Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

page: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 03:00 AM
link   
SIDE NOTE:

Additional information;

We are (or should be) aware that all the concrete in the buildings was pulverised but are we aware of the EPA reports of the dust and its composition?

EPA statement;


mass of material (> 10 x 10^6 tons) reduced to dust and smoke (introduction, P.2, L.10 )


www.ehponline.org...

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

Already we have been given the entire basis for requirement of a massive energy source.


Sample L18-2 was taken 0.25km from the center of ground zero
Cortlandt Street sample was 200meters from the perimeter of the WTC site.

the dust pile AT ground zero was 1600ug/m^3 and 5 times higher than the outer perimeter of the dust cloud/settled dust and it became uniform at 300ug/m^3.


So it is clear that the dust piles were larger at ground zero and the dust micron sizes were larger there than at the outer perimeter;

Also I must direct you to note that the EPA were directed to take specific samples;


Levels of PM2.5 very highly elevated above normal urban background were detected in the first days after 11 September (Figure 3). The sampling sites were not located directly in the path of the WTC plume, and thus actual levels may have been still higher.

Coarse dust generated by demolition was detectable in ambient air until December, when pollution from the site diminished greatly.


The EPA are clearly stating that their samples contained maximum particle sizes.

We are told how much concrete was inside the buildings (see below) and we know 81% was pulverised to sub 300 micron particles and we have the data showing that 16% of total concrete was pulverised to 0.3 micron particle size.

Through sifting through all sources and references i have found two considered figures for the total concrete used in the towers;

90,000 tns
and
270,000 tns

These are vastly different and the reason why still eludes me;


Both towers were built out of steel frames, glass, and concrete slabs on steel truss joists. A single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete and 21,800 windows. One single tower has a mass of about 450,000,000 kilograms (P.3 Eric Chen)


hypertextbook.com...


160,000 m^3 of concrete @ 1700kg/m^3 density = 270,000 tns

yet Hoffman states 90,000tns through Jerry Russel.
911research.wtc7.net...

Jerry Russel
www.911-strike.com...
(which Russel is said to have conceded that 600,000tns of concrete was incorrect and 90,000 tns is more likely -- yet the article is unchanged)
Just for you to note as a problem with the 'truth seekers'.

So, rather than end up in a massive argument over 90,000tns or the officially stated 270,000tns (based upon concrete density of 1700kg/m^3 *lightweight concrete*) I will progress with 90,000tns.

16% of 90,000tns = 14,400 tns @ 0.3microns


The energy required to reduce concrete to 60 micron powder 1.5 kwh/ton


Our initial figure for the 14,400 tns of 0.3 micron size is 4 million kwh and as is widely accepted the P.E of one WTC was 300,000kwh.

This is based upon the conservative figure of 90,000tns

There is a massive 'Energy Sink' which at this stage only accounts for 16% of the concrete particles.
A massive energy source was required and the amount of dynamite required is too large to be reasonable.
A hydrogen based energy source has the potential to fit the bill.




posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Dear debate:

Hallelujah! Yours is the post we’ve been waiting for! A mathematical analysis of the energy amounts necessary to pulverize the concrete of the WTC’s.

You’ve listed a treasure-trove of revealing links. I’m not quite sure how you arrived at the 4 million kWh energy for pulverization of 14,400 tons of concrete to 0.3 microns. But I’ve probably overlooked something.

Just to make sure this gets read, here’s a summary of Jim Hoffman’s findings:

WTC single tower energy analysis — KWH source (+) or sink (-)

(+) 111,000 falling of mass (1.97e11 g falling average of 207 m)
(-) 135,000 crushing of concrete (9e10 g to 60 micron powder)
ignoring water vaporization
(-) 400,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 1020 K)
(-) 11,300,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 1020 K)
assuming water vaporization sink was not supply-limited
(-) 1,496,000 vaporization of water (2.38e9 g water)
(-) 41,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 373 K)
(-) 1,145,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 373 K)

Total (Unaccounted For) Energy Deficit for one WTC tower: (-) 14.4 million kWh
By the way, this is the energy equivalent of 12,348 U.S. tons of TNT

911research.wtc7.net...

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/20/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Good info guys.



Originally posted by SteveR
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.


I could imagine a lot of problems with trying to place massive amounts of conventional explosives, all logistical. The easiest ways around them would be to either build them into the structure itself, or else use the most recent technology to produce the energy needed from less sources.


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.


Even Damocles has said they use them for demolition on this very thread, and he worked with the military in explosives. The ones they use for demolition less covertly, though, are apparently just smaller conventional weapons, or at least that's what I'm assuming.


Originally posted by Damocles
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.


A few frames of this kind of explosive being deployed from decades ago:



Notice how small the actual device is.



A few issues for us to consider and appropriately address!

Although some collapse events strongly suggest extremely exothermic, powerful devices (ie, miniature h-bombs), there are some things that either contradict or else put limitations on how these devices were deployed.

The problems I see:

  • Sections of WTC1 and WTC2 remained standing after the perimeter collapses.
  • Much more of WTC2's core appeared to continue standing after its perimeter collapse.
  • The lowermost portion of WTC1's core structure ,or at least part of it, remained standing even after the collapses were complete.

I notice from other events for which small h-bombs or other such exothermic devices have been suggested with at least some supporting evidence (Jakarta Bombing, Bali Bombing, some Iraqi bombings, OKC, WTC '93), that these devices really don't do that much damage.

We see the utterly decimated concrete (allegedly at the '93 bombing there were POOLS of MOLTEN concrete -- imagine that!), extreme heat in general, over a large area, but other than that, and damage to the area immediately around the explosive, they don't do that much extended damage to most materials. Only heat-related damages, and damages to nearby electrical equipment.

I'm thinking that the overpressures, or whatever it is that so decimates the concrete, is carried at a certain magnitude for quite a distance, whereas it takes significantly more energy to so destroy steel. For steel, the great amounts of heat would have been where the damage was primarily coming from. Also for paper, we saw much intact paper, perfectly fine paper, despite all the concrete destruction allegedly from pancaking.

A reasonable study of the core structures that remained standing will, in my opinion at least, reveal that the cores had quite a bit of concrete around them. More than just the floor slabs, I dare say, and I've entertained this for a while.







The fact that h-bombs and other such devices turn solid concrete into masses of insanely small particles (and what exactly causes this? extended overpressures of a certain magnitude, I'm guessing?) could be very helpful in such a circumstance, if you get where I'm going with this.

The cores appear to have been dropped vertically after this rape of the core concrete, in both Towers.

Small h-bombs would have primarily only been used (or so I'm thinking) to quickly remove concrete from the core structure. Then more conventional cutter charges could be used here and there only so much as to drop what remained of the cores straight down, as with the spire.

Another thing that puzzles me is WTC1's remaining core. It was a relatively small block of core around the middle, which suggests to me that there were indeed devices placed only at the four corners of the core structure in the basements, or that these were shaped and detonated above-ground. Shaped devices, I know they were researching, but I'm not so sure about.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
great post bsbray, that last image i have never seen before!



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Small h-bombs would have primarily only been used (or so I'm thinking) to quickly remove concrete from the core structure. Then more conventional cutter charges could be used here and there only so much as to drop what remained of the cores straight down, as with the spire.


Actually, I may be really jumping the gun here. All that dust you're seeing coming from WTC1's spire before it fell may actually be vaporizing steel, rather than concrete dust. Ablating steel actually seems as though it would fit better with the image, as there is concrete dust around and it isn't coming off in streams of "smoke" but is rather floating around like light clouds.

If an h-bomb could continue vaporizing steel at this rate some 15-20 seconds or so after detonation, then I doubt conventional cutter charges would even be needed to make the remaining structure fail and collapse straight down upon itself eventually. But at the same time, again, the lowermost section (or at least part of it, lol) was still standing.

A good bit of more research is needed, I guess.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Being not an armchair physicist, I have been looking into other aspects of this. It seems the project to develop a pure fusion nuke began in 1952, and consisted of millions of dollars of R&D.

The project abruptly ended in 1992 citing failure, however less than a year later we have the '93 WTC attacks. That's a long time of consistant research folks, and a suspicious ending date. I think it's entirely possible that the development succeeded in '92, and understandably became top secret.

www.fas.org...

As for your backpack nuke bsbray, I beleive this is the one.

en.wikipedia.org...

So much for all the naysayers that cannot even imagine a demolition based nuke


From the above link, "300 SADMs were assembled and remained in the US arsenal until 1989." Out goes the old, in with the new..

[edit on 20/10/06 by SteveR]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
It's complete gobbledygook.

Nobody has demonstrated any thermonuclear ignition of substantial magnitude without a fission weapon primary. Certainly nothing remotely weaponized or weaponizable.

Consider the difficulties and expense of the National Ignition Facility, which may make a few megajoules of fusion energy per shot (about equivalent to energy in a doughnut), using supremely expensive equipment instrumenting a very difficult problem. So, right now the best shot at igniting frozen deuterium and tritium is a $10 billion facility which might make a few firercrackers worth of neutrons. And they hid two of them inside the world trade center towers?

The PDF file about generations of nuclear explosives is generally accurate with the first few generations but mostly ignores the central problem with thermonuclear ignition: fluid instabilities.

It is very slick---with real physics through most of it---but somewhere in the middle the "and here a miracle occurs....." part is elided and the existence of mythical "fourth generation nuclear weapons" is assumed.

Sort of like going from Wright Brothers, to the F-22 and then Starfleet's NCC-1701 and skipping over that wee little, "ok so how do we make warp drive" step.

All the hypothetical "fourth generation nuclear weapons" have ginormous unsolved problems with fundamental physics. It is simply science fiction (and they even
mention a science fiction book in the text as if it justified anything).

There is no way that substantial fusion in a chain reaction (necessary for weapons) can be ignited with compression with conventional explosives. Los Alamos National Laboratory has extensive experience over 6 decades with both nuclear materials and conventional explosives: they do modeling and experiments for missiles & conventional weapons, of course, as well as fission weapon ignition. There is no facility for testing thermonuclear ignition with explosives, because it doesn't work. They figured this out in the 1940's. They'd love one, but it isn't possible---why else build the NIF with expensive lasers etc?

There are orders of magnitude physical problems, but the central one is that of fluid instability and the difficulty of getting an even compression of the fusion fuel. The densities necessary to compress to get fusion ignition are so extreme (close to Fermi degeneracy, perhaps) that if you don't squeeze exactly perfectly it will squirt out the other end. Take, for example, a raquetball or a baseball. Now squash it to the size of a raindrop, perfectly symmetrical. Even if you squash really really hard the difficulty is breaking it and having it spew all over.

That is the principal reason behind the Teller-Ulam/Sakharov-Zeldovich (presumably) design. It is the immense X-ray flux from the fission primary which equilibrates as a photon gas in the hohlraum---a "fluid" with equilibration at the speed of LIGHT, and not the speed of SOUND (as in conventional explosive pressure wave) which promotes even and forceful implosion. Even then, the difficulty and much of the theoretical and experimental modeling comes in the coupling between the x-rays, the ablator and the compression of the fuel.

The absence of any test facility or any result ever reported showing nuclear ignition or anything remotely close with conventional explosives is an evidence that these fusion-only micronukes are fabrications of the mind. If if were possible, they'd have one since the 1950's and it would be obvious. Yes even classified projects are associated with unclassified basic research.

The PDF states it thus: "It is thus out of question to directly use chemical explosives to compress a small pellet of thermonuclear fuel and expect a reasonable efficiency: this requires at least a powerful laser such as NIF or LMJ, or else a novel technology such as magnetic compression [15, 16, 17], nuclear isomers, or antimatter."

But all the other proposals for micronukes are even more physically preposterous.

There have been no successful chain reactions from nuclear isomers; the most famous and controversial recent one (metastable Hafnium as an x-ray amplifier) turned out to be wrong. In more rigorous experimentation the initial claims were fully unsupported, and a JASON advisory panel came down firmly against this notion as being feasible.

Storing gram quantities of antimatter in a little box is even more ridiculous. The notion that such gram quantities have been produced for military means is extremely unlikely---as very few places can make such antimatter, i.e. enormous particle accelerators, and there aren't many of them, and they are always monitored by lots of people. Usually as far as I know they are in a large ring, and speed around at nearly the speed of light. Why?

What would be the electric repulsive self-energy of a *gram* of positrons, as is proposed for a weapon? It would be tremendous, and positrons are light. They would fly out from one another extremely fast, and 'blow up' as soon as you tried to force them into your containment chamber for your hypothetical nuclear grenade. That's why they're usually at high speeds (relativistic time dialation) in orbits in a particle accelerator, and even then there are beam instabilities.

The reality is that the WTC buildings and the Pentagon were destroyed by collisions with large aircraft. All physical and eyewitness and logical evidence is more consistent with this, than any other hypothesis by many, many, orders of magnitude. Let's remember there were many immediate eyewitnesses who explicitly saw a plane crash into the Pentagon. Here on ATS there is a comprehensive report (once linked by the front page) with evidence, which is conclusive.

Yes, I am a professional physicist, but not involved in nuclear weaponry or particle physics.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
Nobody has demonstrated any thermonuclear ignition of substantial magnitude without a fission weapon primary. Certainly nothing remotely weaponized or weaponizable.


Which is why we're all working under the hypothetical assumption that these devices exist, thus accounting for many issues with the collapses unresolved by anything else, be it falling steel and concrete, high explosives, or thermite reactions.

Unless you're going to prove a negative, or else exactly what achievements military organizations have made under so much classification, then there's not much you can add here.


The reality is that the WTC buildings and the Pentagon were destroyed by collisions with large aircraft.


Care to prove it?

This entails showing us enough pre-collapse failure to justify any initiation with column safety factors taken into account, primarily. We are told initiations were from column buckling and yet we are also told the perimeter columns had FoS ratings of 5 and nowhere near 4/5 of the columns or anything equivalent were compromised.

Also, beyond that, no one has even attempted to explain the global collapses or their mechanisms in detail, and there are many unresolved issues there, too, obviously.

Good to hear from you though.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
The answer is that nobody has experimentally attempted to do (for obvious reasons) what happened on 9/11/01.

Static analysis of safety factors---ok on their own---don't account for situations where all hell brakes loose and many supporting elements are removed and in an extreme thermal environment.

If your guidelines do not account for experimental observations then there is a problem with the theory. The inability to do a detailed fluid mechanical explanation of X in perfect quantitative detail (because of a lack of lknoweldge) doesn't mean that instead it was done by Martians using a magic blow-up beam (oops, sorry "scalar weapon").

All the 'alternative' physical explanations are far far far less feasible.

There are fundamental logical problems with the conspiracy theories as well, as in "none of them make sense".

Like, if the They are going to blow up the WTC, why bother with planes?



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
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.

This is more baloney. Thousands saw planes with their eyes. No TV, no conspiracy, no holograms, no Men in Black, just terrorist death.

My sister saw the plane in DC. My wife saw the plane in NYC.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I don't know about you guys, but I prefer to keep conventional explosives that took down the twins towers is more realistic conspiracy than the nukes in the underground garage or whatever.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Thread-killer, may you attempt to explain the intense and costly research from 52-92 on developing a pure fusion weapon?

I don't think they invest in goobledygook. Not for that long.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
Static analysis of safety factors---ok on their own---don't account for situations where all hell brakes loose and many supporting elements are removed and in an extreme thermal environment.


"Many" in this case is less than 15%. And the "extreme thermal environment" is hydrocarbon fires spread around a few different floors.

A quick study of a strength curve chart for heated steel, and maybe some studies of hydrocarbon fires on steel (NIST/British Steel, Cardington test), will show that steel reaches its peak in a hydrocarbon fire around 600 - 650 C, or about half its strength at room temperature, when engulfed in steady flame of many kwh of heat from being buried in hydrocarbons. NIST studies on the WTC assume these massive amounts of material covering all of the steel, when in reality there should not have been but a fraction of this much fuel.

Also, 15% is obviously not much when taking much of any FoS into account.


If your guidelines do not account for experimental observations then there is a problem with the theory. The inability to do a detailed fluid mechanical explanation of X in perfect quantitative detail (because of a lack of lknoweldge) doesn't mean that instead it was done by Martians using a magic blow-up beam (oops, sorry "scalar weapon").


Even anecdotal looks at the collapses will reveal flaws. Only by creating theoretical models that involve all of the mass falling straight down and not transferring momentum, for example, do the theories such as pancake collapse theories work. In fact, NIST, the primary investigative body here, does not even endorse this theory anymore, so really you don't even have a global collapse theory to fall back upon, even without testing.


All the 'alternative' physical explanations are far far far less feasible.

There are fundamental logical problems with the conspiracy theories as well, as in "none of them make sense".

Like, if the They are going to blow up the WTC, why bother with planes?


I'm assuming you understand that we hold 9/11 to have been a psy-op. It was meant to have a pronounced psychological effect. Ok?

Randomly blowing them up would expose them only to the residents of Manhattan. That creates quite a problem with how effective these attacks would have been unless your goal is to only show people what they looked like after they fell, which would have been much less exciting. Also, planting bombs would raise many questions as to the security of these buildings, and how it was pulled off so easily with no one noticing anything.

Flying planes into them first attracts plenty of media attention. It builds tension as well. It also acts to explain the collapses after they're blown with tremendous amounts of energy and all anyone can do is stare open-jawed and cry. Again, no one needs to explain how the charges were placed, or what kind of charges there were, or how they got in past security, which is all suggestive of an inside job. And yet the explosive destructions of each building drives the day home for every American with a TV set.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Thread-killer, may you attempt to explain the intense and costly research from 52-92 on developing a pure fusion weapon?

I don't think they invest in goobledygook. Not for that long.

Sure they do, in a Cold War, when there is great desire for miniaturization and "keeping up with the Soviets". But it got nowhere, thankfully, because the laws of physics appear to prohibit it.

And besides, what is the "cost" other than a few nuts in X division and T division?

Where is the evidence of the 'intense' and 'costly' research? Infrastructure, teams, large projects, experiments, etc?

The cost? A few white papers spewing science-fiction stuff to generals to shake down some more dollars for basic research they wanted to do anyway.

Of course, they would explore any remotely feasible avenue, but there aren't any it appears.

All sorts of NIH grants about basic genetics and biochemistry hold out some dream of maybe curing cancer one day, but of course it is very far off from the specific projects. Same thing if you promise a 'pure fusion' weapon one day, except with less rigorous scientific oversight.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I don't buy the notion at all that explosives wouldn't be sufficiently terrifying as a psy-op.

And if you have a carefully planted explosive plan the last thing you want to is to risk technical disruption with crashing aircraft!

If it had been some "grand conspiracy" operation, they would have been demolished with bombs (a la 1st trade center bombing---or was that a Clinton psyop as well?) and been blamed on Saddam Hussein's secret service. They would have invaded Iraq the next month, which is what they wanted to do. Clean and effective.

And if a grand conspiracy insider psyop why bomb the Pentagon, instead of Disneyland or something?

Going to war with Iraq was the real "conspiracy", which now of course is blown open with lots of evidence.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
If it had been some "grand conspiracy" operation, they would have been demolished with bombs [...] and blamed on Saddam Hussein's secret service. They would have invaded Iraq the next month, which is what they wanted to do. Clean and effective.


I think the point is having an unpredictable and frightening foe that you can never catch, one that cannot be "invaded" or wiped out, even after 5 years. A great scapegoat, a great driver for new security policy.

Let's discuss the h-bomb hypothesis, there are plenty of other more relevant threads for general 911 discussion.

[edit on 20/10/06 by SteveR]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   


And here is a view of lower Manhatten. It takes enormous amounts of energy to make clouds like that


I'd thought I would add that I live in Seattle and worked in downtown at the time they imploded the Kingdome. My office was approx 6 blocks from the Kingdome. We watched the implosion (a friend of mine filmed it) and then we left the 12 story historic office building I worked in. As we walked north thru downtown Seattle (away from implosion site) I turned and watched as dust clouds began to fill up downtown blocks making visibility difficult. The dust cloud seemed to seep inbetween skyscrapers and was easily has high as the tallest structures.

I'm sure the collapse of 2 110-story towers would generate clouds/dust of much greater magnitude than the Kingdome did. In short, I'm not surprised by the size of the cloud.

PS- I think this discussion has been very good... interesting... although it has taken me a while to read even 60% of it



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

My sister saw the plane in DC. My wife saw the plane in NYC.


Dear mbkennel:

Welcome to this thread. I really mean that. Thank you for contributing detailed yet easy-to-read insights. Your quality input is sure to stimulate interesting discussions. Yes, it appears your views are diametrically different from mine — I can’t speak for the other ATS members. But that’s to be expected. It’s a lonely world out there for 9-11 truthseekers.

Anyways, you did mention your sister saw the plane at the pentagon. That in itself is SENSATIONAL. I have never come across a credible report of a plane sighting anywhere. This could be a major breakthrough. She probably doesn’t want to join ATS to share what she saw — but perhaps you can relate to us her recollection of that event.

I have a brother who lives in New York just a few blocks from the WTC. He insists he saw a plane also — actually he yells and screams at me when he talks about it. He however didn’t really witness the plane flying into the building. He caught a glimpse while it was roaring overhead. If I try to probe any further he flips out and emphatically claims he has “friends” who directly observed the planes smash into the WTC’s. He has not yet introduced me to anyone specifically.

If you could communicate here on ATS what your wife experienced it would be incredibly helpful. It could bring resolve and closure to many nagging questions.
Those of us who weren’t in NYC on 9-11 — we’re desperate to hear first-hand information. Thus far, we’ve been forced to speculate what happened — i.e. we’re “guessing”.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 10/20/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
here are some writings about nuclear devices with extremely low yields, measured in tons rather than kilotons. Check out table ES1:

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Why ban or impose rules formally about something that isn't physically possible?

book.nc.chalmers.se...

The second PDF (Principles of Nuclear Power) states nuclear fisson weapons have been developed ranging from 0.001kt to 500kt yield.

If you use the HYDESim tool below and set the KT to 0.001 you will see that it fits inside the WTC area perfectly, which is far from leveling the entire city as some of these ATSers would have us believe.

meyerweb.com...

0.001kt device:

Overpressure Distances
15 psi: 0.02 miles
5 psi: 0.03 miles
2 psi: 0.05 miles
1 psi: 0.07 miles
0.25 psi: 0.19 miles (0.25 psi Most glass surfaces, such as windows, will shatter within this ring, some with enough force to cause injury. )

0.1 psi: 0.38 miles

WTC area is about 0.25 miles

Whats more why make a tool that supports 0.001kt devices?



Another point in that pdf is critical mass only need be a few grams of fission material.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scramjet76

And here is a view of lower Manhatten. It takes enormous amounts of energy to make clouds like that


[...]

I'm sure the collapse of 2 110-story towers would generate clouds/dust of much greater magnitude than the Kingdome did.


I've seen a good many conventional demolitions that produce that cloud, too. What was unique about the Tower collapses was the heat that accompanied those clouds in certain places. Scorched cars, flipped cars, set them on fire, of course, and blew out building windows and all number of related things. The speed of some of their expansions was remarkable as well, such as the dust clouds out across the water as if a little volcano had just erupted. Just my two cents on that.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join