It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Secret Nuclear Reactor Under WTC?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
According to some online sources, they claim a clandestine Nuclear Reactor was either operational or in existance deep below the sub basement levels of the towers.

They claim evidence of this can be deducted because apparently (according to them), the centrifugual water cooling systems were well over double the amount needed to cool the entire building.

They claim that ONLY a nuclear TYPE explosion could have created the high-frequency seismic waves that day.

IF a nuclear reactor was intentionally "blown", would this create EMP?

The 2000+ TON roof of Chernobyl was completely blown off, so it is readily apparent that there could be sufficient explosive force from such an event.

Strangest of all, the spikes in Barium and Strontium in the WTC debris.

Link:

reopen911.org...



[edit on 18-11-2006 by __rich__]




posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   
now i have heard some really wacky stories but all were based upon some sort of factual evidence;

i.e anti-matter bomb -- there is a possibility, a low possibility but never-the-less possible.

but come on, a nuke reactor, under manhatten?

Ok, dispensing this one immediately, the exposive force would have created a hole through the foundations and into the reactor itself. Thus the excavations after the effect would have uncovered the hole.
Also the debris would have sunk into the ground, not to mention the entire wtc complex would have collapsed into the hole.

Use of a clean nuclear bomb has a greater possibility that anti-matter bomb and has a greater possibility than just the 'pancake collapse' but an actual reactor underground...

ok, another angle... a reactor under the wtc complex.. fine...

whos paying the bill?
whos charging for the service?

seriously, nothing is dont without a paycheck these days.

sorry, someone is yanking your chain, pulling your leg, taking the piss.

[edit on 18-11-2006 by debate]



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 04:28 AM
link   
The use of a nuclear bomb or an explosive force that has enough energy to account for the heat required to produce molten steel (yes the collapse alone could have produced this heat energy) but there also remains a massive energy sink with regards to all the contents of the building being 'pulverised'

81% of both buildings were reduced to sub 300 micron particles.

55% of that 81% were less than 3 micron in size.

The epa states;

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

The energy required to pulverise all that material including concrete to sub 3 micron particle size is massive and a conservative 6 million kwh are required.

TNT and thermite cannot do this alone... there was another energy source present.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Still doesn't explain why the towers collapsed from the top down



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 04:44 AM
link   
good point, we can clearly see the tower mast fall before the floors do.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 05:16 AM
link   
I have no idea.

Just passing this info I found along.

The author also claims that the 1993 bombing was strategically placed to take out this immense "cooling system", to attempt to create a meltdown situation. Obviously this failed, because the author speculates backup cooling systems must have been in place.

The author goes on to offer evidence of a "deep underground" explosion by noting that in the 1993 explosion, there were very little seismic waves created by the explosion, due to poor Earth crust "coupling'.

The high frequency seismic waves detected on 9/11 appeared to be "coupled" very well to the ground, indicating a deep, and massive explosion.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   
I think something like this is more probable..

www.rainews24.rai.it...

Still, NOTHING would surprise me anymore.




posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
"They claim evidence of this can be deducted because apparently (according to them), the centrifugual water cooling systems were well over double the amount needed to cool the entire building."

Ok, I have heard it all now. your kidding? A centerifugal water cooling system, (better known as a chiller) is designed to send chilled water to Air Conditioners. I don't care how LARGE the chiller is. The point is that a centrifugual chiller is not designed to cool a nuclear reactor core!!

The coolant which passes through the nuclear reactors is used to transport the reactor heat either to a boiler where steam is raised to run a conventional turbine or it is used as a thermodynamic heat engine fluid and passes directly into the turbine and back to the reactor. Pressurized water, organic liquids, sodium, and most gas cooled nuclear power plants employ an intermediate steam boiler. Boiling water and some gas cool reactors use the coolant directly in the turbine.
Regardless of the method used, coolants should ideally have the following properties:

Low melting point.
High boiling point.
Non-corrosive properties.
Low neutron absorption cross section.
High moderating ratio.(for thermal reactors)
Radiation stability.
Thermal stability.
Low induced radioactivity.
No reaction with turbine working fluid.
High heat transport and transfer coefficient.
Low pumping power.
No single coolant has all of these properties, and as a result a number of different coolants have been used in nuclear reactors. Each coolant with its own particular advantages for certain type of reactors. Among these coolants are light and heavy water (both pressurized and boiling), organic liquids, sodium, sodium potassium mixtures, fused salts, and a number of gases - air, carbon dioxide, helium, nitrogen, hydrogen and steam.

A chiller does NONE of this. A chiller is pretty much a giant refrigerator instead of putting out cold air, all it does is pump out chilled water. (the temperature is usually around 40 degrees F. ) I highly doubt 40 degree water would be able to even START to cool a nuclear reactor.

Your right on one thing though...nothing surprises me anymore either.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Still doesn't explain why the towers collapsed from the top down


Dear Essan:

The towers collapsed from the top down because “directional” hydrogen bombs were used. The energy was projected forward in the shape of a flashlight beam. Essentially these were the same type of devices used in the latest version of our bunker buster bombs. In principle these were “upside-down” underground explosions. Being that these buildings were made primarily of concrete, gypsum, glass, aluminum and steel — the same substances found commonly in the earth’s crust. And yes, there was EMP. E. g. the two-way radios stopped working.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox


Ok, I have heard it all now. your kidding? A centerifugal water cooling system, (better known as a chiller) is designed to send chilled water to Air Conditioners. I don't care how LARGE the chiller is. The point is that a centrifugual chiller is not designed to cool a nuclear reactor core!!


A chiller does NONE of this. A chiller is pretty much a giant refrigerator instead of putting out cold air, all it does is pump out chilled water. (the temperature is usually around 40 degrees F. ) I highly doubt 40 degree water would be able to even START to cool a nuclear reactor.

Your right on one thing though...nothing surprises me anymore either.


I am kidding? Did I not say "ACCORDING TO THEM"?

Also, you are trying to tell everyone here that an industrial water cooling system could NOT be somehow modified for use in a nuclear reactor?

That simply seems illogical.

A nuclear submarine, I would expect, with my very limited knowlegde, would not require that much coolant to operate. YET, even a small reactor such as this, could obviously have major explosive results if used "improperly".

Or, am I way off on this??




posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
According to some online sources, they claim a clandestine Nuclear Reactor was either operational or in existance deep below the sub basement levels of the towers.

The 2000+ TON roof of Chernobyl was completely blown off, so it is readily apparent that there could be sufficient explosive force from such an event.

Strangest of all, the spikes in Barium and Strontium in the WTC debris.



Dear __rich__:

Nuclear reactors don’t blow up the way nuclear bombs do. They’re designed to do just the opposite — not to explode. And if things do go wrong, like in Chernobyl, then you get a proverbial “meltdown”— and a really large release of radioactive substances. But not a “mushroom cloud”, i.e. there was no “nuclear explosion” at Chernobyl.

Because there were idiots at the helm, the reactor overheated. The cooling graphite caught fire, hydrogen gas ignited (as a chemical fire and not fusion of course) and this conventional explosion blew the metal containers containing the nuclear fuel apart spewing massive clouds of radioactive matter into the sky. This is somewhat redundant here but just for the record each WTC tower had a mass of approximately 500,000 tons which dwarfs the 2,000 ton reactor roof you mentioned.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
"A nuclear submarine, I would expect, with my very limited knowlegde, would not require that much coolant to operate. YET, even a small reactor such as this, could obviously have major explosive results if used "improperly".

Or, am I way off on this?? "

Not to be rude...but THEY are way off. Like you said...you are only reporting what you read. There is NO way this could happen. Think of what the radiation levels would be around ground zero.... and for how long?! Please read my post in regards to what is needed to cool a reactor. Not just 40 degree water.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
Also, you are trying to tell everyone here that an industrial water cooling system could NOT be somehow modified for use in a nuclear reactor?

That simply seems illogical.


What seems illogical to me is going to the effort of modifying an industrial cooling system to use in a nuclear reactor when you could just get a nuclear cooling system....



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I have heard this claim about the secret nuclear reactors under manhattan, apparently developed a long time ago during the manhattan project as some kind of test facility. Still I have only found one reference to this here:

reopen911.org...

A google search seems to reveal nothing (unsurprisingly) and there is much information missing as this is a sample PDF. I haven't found any other information concerning this scenario yet. Personally I think its pretty far fetched and gave up thinking about it, but I would like to hear more on this subject as it may reveal something new to consider that we had not previously realised. Perhaps the producers of the PDF were able to mold the current nuclear bomb theories evidence and observations to this new claim, but why bother? Perhaps it makes for a nice fictional story pseudo documentary that people might buy, or perhaps there is really something to this. There does seem to be some historical co-incidences they can use to back up these claims.

However, I have found a bunch of articles and discussions about the possibility and practicality of underground nuclear reactors and they appear to be feasible, they have their pros and cons but its not unrealistic to consider creating an underground facility.

What the PDF does show us from a far even if it is false is yet another group of individuals that believe there was a presence of something unexplainable happening which correlated to the usage of some sort of nuclear device.

p.s interesting find on that second post with the video link, possibly more relevant than the first. if this is true it goes on to back up some of the other wtc nuke arguements and the reality/capabilities of these devices.

[edit on 19-11-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
It does seem strange though. The manhatten project builds a nuclear reactor for Manhatten? and if there is thsi reactor what is it hooked up to? Wouldn't some one involved with it be worried during the attacks and notify someone. Great fiction, not to realistic.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Fetzer is aware of a massive energy source being present in the towers.

The bathtub is virtually intact. Underground nuke facility -- not a chance.

Fetzer video 16 mins



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
The full "nuclear demolition" report is now available for free:

www.nucleardemolition.com...

IMHO, a load of BS. Mini-nukes are much more likely.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
They were also going to make the new giants stadium underground there also.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
The full "nuclear demolition" theory paper is now available for free. Its like 178 pages:

www.nucleardemolition.com...

IMHO no chance there was a reactor there. Now a micro-nuke on the other hand. . .



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Does anyone here remember that on a usual business day 35,000 people where in the building. On a hot day thats 35,000X 550 btu's per hour of heat to cool down in that building just for the people. The machinery and electronics there are another 12 million btu's of heat to cool. Any one who worked there or visited there knows that the cooling system (chillers) that was built in the 60's was inadequate. Some offices ran portable airconditioners because of the heat build up of the computer systems needed for the bizness. NO NUCLEAR REACTOR WAS AT THE TWIN TOWERS. THIS SUPOSITION IS LUDICROUS AT BEST AND MORONIC AT LEAST!!!

Zindo



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join