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.

 

4 th generation thermonuclear hydrogen devices

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Suggested schematic WTC tower wiring diagram below:
www.saunalahti.fi...




posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman



The neutrons do not have a long half life, it is only 24-36 hours and is even faster when water is sprayed on the dust or debris.


Again you are WRONG! Neutrons are particles emitted at detonation -
travel at large fraction od speed of light for several hundred meters

They do not have a half life. Radiation from a nuclear blast is in 2
forms: PROMPT - high energy X ray, gamma rays and neutrons
emitted at blast time. FALLOUT - radioactive debris from dirt sucked into fireball where mixed with fission by products and materials transmuted by
neutron bombardment. Carried by wind downrange where solid particles
settle out. Radiation decay is by 10/7 rule - every factor of 7 hrs
radiation decreases by factor of 10 ( 7 hrs 1/10 of original strength,
49 hrs ( 2 days) 1/100, 343 hrs (2 weeks) 1/1000) Only effect water
has is to wash away solid radioactive particles (decom)

Again prove that there were radiation casualties at WTC site - you cant
because there weren't any! So why do persist in kook conspiracy
claiming hydrogen bomb was responsible for destruction?


And lets not forget the damage that would have resulted from the EMP blast.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by thedman

Out of decorum and concern for victims families such pictures are not
released.


Oh, I see. Suddenly our media shows ‘decorum and concern’ for victims families. But only in the case of 9-11 of course. B-A-L-O-N-E-Y, and not of the kosher type.

Sorry, but logic dictates something else has to be afoot here. We are a very ‘visually’ oriented society. There’s no doubt about that. So could it be that if even one single picture were to leak out of, say of someone who got fried to crispy critter in one of those burnt-out cars at the WTC complex, that (many) people might start asking ‘questions’? Could it be that 9-11 burn victims too shockingly resemble Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

And what about the EMP blast? There would have been plenty of physical evidence of an EMP yet there has never, ever, ever, ever, ever been any evidence about an EMP blast, being posted ANYWHERE at ANYTIME. No EMP means no nuke.

Or was the whole thing one big hologram


One last thing. Your description of the victims as "crispy critters" is vial and disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


If you're suggesting a focussed beam of neutrons, that's a little difficult because they're not charged particles so they can't be 'steered'. Neutrons emitted in directions other than straight up would have to be absorbed by the surrounding material (creating a variety of unstable isotopes) which would result in a bit of a radioactive hotspot around the source but no such hotspots were detected.

That toppling section of WTC2 has been the subject of much discussion and my take on it is still the same as when I first saw it - the centre of gravity of the top section never actually passed beyond the vertical line of the outer wall and the crumbling floors gave way faster than the more rigid outer lattice wall which corrected it before it passed the point of no return. It was very close to falling off though, what would the conspiracy have been if it had actually toppled right off the building?

Seems an indication to me that as you require more and more devices of a variety of types and increasing complexity (even virtually unknown technology) in an increasing number of locations to achieve the observed outcome, the hypothesis is wrong. The only obvious devices used were Boeing 767s and no huge explosions, large enough to demolish such structures, were witnessed.


[edit on 31/8/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by fmcanarney

the neutrons heat up the steel and boil it.



Do you have any links to this? This is the first time I've heard of that.

I've always believed that the very reason of a neutron bomb (yes i know you're NOT talking about a neutron bomb) was that it had less blast effects and saved infrastructure.

Now according to this, neutrons also destroy infrastructure?


Thought I'd give this a bump, cuz I've found some interesting info on the energy required to vaporize steel.

"Let's take a crude look at what it would take to vaporize about one percent of the roughly 96,000 tons of steel in each of WTC 1 and 2.

For the sake of convenience, we'll use one metric ton (1000 kg), which is actually 1100 "short" tons. Again, it's a little over one percent of the steel in one of the buildings.

I'm also going to use the heat of vaporization for iron. I know this is just an approximation for that of steel, and I don't know whether it's high or low. But I'm sure it's good enough for an order-of-magnitude estimate.

Fe, Heat of vaporization: 349.60 kJ/mol
Fe, Atomic mass 55.847 => 1 mol Fe = 55.85g
=> Heat of vaporization = 349.60 kJ/(mol * 55.85 g/mol) = 6.26 kJ/g

Energy needed to vaporize that much iron = 6.26 kJ/g * 109g ~ 6.3*109 kJ = 1.7*106kWh."



Now I need to find some info on how much neutrons it takes to heat a kg of steel (or if this is indeed true), an estimated neutron output of a fusion bomb of a given output ( we'll assume that 90% of the energy is released as neutrons, with 10% of it released as heat/explosive force), and a way to convert explosive force into kJ.


So fmcanarney, do you have any technical links that say by what mechanism that neutrons heat steel, cuz I have been unable to find any (at this point I am unwilling to accept your assertion as true that neutrons can heat steel). That and any info on how many neutrons are released from a fusion bomb.

Any help is appreciated.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


I don't think we can be sure it is a neutron type bomb.

I should also mention there was a report of condensating steel vapor on some windows of nearby buildings.

Best of luck with your calculations.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


I don't think we can be sure it is a neutron type bomb.

I should also mention there was a report of condensating steel vapor on some windows of nearby buildings.

Best of luck with your calculations.


Well we can be certain it was not any type of nuclear bomb as there would be a related EMP burst and there is zero evidence to support this so we can conclusively say there was no nuclear bomb involved.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


What do you think in your opinion, of what brought the WTC down?
Because I do not stand behind NIST report.
However, something with a lot of energy took those building down!



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   


If accidentally, a fission reaction goes out of control as a result of not controlling the emission of neutrons, a nuclear meltdown can happen which can then release highly radioactive particles in the atmosphere. In contrast, in case of nuclear fusion if the reaction goes out of control, the reaction would stop automatically as it it’ll cool down. In addition, in case of nuclear fusion reaction, the amount of radioactive materials produced as waste is very small and the maximum damage which could happen is the vaporization of anything in the immediate vicinity of the reaction.

www.diffen.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

I don't think we can be sure it is a neutron type bomb.

Best of luck with your calculations.


I don't think there was ANY type of bomb. But for the sake of the thread, I'm not arguing that point, merely trying to understand the technical aspects in it. Reread my post, I clearly state a fusion bomb/explosion.

They should be fairly simple if I can find some more info. Basically, what I'm trying to prove is that even if I give credence to focusing neutrons, etc..... is that even useing a VERY efficient device in converting the fusion reaction to neutrons and minimizing explosive effects, that the explosive yield would STILL be a ridiculously high amount.

I'm literally gonna pull a figure out of my posterior and say that the explosive yield from a pure fusion device will still be on the order of several hundred tons in order to produce the neutrons needed to vaporize 80,000 tons (about 80%) of the steel.

But I am still unconvinced that neutrons can even do this. I've read some about neutrons embrittling steel, but no confirmation of the OP's claim that neutrons can HEAT steel. At this point I'm stumped because none of his links support his claim, and I am unable to verify this after hours of Googling.

So here I sit, waiting for proof of his claim until he can prove this with some technical data.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Nuclear devices brought down the towers. I just doubt whether it was of the neutron type.


There is plenty of EMP evidence. Review the main thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney


If accidentally, a fission reaction goes out of control as a result of not controlling the emission of neutrons, a nuclear meltdown can happen which can then release highly radioactive particles in the atmosphere. In contrast, in case of nuclear fusion if the reaction goes out of control, the reaction would stop automatically as it it’ll cool down. In addition, in case of nuclear fusion reaction, the amount of radioactive materials produced as waste is very small and the maximum damage which could happen is the vaporization of anything in the immediate vicinity of the reaction.

www.diffen.com...


This is inadequate to back your claim.

It does not specify whether the vaporization is due to energy ( heat ) release due to the fusion reaction, or whether neutrons are responsible.

Do you have anything better?



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by jfj123
 


What do you think in your opinion, of what brought the WTC down?
Because I do not stand behind NIST report.
However, something with a lot of energy took those building down!



Planes flew into the buildings.
The impacts themselves caused structural damage.
The ensuing fires caused structural damage.
The buildings fell.


Regardless of how the buildings fell, they didn't fall from nukes.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

a modern thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb. In the picture below, a hydrogen bomb explosion, the bomb having been placed in the cellar and directed to the core, has reached the roof of the tower and the upper parts of the outer walls. On its way up the waves of fire pressure partially penetrated about 100 floors of concrete and steel. Over ten million degrees of heat caused by a hydrogen bomb sublimised all water within the concrete in a moment. Water exploded extremely quickly into 1000-fold volume and totally pulverized the concrete. Even people and computers that were in the buildings disappeared turning into heat and light. That is why almost nothing of them was found in the ruins.

Burning radiation is absorbed in steel so quickly that steel heats up immediately over its melting point 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F) and above its boiling point around 3000 C (approx. 5430 °F). In the pictures down below, super hot groups of steel pillars and columns, torn from wall by pressure wave, are sublimized. They immediately turn into a vaporized form, binding heat as quickly as possible. Bursts upwards, even visible in the picture below, are not possible for a gravitational collapse or for cutting charges which are used horizontally.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Nuclear devices brought down the towers. I just doubt whether it was of the neutron type.


There is plenty of EMP evidence. Review the main thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I have read it several times.

I am unconvinced. Several assertions were never proven - such as a fusion bomb is quieter for a given explosive yield, nor that neutrons can heat steel.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Nuclear devices brought down the towers. I just doubt whether it was of the neutron type.


There is plenty of EMP evidence. Review the main thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Going through 40 pages from another thread is simply not practical.

I can tell you the following:
Did any vehicles move in the area after the towers fell? If yes then no emp.

Did any cell phones work in the area after the towers fell? If yes then no emp.

Did any type of computer work in the area (ie digital clocks, watches, cash registers, camera's, video cams, lapstops, GPS devices, etc...)? If yes then no emp.

If no emp, no nukes.

[edit on 31-8-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Going through 40 pages from another thread is simply not practical.


I have to say if you are not willing to research, your opinions on this subject are irrelevant.


Originally posted by jfj123
Did any vehicles move in the area after the towers fell? If yes then no emp.


EMP is not absolute, as with any other energy the intensity can vary. Review the EMP evidence in the thread or close mouth.


[edit on 2008/8/31 by SteveR]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I am unconvinced. Several assertions were never proven - such as a fusion bomb is quieter for a given explosive yield, nor that neutrons can heat steel.


Please direct us to appropriate scientific papers that outright reject these premises.

Ofcourse neutrons will heat steel. What else is it going to do? Polish it?



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by jfj123
Going through 40 pages from another thread is simply not practical.


I have to say if you are not willing to research, your opinions on this subject are irrelevant.

Oh I have researched. You see I'm not interested in going through 40 pages that prove nothing and waste my time. You say there's evidence, post it here.


Originally posted by jfj123
Did any vehicles move in the area after the towers fell? If yes then no emp.


EMP is not absolute, as with any other energy the intensity can vary. Review the EMP evidence in the thread or close mouth.


[edit on 2008/8/31 by SteveR]

Yes EMP is absolute. Even a small nuke would create an EMP that would be miles in diameter and would wipe out ANY/ALL non-hardened electronic equipment. All nukes produce EMP's.

And telling me to close my mouth.....please
Sorry but we're not on the playground my friend.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes EMP is absolute.


The only thing that is absolute is your statements.



Originally posted by jfj123
Even a small nuke would create an EMP that would be miles in diameter and would wipe out ANY/ALL non-hardened electronic equipment.


I want these specific statements proved. 1, all EMP bursts are "miles in diameter", and 2, always "wipe out ANY/ALL electronics".



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join