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.

 

Let's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!

page: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 04:49 AM
link   
It hurts to read this thread - come on people...

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.

Forget those who are saying the same things over and over and over again - fire melted the beams etc. It's so ridiculous. Look back on our history and see the truth. Look now and to the future - with horror. Don't comment but be glad that those bombs aren't falling on your heads.

You proud of that - sick, sick, sick.

Thankfully, there are those who can see through the lies, the deception and the BS.




posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Actually,

Micronukes would require conventional explosives to detonate.


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.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   

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]


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....



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 05:46 AM
link   

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.


There's not even much evidence that Micro-Nukes can exist.

In principle any amount of plutonium can be a critical mass if it is sufficiently compressed.

Similarly, there is no lower bound on the amount of fusion fuel that will fuse if it's heated enough.

The key phrases of course being "sufficiently compressed" and "heated enough".

There's a lot of hand-waving goes on about lasers, but the idea that such devices would be practicable, much less man-portable is far-fetched to say the least.



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.


Lol, mate he was replying to my post so I replied to his. I fail to see anything wrong with that.

I did refute the sniffer-dog argument, and I was presented with mini-nukes. Not my fault.



[edit on 28/11/2006 by doctorfungi]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Thermonuclear reaction does imply that it's hydrogen fusion rather than heavy element fission that's going on. For the mini-nuke theory to be consistent with the facts, it would have to involve a fusion device.

There seems to be quite a lot of data on the possibility of detonating a thermonuclear reaction with lasers:

Here's one source

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.


The debate on whether they exist or not is really about whether the latest advances in the technology have been made public. For reasons to do with (among other things) the legality of their development, I would suggest that actual development is ahead of what the public knows.

Here's an interesting article that suggests the theory behind this technology has been in plain view for at least 35 years:


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


Admittedly the author is talking primarily about using these "microexplosions" to generate power rather than for military uses, but to imagine that such uses have not been envisaged and planned for is frankly naive. There are other references, but I can't seem to get to the most interesting ones without paying for it, and, sorry, I'm not THAT desperate to prove these things exist.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   


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.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   

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.


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. If we could see the site right after the smoke had blown away it might clear up some of these confusions as to how big exactly these pieces were...



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

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]


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.


doctorfungi

There's not even much evidence that Micro-Nukes can exist.


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.

Here are some more:

images.google.co.uk...



[edit on 28-11-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   


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


See the other thread



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   

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.


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.



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.


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.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   

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.


I never actually stated it was a suitcase nuke though, I said micro nuke. Also I didn't suggest the yield. I was mearly trying to offer some insight that such devices exist and can be made this small and portable by a single man. It is rumored they can be even smaller than this and without any HE trigger. Have you heard of red mercury?

en.wikipedia.org...

Why use mini-nukes, less practical? On the contrary it would actually be much more practical than using TNT if used correctly, simply because it would require much less time and manpower to set up, also much easier to plant without being noticed.

Remember this is a huge dense building with a massive steel core! The structure would go along way to dampening the explosive energy, much like the nevada underground test sites. If you bury it the effect is heavily dampened. If it were detonated outside the building then the effects would of been way more dramatic obviously since there would be no resistance or massive amounts of steel and concrete to absorb the effects.

Who said it was 1kt? If it were 0.001kt the effect would barely cover the WTC area

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.


The WTC area was approx. 0.25 miles so anything outside this area would only experience only 0.25 psi.

I expect the yield would be higher seeing how the WTC would go along way to absorb these affects.






[edit on 28-11-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

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.


Swamp - get informed!

Here's a quote from the company that cleaned it up.

Tully Construction

Quickly Tully began to bring in the big equipment necessary to move the massive steel structures and huge amounts of pulverized concrete that hampered the search and rescue operations. So destructive was the collapse that no one even found a file cabinet or desk or computer that was in the Trade Center buildings before the attack.

And you can listen to and watch it here.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
You dont even realize the folly of what you just said do you?

NOW we are going to claim that all the office furniture and computers were removed from the buildings? Because that is the ONLY way that your last post would even begin to make sense. Unless you are going to claim that the "nuke" vaporized all the office furniture and yet none of the rest of the buildings were.........

People, think it through.....if you used ANY kind of nuclear explosions it would have been much different that day



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
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....



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Swamp - If you're referring to my post or any of my posts... I don't mention nukes nor do I think that any were involved.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
if you used ANY kind of nuclear explosions it would have been much different that day


If a nuke device was not used then there would not be micron scaled particles flying about. Its really the only explosive device known that can achieve molecular disassociation unfortunately.

How can a pancaking building destroy and melt cars?

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...


[edit on 28-11-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

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....


EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC.




posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

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.


This "claim" is supported by the firemen that did the cleanup. There was nothing left! And no, I don't believe nukes we're involved. So we're left with conventional explosives of some sort. I think we can all agree that if the towers had simply collapsed under their own weight there would have been a lot more furniture etc. left intact. Maybe squashed, but not pulverized. If those clouds blowing out from the towers as they fell were just due to overpressure then they would have carried some of the lighter office furniture with them and throwing it onto the streets below. But there is nothing to be seen....



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

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....


The crash of the planes were recorded in the seismic readings yet some people want to claim the planes didn't do much damage to the towers. BTW, people in here are tlaking about explosions efore the collapse of the buildings or even the plane crashes.
I will have to get back to you on this later as I have to go to work now.



new topics




 
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join