs.


I included that to show that it seems they were apparently looking into shaped nuclear blasts (weapons driven by nuclear explosives), but that release stated they were only looking into the feasibility of it anyway. Doesn't mean they did it, or that they didn't do it.


also remember when you are talking "low yeild" in terms of nuclear weapons...5KT is concidered "low yeild"...but thats still equivilant to 5000 TONS of tnt. even .5kt is still 500 tons of tnt. there is still radiation. theres still a massive fireball. theres still a blinding flash of light. (the same flash that blinded japanese people over great distance evn though their eyes were closed) and theres still a boom to make a rock concert seem like a quiet whisper.

there are just some things we havnt gotten past yet.


How could you know? The stuff above is, what, almost 40 years old now? And not even 40 years after the first atomic bombs were dropped. That's a lot of time, and still at Ground Zero we saw yellow-glowing steel (not melted steel, or even iron slag, still rigid), scorched cars, all kinds of bizarre health effects, and apparently sublimating steel, which is a BIG indicator of some massive energy. People breathed in and became ill from tiny particles of steel and other metals that apparently sublimated during the collapses.


u think someone at MIT wouldnt find this and throw it out on the web so fast the govt couldnt shut him up?


How much money and what resources do MIT get in terms of nuclear weapons research, and how long have they been at it?



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
neutron bombs, yes specifically referenced in the material you quoted, only reason i brought it up


no, doesnt mean they did or didnt one way or the other.

i couldnt. i was only trying to reference KT yeild etc to explosive power and figured everyone would just infer that even a small nuke would make a big bang (speaking in terms of known conventional expamples of course) and while the paper you reference was 40 years old, this type of work (beign able to calculate yeilds and plot fallout patterns etc) was my field for 12 years. its unlikely they were going to give us info on our own top secret nuke stuff but some of the basics wont change.

MIT was arbitrary. fill in the name of any university anywhere that does nuclear physics. hell, fill in the name of anyone with a PHD in nuclear phyiscs. yer nit picking
all i meant was that nuclear physics is NOT the sole realm of the us govt and that any random guy can figure this stuff out. if they can make a nuke that is, for lack of a better word, safe. they can also figure out how to use that tech to make power. ideally anyway.

as always i wont say that this theory COULDNT have happened. just like i wont say that its IMPOSSIBLE that the towers were brought down with explosives. what i am saying is that based on my own experience and what i know, that it is unlikely that either scenario is waht happened. if it is what happened (either case) then i dont know how it was done. still willing to admit i could be wrong, jsut dont think i am.


btw bsb, HOW did you get me back into a 9-11 thread?
punk



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
neutron bombs, yes specifically referenced in the material you quoted, only reason i brought it up


Oops, yeah. It wasn't a part that I meant to reference but I see it is included up there. I was just looking at what I bolded.


if they can make a nuke that is, for lack of a better word, safe. they can also figure out how to use that tech to make power.


I can think of someone who just might be onto something in the field of energy, that it seems like no other institutions have really looked into, or made public, you know?



btw bsb, HOW did you get me back into a 9-11 thread?
punk


It can't be that bad.


[edit on 5-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

I can think of someone who just might be onto something in the field of energy, that it seems like no other institutions have really looked into, or made public, you know? lol


yeah

lol i just might. too bad funding is such an issue if you dotn work for a university huh?

sorry bout going off topic.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by Damocles]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a question that remains for me is about the pulverisation and hot spots:

There is much evidence to show that the concrete and various other materials (including metals) were pulverised down to the scale of 30 microns and less. I have read this is only possible with the usage of an atomic device. Is it possible any other way?

Whats more is the hot spots and fires that took 100 days to cool, only time I have heard about fires like this are ones caused by a nuclear accident (Chernobyl). Can we compare this with any other point in history, other than Chernobyl?



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Everybody:

I did not realize how few have actually heard of the proposition that hydrogen bombs were used to destruct the four world trade center buildings on 11-Sep-2001. The originator of this scenario is a Finnish scientist who — understandably — wants to remain anonymous. He is backed up by a thirty year veteran researcher at the CERN particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland. A lot of “darn good brains” (no I’m not talking about myself) have thought about this seemingly off-the-wall scenario — and concluded that this is most likely what happened. But being that we’re having a healthy discussion, we’re still “praying” for new ideas in the hopes of finding a new more pleasant reality.

All events of 9/11 are directly related to our whatever-it-takes quest for oil. Our lifestyle is non-negotiable — per our vice president. So, in a world of ever-increasing shortages we’ve taken the lead in the squabble over the remainder of this particular resource. And we feel that we are morally and godly justified to do anything we please as long as it’s in America’s strategic interest.

With this in mind it is only logical to deduce the following:

1. “Al Quada” never existed. It is strictly an invention of our U.S. government.
2. WTC1, WTC2, probably WT6, and WTC7 were brought down by hydrogen bombs (augmented with thermate cutting charges)
3. The damage at the Pentagon was done strictly with (conventional) bombs.
4. A passenger plane was shot down over Shanksville, PA but not at the “official site”.

The key links to the hydrogen bomb theory are:

1. www.saunalahti.fi...
2. www.saunalahti.fi...
3. arxiv.org...

Go ahead, melt those poor guys' servers!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods
There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth. We are all crew. ~Marshall McLuhan, 1964


the whole notiion that Hbombs were used is idiotic, a nuclear weapon in NY would have destroyed more that just those 2 buildings. i was watching the live broadcast at the time and i saw with my own 2 eyes the second jet that slammed into the WTC now as for the Pentagon you got me there



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Dear razor1000:

Thank you for your post!

Finally, finally we have an eyewitness report which is firsthand. You may think I’m being cynical but I’m dead-serious. In my view nearly all the “live” interviews on TV on 9-11 were “bogus”, i.e. edited and staged.

So you really are the first person I’ve come across who’s actually SEEN a plane slam into the WTC. Which brings me closer to believe — and you will find this ludicrous — the hologram theory. It’s heavily under discussion on ATS at “Why there were no planes at the WTC…” Check it out and let us know what YOU think.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 10/6/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
In my view nearly all the “live” interviews on TV on 9-11 were “bogus”, i.e. edited and staged.
[edit on 10/6/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]


I remember the live footage from the day of the attacks and let me tell you, speaking as someone who used to work in the TV industry, it looked 101% live and real. You could taste the panic in the air.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by razor1000
the whole notiion that Hbombs were used is idiotic, a nuclear weapon in NY would have destroyed more that just those 2 buildings.


Sure, if it happened in 1945. You apparently aren't reading the thread.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear razor1000:

Thank you for your post!

Finally, finally we have an eyewitness report which is firsthand. You may think I’m being cynical but I’m dead-serious. In my view nearly all the “live” interviews on TV on 9-11 were “bogus”, i.e. edited and staged.

So you really are the first person I’ve come across who’s actually SEEN a plane slam into the WTC. Which brings me closer to believe — and you will find this ludicrous — the hologram theory. It’s heavily under discussion on ATS at “Why there were no planes at the WTC…” Check it out and let us know what YOU think.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 10/6/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

HOLOGRAMS? where did that come from? scratching my head....



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Dear Razor1000:

I may have misunderstood you. Did you personally — as in “on location” — see the plane slam into the WTC or did you purely watch it on TV.

If you were indeed a “live” witness” then the event, i.e. the crash into the building, would need to be explained. This is why I referred to the “hologram” theory. Because I don’t believe that a plane could have fully and entirely penetrated the building’s outer columns. So I’m trying to reconcile your visual observation with what I think physically possible (that there was no real plane smashing into the tower).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 10/6/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Dear Everybody:

Here is another fresh -- "hot off the press" -- link to a website debunking the existence of Al-Qaida.

prisonplanet.com...

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/6/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Dear Razor1000:

Due to my newly discovered photo-posting powers via "photobucket" I have added some more visuals to document my premise that there were no planes crashing into the WTC towers on 9-11. Let me know what you think.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods
















home.debitel.net...



[edit on 10/7/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]





top topics
 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join