It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 03:48 PM

Originally posted by jofomu
BTW, Wizard. Thers's no uni' called, St Gall in Switzerland.

Now jofomu:

Just when I thought you were making sense. Tsk, tsk. Don’t let me down!

You’re right the University isn’t officially called “University of St. Gall Switzerland”. They call it the “University of St.Gallen - Graduate School of Business, Economics, Law and Social Sciences”. But have mercy — that’s such a long cumbersome name. No one wants to read that. Besides, I hate mixing different languages. St. Gallen is a German expression. St. Gall is the English translation.

Sorry about that.

The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/18/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 04:57 PM

I could say I went to Lamp' followed by Ox, I Don't.

Your naming of educational establishments is an appeall to authority, a use of those places meant to legitmise, somehow, your opinions of 9/11. Sorry, does not work.

You are either right or wrong.

Wiz' you're just plain wrong...

BTW. condescension is umbecoming.

Lordy, my keybosrd id dying.



[edit on 18-10-2006 by jofomu]

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:16 PM

Originally posted by jofomu

Oh dear Lord!

Do any of you have an education?

Dear jofomu:

My, my. Are we getting a wee bit testy? I’m not appealing to anything, least of all formal education. I simply reflexively responded to your one-liner-question.

9-11 is something which needs to be viewed from a “down to earth” common sense perspective. As I’ve said many times on many threads, the majority of mainstream “experts” and “academia” have swallowed the “official” 9-11 story — hook, line and sinker.

However now, I’m not really sure I understand what exactly you think I’m wrong about. I thought I just admitted that the hologram theory was far-fetched. By the way “razor1000” did not see the planes directly with his own two eyes . He watched the events — as did most of us — “live” on television. Therefore I'm drifting back toward my original belief that there were no planes or holograms.

The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/18/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 06:19 PM
I'm not exactly sure whart you think you're right about.

OK, eyewitnesses don't count. Live, as it happens, vid' don't count.

BUT you've got an idiotic theory!

Case closed. I give up. You're right I'm wrong. Arrogance and a condescening post demeanour win the day.

FACTS? We don' need no stinkin' FACTS.

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:29 PM

Originally posted by jofomu
FACTS? We don' need no stinkin' FACTS.

I noticed. The only real fact I've seen in the past few posts was over the name of that Swiss university, which I can't really even say is a fact because I wouldn't know better and don't really care anyway.

Wizard, do you know what that stuff is that seems to vaporize mid-air as it flies from a nuke detonation? I've seen it in videos and photos:

Any idea what that crap rocketing outwards leaving behind that "dust" trail is?

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:33 AM
Dear bsbray11:

Glad to hear from you. Where have you been? Back from a sabbatical or something?

All that stuff you see is — just as you suspected — dirt and rocks vaporizing in mid-air after being superheated by Neutrons coming from the nuclear explosion. Larger rocks, and depending on what type of minerals they contain, will take longer to breakdown. They’re the “crap” that leaves dusty “comet-trails”.

I’ve listed below the eight most common elements in Earth’s crust.

1. Oxygen O [Chemical Symbol] 46.60% [Percent Weight in Earth's Crust]
2. Silicon Si 27.72%
3. Aluminum Al 8.13%
4. Iron Fe 5.00%
5. Calcium Ca 3.63%
6. Sodium Na 2.83%
7. Potassium K 2.59%
8. Magnesium Mg 2.09%

Hope that helps.

The Wizard In The Woods

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:22 AM
here is something else for your consideration toward the nuclear device argument:

of southern Manhattan and rescue and clean-up workers involved in the recovery operations at the site of the former World Trade Center are experiencing an unusually high rate of non-Hodgkin lymphoma -- a cancer that is common among individuals who have been exposed to extremely high levels of ionizing radiation, such as that from nuclear blasts and major nuclear reactor leaks.

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:34 PM
Nice find, Insolubrious.

Wizard, check this out:

Primarily the circle on the right, and I'm sure if anyone looks more closely they can find other examples.

I don't think it's very reasonable to assume that concrete is breaking up into fine-dust mid-air for no good reason, or that dust or concrete is producing immense amounts of smoke, etc. It seems to me that this is material vaporizing as it falls.

And of course no fire, high explosive, or even thermite could produce super-hot, still rigid steel:

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 04:21 PM

In most cases, people diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma don't have any obvious risk factors, and many people who have risk factors for the disease never develop it. Some factors that may contribute to your risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma include:
Age. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma can occur at any age, but the risk increases with age. It's most common in people in their 60s.
Immunosuppression. If you've had an organ transplant, you're more susceptible because immunosuppressive therapy has impaired your immune mechanisms.
Infection. A number of infections appear to increase the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Having AIDS, in which your immune system is progressively weakened, also places you at higher risk. In Africa, infection with the parasite that causes malaria or the Epstein-Barr virus appears to raise the risk of a particular type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, called Burkitt's lymphoma. An infection with the bacterium Helicobacter pylori, which is known to cause ulcers, can cause an immune system response that raises your risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, particularly in the stomach.
Chemicals. Certain chemicals, such as those used to kill insects and weeds, may increase your risk of developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Previous studies had suggested that long-term use of dark-colored hair dyes might be linked to an increased risk of the disease, but a review in the May 25, 2005, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found only a weak association between hair-dye use and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Since the evidence is inconclusive, more research is needed. However, the chemicals used in hair dyes have changed since the 1980s, so any possible risk that may have existed then may be even smaller now.

Radiation injury generally is only a very minor risk factor in childhood non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Survivors of atomic bombs and nuclear reactor accidents have an increased risk of developing several types of cancer. Although leukemia and thyroid cancers are the most common, there is a slightly increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma as well.


So, yes, NHL is linked to radiation exposure, but then again, so are a host of other types of cancer.

There are other risk factors for the disease and there is also the probability that this in nothing more than a statistical fluke.

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 04:38 PM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
There are other risk factors for the disease and there is also the probability that this in nothing more than a statistical fluke.

Yeah. Sure.. good rebuttal.

Anyone who is denying ignorance here can see where the evidence is leading.

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 04:42 PM
One way to guarantee that no intelligent person will ever believe you is by presenting theories like this. A Hydrogen Bomb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You might as well claim Elvis rose from the grave and brought down the Trade Centers with a note from his guitar. That would be no less ridiculous. You can't possibly believe this. You must just be trying to get points or have a good laugh at other peoples expense. Considering the half-life, just take a detector to the site, prepare to become sterile and loose your hair and prove it. The counter will go nuts on you anywhere within a few miles. In fact most people living or working in that area would already be dead or dying. How did they hide all of this. I'd think people would notice their hair falling out and the lesions.
Boy am I glad I sent my daughter to a private school!

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 04:46 PM
In regards to the split imagine of a nuke testing and the towers collapsing,
its unreliable, beause the nuke test was performed on the ground, not inside a structure.

where as the wtc's were structures.

if a nuke was WITHIN the towers, it would of blow them completely OUTWARDS , not out and down.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Would that be the mother of all assumptions, bsbray11?

Bit of advice, do not 'assume'?

So it is fine for you to ASSUME the government is telling you the truth?
So it is fine for you to ASSUME everything your being told is factual?
So it is fine for you to ASSUME everything we produce is conspiracy junk?

I laugh at you whom declare us wrong, simply because we cannot produce evidence.
Stupidity and ignorance blended in togheter here?

We are presenting the only evidence that is available to us...
photo's, video's, interviews, transcripts etc etc etc....
What happened to all the rubble?
Thats right the government removed it, OVER SEAS
What happened to ground zero?
Thast right, its RESTRICTED access...
what happened to various voice recordings and so forth, that present FIREMAN stating various 'explosions' various 'pops' and only small fires that could be put out with a mere 2x lines?
ahh thats right, the government for YEARS Attempted to have them blocked from the public..
finally when they were relased tho, you label these as hogswash because these fireman... the same ones that died in the tragedy.. go against what your administration says..

are they too spouting conspiracy junk seeker?
the fireman whom say '' its 2x ISOLATED fires that can be knocked out.. ''

were they lying?
were they staring into a raging inferno but reading from a script?

face it seeker... your fighting a losing battle, and letting your pride get in the way.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 04:50 PM
Blaine needs to get his science straight.

H-bombs are indeed nuclear weapons, but they are not atomic bombs! The stereotypical effects you describe do not apply.

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.

You're right, education is important

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
if a nuke was WITHIN the towers, it would of blow them completely OUTWARDS , not out and down.

Think about one at each cornerstone, perhaps.

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 05:00 PM
While I agree explosives were used, a hydrogen bomb is pushing it.
If you look at that picture, its just a fluke that the images match up.
If you had of put one of those devices IN the towers... and detonated it..
It would not of fallen straight down on its footprint..
A hydrogen going off, would of expelled it outwards and up..look at the top of the tower... If falls DOWN, before the rubble flies OUT...
had a bomb gone off, it would of blown the towers OUT first (to an extent MUCH more than it ultimately already does), creating a void for the top to fall into.

there was no flash, or anything distinctive for a bomb...
the pop pop pop the fireman and police continually heard, were planted explosives..
with possibly a larger charge being set off just before the conclusion.

But if it was a large hydrogen TYPE device,
why go to the extent of flying planes in?
After wtc93, it became obvious with how much ease it would be to place a bomb of such type within the building.

couldnt they just of done another oklahoma type deal, mid way up the towers and brought them down that way?

While I am willing to achnolwedge all theories and state my opinion, I wouldnt put to much weight behind this one....

As it will just bring about negativity towards other theories, that hold alot more water.

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 05:43 PM
I don't think a small h-bomb in the basements would have been the only thing used. The buildings still would not have fallen as they did imo. If anything, it looked more as if more conventional charges were just unpeeling the building around the bombed-out core structure.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Considering the half-life,

Of what? lol

Guys like you should look up more information on these bombs before assuming every one of them is just like the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. That is what's truly idiotic.

SteveR's provided info for you above.

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 06:11 PM
Dear bsbray11:

That recent post by Insolubrious is a scary one. You’d think a bombshell like that would wake people up. Perhaps it’s just too much. So some sort of mental blocking-out mechanism sets in, enabling the silent majority to carry on their day-to-day lives. Who knows.

Anyways, I consider your two pictures unquestionably point toward the use of hydrogen bombs at the WTC. Your commentary on photo no. 2 might confuse some readers. And it might provoke unnecessary discussions. So I’ll add my take on it. There are “neatly cut” rigid beams laying around — obviously sheared off by thermate cutting charges (kills the official planes-caused-the-collapse theory right there). Scattered in between there are separate bright yellow hot molten chunks and blobs of steel. Judging by their color they are very near the melting point of structural mild steel — 2800 deg F. How did they get there? Chemical explosives cause short localized bursts of energy. And most of that “blast energy” gets wasted, i.e. it does not “enter” the target. The radiation energy (Neutrons) from a hydrogen bomb doesn’t bounce of objects (like a chemical blast wave might) it penetrates and superheats them.

And the first illustration of yours is dusty comet-trail “city”. Sublimation all the way. Substances converting themselves directly from solids to steams — skipping the “liquid” stages because of being superheated so quickly. All of this is impossibly hard to fathom. And this is precisely why the organizers of 9-11 considered feasible a successfully disguised razing of the WTC buildings — via a newly developed exotic and largely unheard of weapon, mini-hydrogen nukes.

The Wizard In The Woods

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 07:00 PM

A hydrogen going off, would of expelled it outwards and up..look at the top of the tower... If falls DOWN, before the rubble flies OUT...

I hope you don't use such suppositions to write off whole theories. That would be narrow minded. We do not know the behavior of the weapon in question, we only know a few telltale signs.

why go to the extent of flying planes in?

Possibly for the main reason 911 happened. Drama, shock, fear. And indeed security concerns. I would of thought this is obvious.

there was no flash, or anything distinctive for a bomb...

You previously stated you do beleive an explosive was used. Which is it, you do or you don't? If you meant an A-Bomb, as noted earlier the fission explosions you're acquainted with are entirely irrelevant.

Just because you cannot imagine or concieve a nuclear demolition does not mean it is implausible.

Don't let your ignorance blind you.

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 07:13 PM
Your right we cant be narrow minded, which is why im entertaining the idea, but refuse to accept it as happening.

you do not think these sky scrapers coming down due to explosions wouldnt be fear and shock factor ENOUGH? your saying they needed to use nuclear weapons, to create shock and awe.. but at the same time... hide the fact they were used?

If they TESTED these weapons in the buildings, thats a major no no in terms of BLACK ops.

being they were TESTING, means they didnt know it would work.
So why risk being caught out with your bomb strapped and poised in the building, when the firefighters look around.

and explosives were used, im certain of this.
just because I dont believe a nuclear weapon was used.. doesnt mean im switching stories... get it right!

I never said it was implausable, im saying its highly, logically, probably, definitivley and extremely UNLIKELY that a 2 nuclear weapons were used to bring the towers down, when explosives could of been used, to create the same effect, without leaving the tell tale signs of such an event happening....

Why were people not reporting of birds and pets dying iin the immediate aftermath?

Why was president bush, and mayor juliani allowed to walk around the site, and inspect it... knowing a nuclear device had been set off, and was contaminating the area?

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 07:23 PM
You raise a good point. Why were micro-h bombs used, exactly.

I've speculated on that point myself, and I'm quite sure it wasn't a test. We both agree that would be highly illogical.

However, I'm sure the fusion radiation would of completely dissapated by the time Bush inspected the site (just a guess here, I doubt it happened within 7-12 hours.)

I tend to lean toward the theory that they were needed to bring the WTC down. We're talking about two buildings that dwarf the giant skyscrapers in NYC, perhaps the perpetrators felt conventional explosives just wouldn't do the trick in small quantities.

Phil Schneider, the murdered world-class explosives expert, (who worked for the US Gov by the way), said that micro-nukes are used as a method of demolition. That comment was pre-911 ofcourse, but it's a good one. It shows that this is entirely feasible.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in