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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
do you believe that 5 kt of TNT would give a different explosive yield?


I believe it would give a different effect. If all devices acted the same with a given yield we would not have the whole field of demolitions.

For example. TNT would not pulverize many tons of concrete into dust particles measuring in the microns. The nuke on the other hand would superheat the water in the concrete causing a phreatic explosion.


1 lb of eggs weighs the same as 1 lb of oranges.


A large device detonated at 400–500 km (250 to 312 miles) over Kansas would affect all of the continental U.S


The key to that EMP effect is a detonation at altitude. What about muffled in a large building?
Of course being lower to the ground, the effect would be diminished however it would still exist and cause damage.




posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

1-I believe it would give a different effect. If all devices acted the same with a given yield we would not have the whole field of demolitions.

2-For example. TNT would not pulverize many tons of concrete into dust particles measuring in the microns. The nuke on the other hand would superheat the water in the concrete causing a phreatic explosion.



1- ahh, I see what you're saying now and I can agree that. Different explosives have different velocities and so will have different effects, sure. Maybe yield is standardized to kJ released. But this still is not evidence that a nuke explosion is quieter.

2- but here, you're not talking about explosive effects at all. What you're talking about is excitation (thx for the info) of the water molecules by the neutrons. But you run into trouble with this because one of the OP's links specifically states that concrete - a material with a high hydrogen content - would protect material behind it much more efficently than say...steel. So concrete - found in all the floors - would hinder neutron spread to the upper levels, and we would expect to see the concrete explode on lower levels only, with no effect on the steel. In fact steel seems to have the opposite effect - it would just become radioactive for a short period ,from I've read.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
1 lb of eggs weighs the same as 1 lb of oranges.





posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by jfj123
1 lb of eggs weighs the same as 1 lb of oranges.



What a brilliant response you've posted. nazi's are funny


TNT equivalent is a method of quantifying the energy released in explosions. The tonne of TNT is used as a unit of energy, approximately equivalent to the energy released in the detonation of this amount of TNT.

The kiloton and megaton of TNT have traditionally been used to rate the energy output, and hence destructive power, of nuclear weapons. This unit is written into various nuclear weapon control treaties, and gives a sense of destructiveness as compared with ordinary explosives, like TNT.

The Little Boy atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima , exploded with an energy of about 15 kilotons of TNT (≈ 6.3×1013 joules). The nuclear weapons currently in the arsenal of the United States range in yield from 0.3 kt to 1.2 Mt TNT equivalent, for the B83 strategic bomb.


[edit on 31-8-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 31-8-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   


The hydrogen bomb is very different. It uses the lightest of the elements, like various forms of hydrogen and lithium. It has very small minimum size, the cherry-size pellets are typical in fusion energy designs. It can be made into directed-energy device much like conventional military explosives. And the energy distribution is more useful, some
80% is in neutron and thermal radiation (and in this case, neutrons also use most of their energy in warming steels and other hard targets). Some 15% goes to blast effects and the remaining 5% into various radiations. In covert operations like the WTC the residual effects of the hydrogen bomb are neatly disappearing into the winds and this process can be speeded up with continuous spraying of water (which also is what happened).
Some of the tritium binds with oxygen forming tritiated water (which is less harmful than the free tritium remains) and spraying will also get these lighter-than-air molecules moving, out into the skies.

What will be difficult to cover up are random radioactive changes caused by the energetic neutrons. This is why those steels were scuttled and exported from the country as quickly as possible. There will be some hot spots, and melting those steels and re-using them will not get the radioactivity to disappear. So such a contaminated steel cannot be used freely, for an example to build furniture, ships, cars or personal armour. Building bridges and oil tanks with it will be less a health problem. Note: most of the steel will not contaminate easily. The Fe56 atom absorbs a neutron and becomes a stable Fe57 atom. The Fe57 atom absorbs a neutron and it becomes a stable Fe58 atom. If the Fe58 atom once again
absorbs a neutron, then there will be radioactive Fe59 isotope (Beta minus decay, Gamma radiation too). But there are small amouths of other elements like Chromium, Nickel and Vanadium present in the steels, too. Unusual concentrations of Fe57 and Fe58 could tell the recycled WTC steel has been close to the thermonuclear explosion. And these changes
are permanent, this is proovable 100 years from now if necessary.

No one with any insight into various nuclear weapons will blur these two, atomic bombs and thermonuclear bombs. And all the observations I mentioned in 3, 4 and 9 need to be explained somehow. If this mini-hydrogen bomb is not a good explanation, feel free to offer something better instead. But before something in the lines "asthmathic person with a
breaking oxygen bottle" are being invented to explain each item, I would like to point out, that if we are searching the truth there is a principle called Occam's razor. Some 20-plus odd observations can all be explained in elegant way with just a single mini-hydrogen device with a basement placement. In the end analysis the simplest explanation will prevail




www.saunalahti.fi...



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   


The fusion reaction advances to the chosen direction (upwards) extremely fast. A great amount of neutron radiation goes upwards. A sufficient amount of X-ray and neutron radiation goes also to all other directions. Neutrons heat the steel members to their cores and much over the boiling point of steel. A fireball, plasma, is formed around the bomb, when the surrounding air cannot move away to the extent required by its heating. All materia left inside the fireball turns to plasma or disintegrates. The fireball expands explosively, causing heat radiation and a pressure wave. The pressure wave breaks structures and causes also a sharp seismic spike. The heat radiation heats all surface material beyond boiling point. The surface of the steel begins to boil and evaporates as a gray vapor. The steel has no time to turn red-hot, the boiling captures heat and the steel ever deeper turns directly from solid to vapor. When the strongest pressure wave meets the outer wall of the tower somewhere around the 70th floor the pressure wave rips the wall elements off in massive chains. In one picture fifteen 22-ton elements, that is 330 tons of steel, is ripped off and outwards from the wall. A few of these 22-ton elements are thrown distances of even 200 meters sinking into other buildings outside the WTC-block (eg. the AMEX building at a height of about the 20th floor). The
aluminium cladding plays no role here, just aluminium wouldn't even be thrown that far, and wouldn't penetrate a skyscraper's wall.
The Compton diffraction caused by free neutrons achieves its maximum volume, and after that electrical discharges that even out the imbalance are formed in the air (emp). The explosion of the small hydrogen bomb is over after that. Inside the building there is still an extremely hot dust cloud, attempting to go up, which upon contact with a concrete sheet, or a human, explodes it to almost molecules (liquids expand to thousand times volume, and not 24-times like I previously put forward). Every molecular bond in the concrete loses its bound water and is released explosively. Every cell in a human explodes losing its liquid contents.


[edit on 31-8-2008 by fmcanarney]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Maybe yield is standardized to kJ released. But this still is not evidence that a nuke explosion is quieter.


It is standardized but that becomes irrelevant when we are discussing the mechanics of the explosion. They do not release the energy in the same way. The nuke can be quieter per a given yield due to the fact alot of that energy is released as electromagnetic radiation and sub-atomic particles.

Chemical explosions waste alot of energy on sound, they are naturally more "noisy". Obviously I am oversimplifying, but it's important to recognize the characteristics of different energy releases.


Originally posted by Seymour Butz
But you run into trouble with this because one of the OP's links specifically states that concrete - a material with a high hydrogen content - would protect material behind it much more efficently


Concrete's hydration is mainly due to the water I mentioned. The concrete certainly absorbed gamma rays and other nasties that would of caused huge loss of life in NY. It lasted only momentairly and succumb to the phreatic reaction in a few fractions of a second.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
We do not believe the offical story.
This Finnish military expert has thirty years experience.
He lists twenty points and oddities debunking the controlled demolition theory and explains all of them with a directed, possible tube shaped, thermonuclear hydrogen bomb.
If you want to confuse atomic (fission) bomb with thermonuclear pure hydrogen (fusion) bomb, that is your misunderstanding.
Neutron activity will heat steel faster than concrete, but the neutron activity and high temperature blast wave travelling virtually straight upwards will vaporize the water in the concrete, hence pulverizing it.
I also understand that an airburst can emit an all encompassing EMP. However, since the proposal is for the device to be eight stories underground, and directed up one of the main elevator shafts that could explain the squibs seen at the reinforced floors twenty stories below the falling dust and debris clouds during the collapse.
The blast heat neutron shock wave did not reach the outer walls until about the 70 th floor. It is at that point you see incredibly large tonnage of steel being parabolically launched away from the given outline of the tower which is hidden by the cloud of dust and debris.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
I also understand that an airburst can emit an all encompassing EMP. However, since the proposal is for the device to be eight stories underground, and directed up one of the main elevator shafts that could explain the squibs seen at the reinforced floors twenty stories below the falling dust and debris clouds during the collapse.


Here's another huge problem with this hypothesis. The buildings fell from the top down as can easily be seen in any video of their collapse.

There were no squibs seen anywhere in the building. If you disagree, please show them to me.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

1-alot of that energy is released as electromagnetic radiation and sub-atomic particles.

2-Concrete's hydration is mainly due to the water I mentioned. The concrete certainly absorbed gamma rays and other nasties that would of caused huge loss of life in NY. It lasted only momentairly and succumb to the phreatic reaction in a few fractions of a second.


1- this is wrong. A nuke is rated by its explosive yield, not its overall energy released. A nuke rated at 5 kt and converts 20% of its energy output to explosive yield will have a total energy uotput of 25 kt TNT equivalent.

2- at a high enough neutron output, this could be true. But it still ignores the fact that the explosive effects of the concrete would be seen below the level of the collapse initiation. But it's not seen..... And the effects would decrease the higher you went. And if the neutron output was high enough to reach the collapse zone, it would have continued right out the top of the towers and exploding concrete would have been seen on those levels, but it isn't. This is inescapable.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney

Neutron activity will heat steel



Does he break this down anywhere as to what size device he proposes?

This goes to the heart of the question. While it is possible for neutrons to heat steel ( I get that now ) there is no data given for how much it takes to do this per kg of steel, how much neutron radiation can be expected from a 1 kt device etc.

So while in theory it IS possible, no numbers are given to back the claim.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- this is wrong. A nuke is rated by its explosive yield, not its overall energy released. A nuke rated at 5 kt and converts 20% of its energy output to explosive yield will have a total energy uotput of 25 kt TNT equivalent.


I think you misunderstood my post. Sure, a nuke may be rated by its explosive yield/energy output. The profile of that energy output is going to be different.


Originally posted by Seymour Butz
But it still ignores the fact that the explosive effects of the concrete would be seen below the level of the collapse initiation.


Indeed. I have seen several pictures of this.

Please, let's keep WTC discussion to the main thread. Join us.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Indeed. I have seen several pictures of this.

Please, let's keep WTC discussion to the main thread. Join us.


Not from every floor you haven't. Unless you're proposing that it skipped floors at random.

Huh?



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I have to say, the weak and uneducated opposition on this thread is actually providing some credibility for the theory.


SteveR out.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
The heat transfer from a energetic neutron into steel would only be a part of the heat transfer total.
I think the directed hydrogen bomb with a narrow cone and a limited blast distance could account for a. not seeing squibs. b. the blast force,, hot gasses, neutrons and shock wave were very busy disintegrating the core columns and the core concrete. c. the core during its disintegration most likely absorbed the majority of energy from these sources. d. the rod shaped charge acted much like a reverse bunker buster which has a narrow focus. e. this would be some adaptation of atomic propulsion with a effective range of six hundred feet. f. i would bet that science into this nuclear field can accurately predict the range of the effects to within a few yards.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Why were ther no human remains found?


Then thousands of crushed bodies should have been found, as well as furniture and computers. But there were none, not even one. And if concrete plates are dropped to asphalt from different heights (500m - 40m), do you think that they disintegrate to molecular dust?

>>"pools of molten steel"

>How do you know it was steel? There aren't many eyewitness statements of molten >metal, and some of them might have meant metal that was only red-hot. Molten aluminium for instance is silvery, it never turn red. I have seen molten steel at a steel factory on many occasions. It is so hot, that it's difficult to make a mistake about it. Access near pools of steel was denied to the workers who did the dismantling, they were deadly.

>So do you claim that the heat of the steel members persisted for 100 days solely >because of the heat originally embedded into them by the nuclear bomb, without for >instance continuing chemical reactions caused by remaining thermite? Or had a >(non-radiating?) mini-Chernobyl formed in the basements?

Yes, and in addition chambers were produced. Water jets turned to vapor long before they reached the hottest steel deep in the foundations of the towers. At first the steel was only vaporized - this is what causes the highest metallic dust levels in the USA of all time at the rubble - then steel was melted, and in the end they only glowed hot there in the rubble. At the beginning there may have been steel at 7000 degrees [C], that cooled by vaporizing at their surface. Then when they don't vaporize any more, the surface turns white, yellow, red, and so on. The steel furthest away from the bomb (at the top) are of course much cooler.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


(The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero.)

(Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.)

Are you saying these men are liars?



[edit on 8/31/2008 by cashlink]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
reply to post by cashlink
 


(None of this backs your claims of "pools" of molten steel.)
Yes eye wittness do back my claim.

(1- pools means a liquid state)
Wow! no one knew this.

(2- the red hot steel pulled from the piles aren't liquid)
THANK YOU! We didnt notice that!



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 




Just curious but how did they know it was liquid steel and not another type of metal? Is there something specific that shows how they figured that out?


I dont know ,why dont you ask the wittness?



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I'm also curious as to how the OP knows what generation of nuke the government currently has? What inside source as informed the op that we're discussing a 4th gen. nuke device ?


How about its "his" OPINION!
Or is he not aloud to have one! or are you only allowed an opinion?
OP is offering another way the WTC came down.
What science do you have that brought the WTC down, and DON'T bring up NIST because we all know that is BS.

[edit on 8/31/2008 by cashlink]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join