Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
well as far as normal explosives go there isn't much other way to explain the pulverisation of concrete on the scale of 30 microns and less. It doesn't make sense.


Quote:
Jerry Russell estimated that the amount of energy required to crush concrete to 60 micron powder is about 1.5 KWH/ton


Quote:
6,00,000 khw = 6,000,000 kg of tnt = Nuclear fission equals 70 kt TNT per kg

There is no way the massive energy sink could possibly be due to TNT being planted in the building due to the need of 6 million kg of TNT.
A 0.6kg nuke would do the job easily.




zark.gnn.tv...

Can anyone find any other comparisons where a buildings concrete was reduced to such fine powdering?




posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
It was two planes that hit those buildings i saw them and thats that, i was watching the live coverage from my airforce base in NC and trust me it was the real thing because they locked down the base immediatly after and out came the guns and chem gear because they didnt know who was going to get hit



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Dear Razor1000:

I too watched everything "live" on TV. I happened to be off work that day and I had my TV on when the news was first reported. And I believed a lot of things that were said that morning -- although not everything.

In hindsight we now can prove the unthinkable — we were duped.



home.debitel.net...
=same link as show in previous post -- German engineers' website

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Dear Everybody:

Just in case some of you haven't had time to review the Finnish “military expert’s” websites postulating the use of hydrogen bombs on 9-11 at the WTC's — here is one of the more tell-tailing pictures.


Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
First pic is proven wrong on another thread. Second one - the energy of the fall would be enough to eject pieces of debris sideways. After all, sideways was the easiest way to go for parts of outer structure. Above them falling mass, below them rest of building, inwards falling mass, outwards no resistance.
And no, if ejected sideways by the forces of the collapse, they won't fall right down. This is not how do the things work in real life.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
Second one - the energy of the fall would be enough to eject pieces of debris sideways.


Prove it.

And don't just point to NIST or FEMA, because they never did calcs on this and you know it.


If it was torsion, explain why so many sections had clean cuts on the ends. If it was something else, explain the new phenomena and/or the new application of it, preferably while backing yourself up with something more than your own finger pecking.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
First pic is proven wrong on another thread. Second one - the energy of the fall would be enough to eject pieces of debris sideways. After all, sideways was the easiest way to go for parts of outer structure.


This is so incredibly WRONG and baseless taht NO ONE even needs to respond.

your lack of knowledge of physical systems is AMAZING.

Answer one question on a PHYSICS BASIS:

Given G is the ONLY force acting... how is HOROZONTAL the EASIEST trajectory?

I patiently await your answer because we will be challenging Einstein, Newton and Hawkings when you do.

Tuccy and snoopy... all words... no facts, no substance.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Razor1000:

I too watched everything "live" on TV. I happened to be off work that day and I had my TV on when the news was first reported. And I believed a lot of things that were said that morning -- although not everything.

In hindsight we now can prove the unthinkable — we were duped.



home.debitel.net...
=same link as show in previous post -- German engineers' website

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


Add not knowing where an aircraft's fuel is stored to the list of misunderstandings that have created this bastard theory.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Not to preach board ToS, but I would be appreciative personally if the no-plane stuff was kept on the no-plane thread. Just saying.

I'm waiting to see what kind of response Tuccy has for these:


Originally posted by bsbray11
If it was torsion, explain why so many sections had clean cuts on the ends. If it was something else, explain the new phenomena and/or the new application of it, preferably while backing yourself up with something more than your own finger pecking.



Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Answer one question on a PHYSICS BASIS:

Given G is the ONLY force acting... how is HOROZONTAL the EASIEST trajectory?



I can answer you, though, Slap Nuts: It isn't!

Even with torsion and other forces resulting from various components impacting because of gravity, lateral ejection is STILL not the easiest route for debris to take.

But this just goes to show.

There have been studies done that show individuals will ignore factual information to continue to justify their current beliefs. This is called bias. We lie to ourselves when we hear the people or systems we were raised to trust, don't act in our best interests. We may similarly lie to ourselves when we hear that the bad guys aren't so bad after all, etc. A good way around this is to STICK WITH THE FACTS, given that anyone wants to know the truth anyway. This is why objective answers to questions like the ones Slap Nuts and I have provided for Tuccy above are important.

Massive lateral ejections of almost all of the mass in either Tower is neither "easiest" (assuming classical physics is correct) nor even logical without additional information, a new theoretical "mechanism" that will explain the observed phenomena without violating physics.

I have seen suggestions of two mechanisms: torsion, and explosives.

Torsion is when something is twisted and bent, which is what would happen if tons of falling material were dropped upon a set of vertical steel columns.

Explosives make clean cuts and would have provided outward-directed force in the context of the Twin Towers.

Which is more in line with observed phenomena? Bending and twisting, or clean cuts?

We saw some of both, but what's disturbing is the amount of massive steel sections that were cleanly cut out and then ejected as much as 600 feet laterally, despite weighing some 22 tons. No twisting or bending on those sections, which should be pretty wonderous to anyone who believes the buildings just fell straight down by the force of gravity alone.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Thank you for the eloquence and exacting nature of your response aboe BSBRAY... I have grown a little lazy in responding rationally to the constantly name changing, non-fact bringing hordes of new signees here.

I promise to do better in the future, but KUDOS to you for staying the course.


WATS for BSBRAY.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Phil Schneider would agree with you. Back in 1995, he claimed the original WTC attack used a nuclear device.



"I was hired not too long ago to do a report on the World Trade Center bombing. I was hired because I know about the 90 some odd varieties of chemical explosives. I looked at the pictures taken right after the blast. The concrete was puddled and melted. The steel and the rebar was literally extruded up to six feet longer than its original length. There is only one weapon that can do that - a small nuclear weapon. That's a construction-type nuclear device. Obviously, when they say that it was a nitrate explosive that did the damage, they're lying 100%, folks. The people they have in custody probably didn't do the crime. As a matter of fact, I have reason to believe that the same group held in custody did do other crimes, such as killing a Jewish rabbi in New York. However, I want to further mention that with the last explosion in Oklahoma City, they are saying that it was a nitrate or fertilizer bomb that did it. "First, they came out and said it was a 1,000 pound fertilizer bomb. Then, it was 1,500. Then 2,000 pounds. Now its 20,000. You can't put 20,000 pounds of fertilizer in a Rider Truck. Now, I've never mixed explosives, per se. I know the chemical structure and the application of construction explosives. My reputation was based on it. I helped hollow out more than 13 deep underground military bases in the United States. I worked on the Malta project, in West Germany, in Spain and in Italy. I can tell you from experience that a nitrate explosion would not have hardly shattered the windows of the federal building in Oklahoma City. It would have killed a few people and knocked part of the facing off the building, but it would have never have done that kind of damage. I believe I have been lied to, and I am not taking it any longer, so I'm telling you that you've been lied to."


In Feburary 1996, he died. Looked like a suicide, but obviously wasn't.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
well, far be it from me to argue with the dead guy you quoted above...but i really disagree with most of what he said.

ive never heard the 20,000lb number mentioned above..the highest id ever been briefed was "around 4 tons" and most places will report the explosive yeild at 5000lbs. that will easily fit into a 20ft truck (figure that the avg 50lb bag is around 3 cubic feet and go from there if u want to do the math)

and also, i dont know why he doesnt think that that much anfo would do that, but if he's used to seeing them used buried for blasting construction sites, he should look up more data on what happens when you stack barrels in a specific shape in the back of a truck and set them off...

heck ive punched holes in the ground with 40lb charges of anfo that were 22ft deep and 17ft across...thats just 40lbs.

anyway, this is off topic, sorry for that.

oh, i will say one thing though, if his number of 20,000 lbs was accurate...its possible but very unlikely. the 20ft ryder trucks are rated to 11,500 lbs of weight, doubling the load (nearly) may have had a real negative impact on its ability to move. so, if he was right about that number then yeah, the govt may not be teling us the truth. but with the data ive ever been breifed on or can find, there doesnt seem anything fishy about 4 tons in a 20ft ryder and i personally believe the damage was RIGHT in line with that yeild.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
well, far be it from me to argue with the dead guy you quoted above...but i really disagree with most of what he said.

ive never heard the 20,000lb number mentioned above..the highest id ever been briefed was "around 4 tons" and most places will report the explosive yeild at 5000lbs. that will easily fit into a 20ft truck (figure that the avg 50lb bag is around 3 cubic feet and go from there if u want to do the math)

and also, i dont know why he doesnt think that that much anfo would do that, but if he's used to seeing them used buried for blasting construction sites, he should look up more data on what happens when you stack barrels in a specific shape in the back of a truck and set them off...

heck ive punched holes in the ground with 40lb charges of anfo that were 22ft deep and 17ft across...thats just 40lbs.

anyway, this is off topic, sorry for that.

oh, i will say one thing though, if his number of 20,000 lbs was accurate...its possible but very unlikely. the 20ft ryder trucks are rated to 11,500 lbs of weight, doubling the load (nearly) may have had a real negative impact on its ability to move. so, if he was right about that number then yeah, the govt may not be teling us the truth. but with the data ive ever been breifed on or can find, there doesnt seem anything fishy about 4 tons in a 20ft ryder and i personally believe the damage was RIGHT in line with that yeild.


What do you make of the fine pulverisation of concrete (and other materials) at the wtc? Some of this was on the scale of 30 microns and less. Do you think simple demolition explosives are able to achieve this? (in realistic quantities) and what of the pools of molten steel that took 100 days to cool with constant spraying of water?



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
dont really know what to say about it cuz thats not my area honestly. im a demo guy. im trained to blow things up by many different means. id agree that 30 microns seems odd for a regular demo shot, but its no secret i dotn think there were any explosives in the WTC (other than that massive fuel air bomb when the jet fuel exploded).

even teh firefighters i trained with at a DOJ school that were at GZ were telling me their boots would melt if they were on the debris field too long, but even after many beers they didnt seem to think it was really an "odd" situation. or if they did they didnt volunteer taht info (maybe they thought i was a spook?)



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Dear Everybody:

Here is a very solid link which addresses many of the questions relating to the surmised use of hydrogen bombs at the WTC. It’s been shown previously in the above posts, but just in case some have missed it, here it is again: www.thepriceofliberty.org...

Unfortunately, the author, a medical doctor, has wrongly equated hydrogen bombs (nuclear fusion) with atom bombs (nuclear fission). His title “The US Government's Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic – WTC” is therefore misleading.

Atom Bombs require a “critical mass” and cannot be “miniaturized”, they are always relatively big explosions. Hydrogen bombs can be made in any size — small or large. And they are much “cleaner” (100x less fallout). And even more importantly they release a much greater percentage of “useful”, i.e. destructive-to-the-target energy (neutrons).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Everybody:

Here is a very solid link which addresses many of the questions relating to the surmised use of hydrogen bombs at the WTC. It’s been shown previously in the above posts, but just in case some have missed it, here it is again: www.thepriceofliberty.org...

Unfortunately, the author, a medical doctor, has wrongly equated hydrogen bombs (nuclear fusion) with atom bombs (nuclear fission). His title “The US Government's Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic – WTC” is therefore misleading.

Atom Bombs require a “critical mass” and cannot be “miniaturized”, they are always relatively big explosions. Hydrogen bombs can be made in any size — small or large. And they are much “cleaner” (100x less fallout). And even more importantly they release a much greater percentage of “useful”, i.e. destructive-to-the-target energy (neutrons).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


Oh dear Lord!

Do any of you have an education?



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Dear jofomu:

You “threw” me there. I thought I had an education (Florida State, Indiana University, University of St. Gall, Switzerland), but now I’m confused. What exactly did I say that was so “wrong”? Did I confuse fusion with fission? I’m stumped. Feel free to speak your mind. ATS is the place to do this. I can “take” it. Unleash your hellhounds. Let ’er rip!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:52 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]



ERRRRM: see the above.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
BTW, Wizard. Thers's no uni' called, St Gall in Switzerland.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Dear jofomu:

Now you’re making sense. I perfectly understand that you think the hologram theory is “ridiculous”. Deep down, I don’t find it too believable myself. And the whole question of whether or not there were planes at the WTC is irrelevant to the core of the 9-11 understanding that the buildings were “blown up”.

I personally have considered the use of holograms as a possibility only because I am desperately trying to reconcile “hearsay” eyewitness reports of planes flying into the twin towers with the utter lack of physical evidence to support said scenario. But this may be a waste of time. Since there don’t seem to be any credible persons to be found who actually first hand SAW planes fly into the buildings. What we watched on TV was edited and fabricated to the hilt — it is only useful in the sense that it helps prove conspiracy involvement.

The hologram theory might very well be one of those purposely planted-by-black-ops “thoughts” to discredit the 9-11 truth movement. Your avatar is absolutely right for “making faces” about the whole notion of it.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join