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.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
Actually,
Micronukes would require conventional explosives to detonate.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Anyways, back to your question/statement, if there have been any explosive devices that detonated, strong enough to cause any weakening in the structures, before the crash of the planes, the seismic signatures of those explosions would have been picked up by all, or at least some of the many seismic stations which captured what happened that day.
Yet the only P wave seen is the one produced by the plane crashes, the rest of the wave signatures seen in the seismic readings are mostly S waves, with some love waves, and even some raleigh waves, but there are no other P waves present that i have seen.
[edit on 27-11-2006 by Muaddib]
Originally posted by rich23
According to the recent posts I've read on this forum, the more recent technology uses high energy lasers to kick off a thermonuclear reaction. What you're referring to is old, old technology.
I'm not sure about the nukes in the basement theory myself, but DoctorFungi, if you're going to "refute" or "debunk" arguments, please try to keep up with the discourse rather than knock down straw men.
It is shown that energy from a powerful laser or relativistic electron beam can be cumulated within a hydrogen-filled cavity and which subsequently explodes. If this hydrogen-filled cavity is placed inside a second egg-shaped cavity, the explosion shock wave can be transformed into an implosion wave by the shock reflection from the curved wall of the egg-shaped cavity. The method may permit the ignition of thermonuclear microexplosions with relatively long laser or electron beam pulses of high efficiency. The method also promises a better coupling of the beam energy to the target than in the ablation-driven implosion scheme to laser or electron beam fusion.
Already 35 years ago, for example, I had shown that the ignition of a thermonuclear microexplosion should be possible by the bombardment of a small, solid deuterium-tritium target with an intense relativistic electron beam of 100 MA current at 10 MV voltage drawn from a large Marx generator
Any one with a small bit of intelligence can see that all those buildings (WT7 included) did not collapse... they were disintegrated - pulverized. Everything and everyone
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Any one with a small bit of intelligence can see that all those buildings (WT7 included) did not collapse... they were disintegrated - pulverized. Everything and everyone
Sorry Aob..but too many pictures exist of the aftermath to disprove the "disintegrated-pulverized" viewpoint.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
Actually,
Micronukes would require conventional explosives to detonate. I think you are underestimating the smell power of a K9 if you think they would need to be extremley close to pick anything up.
[edit on 28/11/2006 by doctorfungi]
doctorfungi
There's not even much evidence that Micro-Nukes can exist.
Please give us some links then. You keep stating this, and I've asked for pictures of the site before but no one has posted any
Originally posted by Insolubrious
Convential explosives are required to detonate a micronuke?
This device requires no convential explosive to detonate except for a small amount which is already built into the chamber to push the bullet.
Also, I didn't say extremely close, i said close proximity.
I find you comment somewhat amusing.
Here is a picture of something that cannot exist:
Picture taken in 1997, the device was made some time before that.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
See that "High Explosives"... that's EXACTLY what I am talking about. Most likely C4 the high explosive is conventional and easily sniffed out by bomb dogs. Especially if they were in the basements and all over the buildings as claimed.
Also, I didn't say extremely close, i said close proximity.
The dogs patrolled the floors. Close enough.
Well seeing as we are on the topic of amusing comments let's look into suitcase bombs for a second.
Suitcase bombs typically have yields of 1 kiloton. The Oklahoma city bombing had the explosive force of 0.002 kilotons and you saw the damage that did.
If suitcase bombs were used at the towers, the whole city block would vanish in an instant, radiation would be present and hundreds of thousands would have died.
The technology to develop mini-nukes that went totally undetected on 9/11 is redundant and hasn't been developed. Why use a micro nuke so small that it would be more practical to use TNT?
Using nukes that small would be like using a liquid nitrogen chamber to cool your beer. Sure, it gets the job done... but it's completley impractical, costs more and in the end achieves the same goal.
HYDESim:
meyerweb.com...
0.001kt nuke:
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
0.1 psi: 0.38 miles
15 psi Complete destruction of reinforced concrete structures, such as skyscrapers, will occur within this ring. Between 7 psi and 15 psi, there will be severe to total damage to these types of structures.
5 psi Complete destruction of ordinary houses, and moderate to severe damage to reinforced concrete structures, will occur within this ring.
2 psi Severe damage to ordinary houses, and light to moderate damage to reinforced concrete structures, will occur within this ring.
1 psi Light damage to all structures, and light to moderate damage to ordinary houses, will occur within this ring.
0.25 psi Most glass surfaces, such as windows, will shatter within this ring, some with enough force to cause injury.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Any one with a small bit of intelligence can see that all those buildings (WT7 included) did not collapse... they were disintegrated - pulverized. Everything and everyone
Sorry Aob..but too many pictures exist of the aftermath to disprove the "disintegrated-pulverized" viewpoint.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
if you used ANY kind of nuclear explosions it would have been much different that day
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Dr. Fungi...ask the experts why the EMP from the weapons they believe were used that day didnt affect any of the video cameras present?
BTW, for the rest of you, dont bring up that cell phones stopped working for a bit....the frigging repeaters for most of the cell networks were on the Towers....
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, but the rest of the thread DOES. And since you seemed to be claiming that none of the office furnishings remained, I was trying to reason out just what you were trying to say.
Originally posted by DrLeary
I don't think you should rely too much on these seismic readings, as demolition charges really aren't big enough to register on the seismograph. The '93 (was it?) WTC bombing didn't register on the seismograph either, and that was quite large. Remember, these instruments are made to register movement in the earth caused by the continental drift. Those are some seriously huge frikkin' forces!
As for no sound... There's a LOT of noise as the buildings come crashing down. Do you seriously think you could distinguish between those sounds and the sounds of demo. charges going off at the same time? As pointed out, controled demolishion isn't that loud. We're talking lots of small charges, not one big one....