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.

 

David Shaw's 24 Reasons for Fusion

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Heard of Theodore B. Taylor? Probably not. Senior nuclear physicist and bomb designer at Los Alamos. Died in 2004. His pre-9/11 science books talked alot about nuclear demolition and potential terrorism, in one book he speculated on the possibility of nuclear devices being used to demolish the World Trade Center.

Read "The Curve of Binding Energy". Oh no doubt you will call his work "tripe", eh?



Yes, if you look at my other posts on ATS you'll find that I cite the book from time to time.

I've also read books where Martians invade London and destroy it with heat beams, but that doesn't constitute proof they were involved in the 2005 bombings.



[edit on 3-9-2007 by Tom Bedlam]




posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Ahem. After all is said and done, and much has been said indeed, there still is one simple reason why nukes — with near absolute certainty — were used at the WTC’s (1, 2, 6 and 7) on 9-11. Because of the AMOUNTS OF ENERGY that were released. Only a nuclear reaction can generate forces in the size we observed at the demolition of the WTC complex. Nothing else would have been up to the job. Even the crudest calculations we’ve done here on ATS show this.

Now it’s fine and dandy if my conclusions are put in question. There are plenty of papers written by some darn good brains, published and ready for your review right over the internet. E. g. type into any search engine the name “Andre Gsponer” and you will catapult into the heart of pure fusion research.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Hardly.

The spectacular lack of evidence for any sort of nuclear reaction reveals the culprit in most building collapses - MGH.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Tom,

Thanks for the very thorough and detailed explanations.

I have heard the same kind of detailed and thorough explanations why there can be no breathable atmosphere on the moon.

There is no doubt in my mind that there was some kind of nuclear device set off in the World Trade Center.

If you had ever been read into the project (which I haven't) I am sure you would agree.

The essence of a perfect cover-up is that there is a traditional and prosaic answer for every little detail. Cover-ups unravel due to the most unbelievably obscure incidents, because the woven web is so tangled.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I'm afraid.

I'm not saying it wasn't brought down by other means, mind you, just that it wasn't nuclear.

edit: one might assume that if there WERE such an operation, that the main effort will have been put into the towers. IMHO the other buildings in the vicinity look like a patch job onto an ongoing project. But that's just me. Maybe the other buildings are the most likely to yield any real info.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

[edit on 3-9-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I agree with the OP and Johns above post. The evidence is there.

I also want to believe that low radiation yield weapons are being used because when the next false flag attack comes in the form of a nuke on an entire city, I would much rather it be one of the newer class weapons that would leave little fall out. After such an event it would be interesting to see what excuse is used to explain how the alleged terrorists got their hands on a fusion device.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by Ionized]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
trying to debunk the usage of NDEW or similar micro nuke tech is some what futile since most information is considered classified and we simply can't go any further in giving a precise explaination without more information being declassified, like this for example.



Nuclear Directed Energy Weapon (NDEW) Tested Prior to 1994

Unclassified. Fact that underground tests at the NTS have been a part of the NDEW research program.



Nuclear Directed Energy Weapon (NDEW) Program - DOE/1994

www.fas.org...

The Nuclear Directed Energy Weapon (NDEW) program involves tailored use of nuclear explosives and has the potential for making a significant contribution to strategic defense. The reason for
classifying NDEW information is to avoid aiding potential adversaries in:
(1) developing NDEWs;
(2) promoting the development of
countermeasures; or
(3) developing new strategies or shifts in
deployments that could reduce the effectiveness of U.S. NDEWs.

10a The fact that the DOE is interested in or conducting research on NDEW concepts of certain specified generic types of output; i.e., x rays, visible light, microwaves, charged particles, and kinetic
energy.

10b. Classified. Details of NDEW designs and outputs.

11a. Unclassified. General programmatic information (e.g., meetings, travel, construction, equipment procurement) not revealing technical status or program scope.

11b. Classified. Information that reveals the technical status or program scope of any type of NDEW.

12a. Unclassified. Fact that underground tests at the NTS have been a part of the NDEW research program.

13a. Unclassified. Association with NTS of nuclear explosive driven x- ray lasers or an unspecified NDEW, provided that the association does not relate to a specific nuclear event.

13b. Classified. Association of a nuclear explosive driven x-ray laser or an unspecified NDEW with a specific nuclear event.

Here we have multiple points that could reveal some very interesting things about the workings of advanced directed nuclear energy weapons (WMD)

If maybe the information, mechanics and designs behind these devices were declassified we maybe closer to the culprit devices.

some pictures on 9/11 WTC


shortly after the north tower collapsed. Look at this massive mushroom cloud! What caused that?



looks rather similar don't you think? If you check out the vintage footage of plowshare program you will not see any blinding flash from the underground explosion, just massive clouds of dust and a bellying out of the floor. Now put a nuke under the desert and cover it in dirt hides the flash but encasing it in concrete and steel would absorb the effects much greater. Plowshare program used 104 kt nuke! WTC was more like 0.01kt and would be much like an underground nuclear test.


[edit: resized images]
Mod Note: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
trying to debunk the usage of NDEW or similar micro nuke tech is some what futile since most information is considered classified and we simply can't go any further in giving a precise explaination without more information being declassified, like this for example.


Rather than re-address this, you can read what I posted about magic fairy-filled weapons.

You don't have to know the weapon's design. Once it leaves the weapon, it's all physics. Once you start trying to use neutrons and EMP and the like in your explanation, you're back on the physics playing field. So, no, it's not futile.

Now, if you said "They invented a magic fairy bomb, and it emits fairyons, sidhe beams and mystical concrete-pulverizon particles" then hey, you CAN claim magic designs, because then it's all fantasy and you can just make up whatever you'd like.

I know some of the originators of the fusion bomb 'theory' say this, but it's to cover the holes in their conjecture.



Look at this massive mushroom cloud! What caused that?


The collapse of a large structure in the midst of a lot of dust? "mushroom clouds", which this doesn't actually look like by the way, are not limited to nuclear blasts. You actually see them fairly often in explosions, so it's not that unthinkable if a big concrete building collapsed you'd see it there too.

Hell, I've seen them over circuit boards when a part failed just the right way.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join