Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
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?

Somemore of your 'Leave it to Beaver' questions?
That which you ask of me, you are likewise ASSUMING the opposite...how ironic, huh?!
To you, as with others:
It is aok to ASSUME that any and all governments lie 100% of the time; in other words, everytime they open their collective mouths?
Likewise, it is aok to ASSUME that everything that you read from CONSPIRACY related websites dealing with 9/11 is the 'God' absolute and factual truth?
And it is aok for you, as with other 9/11 'Leave it to Beaver' conspiracy theorists to ASSUME that everything produced then placed on the Internet is conspiracy factoids?

I laugh at you whom declare us wrong, simply because we cannot produce evidence.

Thought you had placed me on 'Ignore' after I spanked you last education period? You must have gotten brave recently to have taken me off.
Anyhow, conspiracy theories must be backed by evidence based upon FACT, not by the 'a' typical spew your 'flavor of the month' 9/11 conspiracy theory without any semblance of fact to back it other than half-baked linkings--err, guess to where....other 9/11 conspiracy sites--, eh?!

Stupidity and ignorance blended in togheter here?

Apparently they do to you 'flavor of the month' 9/11 conspiracy theorists, huh?
To each his or her own.
Before you proceed further with your name calling 'a' typical attacks, re-educate yourself by re-reading the Terms and Conditions of this site, k, mate?

Edit: corrections

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Seekerof]

Just a note to remind you that micro nukes have been used in terrorism before. The Bali bombing of several years ago was thought to be of Israeli ops.

www.vialls.com...

Go ahead and read the first 3 paragraphs or so. Unfortunately these theorists are falling for the same trap as most people on this thread, not understanding that H-bombs are very different and have little radiation.

Nevertheless, it's an interesting read.

As always seeker a pleasure to read your pointless filth!
Yeah you were on ignore, but after another thread about ignores, and watching people quote you and make a fool of your ramblings, I couldnt let everyone have the fun could I.

hey man, I never accused someone of assuming being wrong.
you did.

im just showing u that u also assumed.. bit hypocritcal?
I understand I assume, I understand you assume... assume assume assume...big friggen deal.. I just thought id make a note of you attempting to put people down, simply because they assume, yet you do the same as everyone else.
I never said I assumed 100% of time, nice generalisation there.
I assume they are lying to me on certain issues, issues that have greatly given them the advantage...
I never said conspiracy sites were god fact.. but again thankyou for your lame attempts there...

Why is it wrong for me to assume something on the internet is true, yet your in the right for assuming something on the TV is true?

education period? im still waiting for proof of claims, that you failed to provide..
instead you provided things which were way off the mark in what you stated as fact.

and your right conspiracies theories need to be backed up by fact.
so does what the goernment tells you..
wake up mate.. if there was fact out there for either side.. we wouldnt be here DEBATING would we... do you understand the logic behind what is taking place?

I wont say what I really want to seeker, not because of the t and c's.. but gawd damit.. im just not as pathetic as some... maybe you should take notes hey?

Originally posted by SteveR
Just a note to remind you that micro nukes have been used in terrorism before. The Bali bombing of several years ago was thought to be of Israeli ops.

www.vialls.com...

Go ahead and read the first 3 paragraphs or so. Unfortunately these theorists are falling for the same trap as most people on this thread, not understanding that H-bombs are very different and have little radiation.

Nevertheless, it's an interesting read.

yeah, I read that some time ago..
again, i just dont think they'd go to those extreme's...
the reason I think the burns were so bad, is the type of bomb used, and the lack of material and distance BETWEEN the ignition and the skin...
plus lots of people had no shirts on rah rah rah....

Originally posted by SteveR
Just a note to remind you that micro nukes have been used in terrorism before. The Bali bombing of several years ago was thought to be of Israeli ops.

www.vialls.com...

Go ahead and read the first 3 paragraphs or so. Unfortunately these theorists are falling for the same trap as most people on this thread, not understanding that H-bombs are very different and have little radiation.

Nevertheless, it's an interesting read.

Furthermore, the alleged "trap" that is being fallen for is the continued linking to other conspiracy related materials to back assertion that have no factual background or evidence.

Joe Vialls....? :shk:

I hate to tell you seeker..
gasp..

but this is a conspriacy website tooo ya know!

Originally posted by Agit8dChopIf 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.

Dear Agit8dChop:

Pure hydrogen bombs have probably been operational since the early nineteen-nineties. They're not an experimental weapon by any means. But they are an exotic weapon. And “secret” because the public isn’t aware of their existence.

Since everyone seems to be expecting classical mushroom-cloud type explosions, here’s a link about shaped charges. 911review.org... The mini hydrogen nukes at the WTC were closely calculated directional explosive devices. There were set off UNDER GROUND in the elevator shafts in the cellar. The buildings were massive monoliths made of common earth-crust materials (see chart in above post) — concrete, steel and glass. For all practical purposes this was an UNDER GROUND detonation.


Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
As always seeker a pleasure to read your pointless filth!

Likewise.

Yeah you were on ignore, but after another thread about ignores, and watching people quote you and make a fool of your ramblings, I couldnt let everyone have the fun could I.

Your 'a' typical rhetorical response and excuse. Nothing has changed.
Do me and yourself a favor: Put me back on ignore before I 'school' you somemore?

hey man, I never accused someone of assuming being wrong.

That is a blatant lie, and yes, I said lie. You habitually insinuate such upon me.

im just showing u that u also assumed.. bit hypocritcal?

We are all "hypocritical" at one time or another, as you have so eloquently pointed out, correct?

I understand I assume, I understand you assume... assume assume assume...big friggen deal.. I just thought id make a note of you attempting to put people down, simply because they assume, yet you do the same as everyone else.

When I typically "put down" people for making assumption, it is pretty well assured that they are making half-baked 'Leave it to Beaver' assumptions.

I never said I assumed 100% of time, nice generalisation there.

You did not have to, I said it based upon your postings and commentaries.

I assume they are lying to me on certain issues, issues that have greatly given them the advantage...[

Your "truth" gauge for determining which you believe "they" are lying to you on "certain issues" is what, exactly?

I never said conspiracy sites were god fact.. but again thankyou for your lame attempts there...

You did not have to "say" or admit such. Again, your postings on these type conspiracy topics speak for themselves in that you do virtually believe all to most of what you read concerning these matters. "Lame" here is your making an excuse for what you are observed blatantly doing.

Why is it wrong for me to assume something on the internet is true, yet your in the right for assuming something on the TV is true?

More 'Leave it to Beaver' questions....:shk:

education period? im still waiting for proof of claims, that you failed to provide..
instead you provided things which were way off the mark in what you stated as fact.

Do a post history on me and you will see that my "proof of claims" has long been provided ages ago. I despise rehash or re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-HASH.

and your right conspiracies theories need to be backed up by fact.

Speak English instead of making excuses for your lack of providing such factual evidences, k?

so does what the goernment tells you..

...............?

wake up mate.. if there was fact out there for either side.. we wouldnt be here DEBATING would we... do you understand the logic behind what is taking place?

There are more FACTS against your and others alleged hypothetical 9/11 conspiracy theories than there are for. Hello?! Hence me saying what other sane people are saying: Back your half-baked, flavor of the month 9/11 conspiracies with legit factual evidences instead of those continually pulled and regurgitated from other conspiracy websites, you think?

I wont say what I really want to seeker, not because of the t and c's.. but gawd damit.. im just not as pathetic as some... maybe you should take notes hey?

Certainly not taking "notes" from the likes of you. Bet.
"Pathetic" is relative to the individual asserting such.
Lastly, grow a pair, then perhaps you will be able to say that which you are simply not, despite your dismissal of the terms and conditions of this site. Your making an excuse for your inabilities, k?

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Seekerof]

Not taking a dig
but i love it how things are secret that the public arent aware of..

yet... your public.. and you know?

Im not so much expecting a mushroom cloud...
but if one detonated within the basement... more than a handful of people would be reporting explosions..

and they wouldnt be reporting pops and so forth..
They might of been tested, but not in skyscrapers as such..

you create valid points, and you very much 'could' be right,
but me personally, dont believe they'd take that bigger risk on somethign not proven to have the desired effect.
Especially when the whole world was focusing on the towers at the time of the explosion..

I think testing outside experiments were more for the pentagon incident.. something that wasnt being watched, but was the perfect testing ground.

done and done goodbye seeker.
I rather not waste time reading your ramblings..
think as you will, but i believe you bring nothing constructive to this site.
Good riddence to bad rubbish.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Pure hydrogen bombs have probably been operational since the early nineteen-nineties. They're not an experimental weapon by any means. But they are an exotic weapon. And “secret” because the public isn’t aware of their existence.

I'd like some clarification about what exactly your refering to. Do you mean the micro nukes?

Regular h-bombs have existed for over 50 years, the first test was in 52 I beleive. Ivy Mike. There's been plenty enough time to miniturize and develop them.

A HEADS-UP TO ALL ...

We ALL love a good debate, afterall that's what ATS is ALL about.

In this thread, it seems that EVERYONE needs to get past the "HATE" and "BAIT" style posts and return to DEBATING the topic, NOT each other.

This is not meant to come across as threatening, folks, but Several members here are walking some Very fine lines.

Perhaps a few Deep breathes and Steps back are due for All!?

C'mon folks, It's a discussion ... character assassinations are NOT warranted, NOR will they be further tolerated.



Thank you, in advance.

[edit on 10/19/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Agreed. Calm down all... we don't want this thread locked, right?

Originally posted by SteveR Regular h-bombs have existed for over 50 years, the first test was in 52 I beleive. Ivy Mike. There's been plenty enough time to miniturize and develop them.

Dear SteveR:

PURE hydrogen bombs are the "new thing". Previously, hydrogen bombs always needed an atom bomb to trigger nuclear fusion, i. e "ignite" the hydrogen. Therefore hydrogen bombs of old are really just atom bombs with a hydrogen booster. Consequently, classical H-bomb explosions are huge. They are impossible to "miniaturize". Heck, they’re two nuclear explosions in one! And of course they generate lots of nasty fallout.

Pure hydrogen bombs are just that — pure. They don’t need a nuclear trigger explosion. Therefore they can be miniaturized. They can be set off with a high energy laser or…alternatively…antimatter. I really shouldn’t have said that. Because now you’ll think I’m crazy. But hey, antimatter is the wet-dream-explosive of generals. It’s the most powerful destructive force presently known. More exciting than a Shkval torpedo.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Sorry mods!

but gawd dammit! Its just so much fun..... sometimes.

but I think for me, this is one of those agree to disagree debates.

There's no evidence to pursuade me which way is right, there both possible.. its only my personal opinion that is swaying me toward my p.o.v

that and im always right!


But, in regards to the topic.

did the hydrogen bomb cause the collapse?
Or was it detonated in the basement?
Because the lobby was smashed up prior to the firefighters even going up...
so it didnt cause the collapse...





[edit on 19-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

Dear 12m8keall2c:

Why the reprimand? “Heated exchanges” are healthy. Thoughts must be spoken. Besides, I need the ATS points. I gotta go shopping for some more kilobytes. Please don’t shut us down. We all love each other.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Wiz..

"a plasma trigger of deuterium and lithium (or similar substances), would eject neutrons..."

Apparently there are more down-to-earth triggers.

Originally posted by SteveR

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.

Fine.

Whatever you say


The other thing to consider is the latency period for the disease after the exposure to the causitive agent.

Do you understand what that is?

Why wouldn't I?

Besides, I don't see what an illness onset period has to do with this. We don't know how carcinogenic the radiation is. None of us know the exact detrimental effects of being around a spent weapon for which we don't have the specifications or even chemical components.

A link between the aforementioned leukaemia and this theory cannot be proved or disproved. Because of the above, evidence is non-existant and I personally am not suggesting it as such.

However, since I do beleive the nuke theory for other reasons, common sense tells me a link is likely.

did the hydrogen bomb cause the collapse?
Or was it detonated in the basement?
Because the lobby was smashed up prior to the firefighters even going up...
so it didnt cause the collapse...