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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by cashlink

Some people said they saw liquid steel running down the bottom of the WTC.
And you can not refute that!




Yes I can, as well as any nondelusional person that thinks logically.

The point is that this was never analyzed.

So you are calling these people liars: (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.)
Base on what they saw logically nondelusional and you werent there.

(Therefore, it could have been aluminum, which has a much lower melting point than steel. And melts at temps well within the range found in the piles.)

Yes, it could be aluminum or it could have been "steel" with the high
temps that were found in the piles.

So as I said, you failed to prove your point, nor did you even come close to bringing evidence that would warrant any further investigation.


You know, your point about exactly what metal is shown might be valid but, you can leave the sarcasm out of it. The more you attack me personally, the more you show your inability to consider the possibility of the information I post being credible or correct even if it is. That is extremely immature behavior for someone so certain of himself.


















[edit on 8/31/2008 by cashlink]




posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I have thirty two web sites/articles that I have links to on my FAVORITES list. AND I have read them, and have pretty reasonably common sense understanding of the contents of a large majority of them.
The classified information is of course unavailable as i suppose it should be. We will be working on fifth and sixth generation stuff or probably already are so we wont know till it is unclassified.
The thread was conversation about 4 th generation nuclear devices. The topic sometimes goes to other issues, but fourth generation is THE BUZZWORD in the field of nuclear bombs.
The US and other governments that relied on second generation thermonuclear bombs were able to tightly control the possession of these weapons due to the fact that you needed plutonium or uranium for a fission reaction to make the fusion reaction occur which was then enhanced with more fission.
The third generation bomb was the neutron bomb. Already twenty five years old.
The fourth generation bomb is the pure fusion with no fission material used to start the fusion. Now nuclear bombs can be 0.01 to 100 KT.
These are grapefruit sized bombs.

1st generation=fission uranium or plutonium only
2nd generation=fission + fusion + the neutron burst is not allowed to escape
3rd generation=fission + fusion but the neutron burst is allowed to escape
4 th generation=fusion with no plutonium or uranium or other heavy isotopes. Ignited several ways. Laser, plasma, magnetism, electrostatic current, perhaps antimatter.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
It was molted red hot and construction grade steel.
There are several web sites that show the stuff. Google molten steel under images and look at it then google molten steel at WTC and compare the pictures. Your common sense will lead you in the right direction at that point.


molten steel

molten steel at WTC (funny this was under the first page of images from just a google search of molten steel with no query into WTC)





[edit on 31-8-2008 by fmcanarney]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink

1-So you are calling these people liars: (The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero.

2-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.)
Base on what they saw logically nondelusional and you werent there.

3-Yes, it could be aluminum or it could have been "steel" with the high
temps that were found in the piles.

4-You know, your point about exactly what metal is shown might be valid but, you can leave the sarcasm out of it.



1- Tully never analyzed it either now, did he. Like you said, it's his opinion ONLY.

2- Loizeaux never saw it personally, you're repeating a lie.

Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
==========================

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-6610
Fax: 1-410-667-6624
www.controlled-demolition.com
groups.google.com...

3- temps weren't high enough to melt steel into "pools". Nor would a fusion device continue to produce that kind of heat. Read the OP's link - there's one where it says that with a fusion reaction, a runaway reaction doesn't continue to make heat. This makes it different than Chernobyl, which was a fission reactor. It just cools off and goes out. This rules out steel being melted in the piles, unless you judge yourself a better nuclear physicist than an the OP's guys. So once again, you're repeating a lie.

4- Why? I've never seen you come up with an original thought yet. All I've seen is cut/paste jobs and repeating lies from troofer websites.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
It was molted red hot and construction grade steel.
There are several web sites that show the stuff.



Red hot isn't "pools".

Also consider your own sources that state that a runaway fusion reaction just cools off, unlike a fission reaction/Chernobyl.

The fires WERE hot enough to produce red hot steel and pools of molten aluminum.

Unfortunately for us both, the recooled "ingots" were never analyzed, so any positive statement about what it was would be inaccurate.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney

I have thirty two web sites/articles that I have links to on my FAVORITES list.



That's great!!

Do any of them give an estimate of what size pure fusion device it would take to vaporize 80,00 tons of steel?

Cuz I'm willing to accept all the unlikely claims of how to "light" the fusion reaction and focusing the neutrons.

But I'd like to see some estimates on the size of the device. Andno, not the physical size, the kt output of the device.

Aren't you curious about this too?

Don't you want to know?

It's kinda the Achilles Heel at this point if it isn't given. I mean, anything can be theoretically possible, but if the device needed to have an explosive output of 100 tons of TNT equivalent, it sorta rules it out, right?



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Take the time to watch and listen to this video. If you are too impatient, go to 4:00 into the video and listen carefully. The Firemen is more credible than you or anything you have posted.

9/11: WTC High Temperatures & Molten Steel

www.youtube.com...








[edit on 8/31/2008 by cashlink]

[edit on 8/31/2008 by cashlink]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


That's his opinion only.

This doesn't make him right nor a liar, since an opinion is only that.

Again, where's the analysis? There is none.

Remarkably enough, oneof these chunks ARE at amuseum near the old WTC complex, and one guy has handled it and proclaimed it to be aluminum.

Of course this means nothing because it's his opinion only.

See how that works? i can't make a positive claim either, so I don't. You should try it sometime. You might gain a little more credibility.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Well, I guess I won! All you can do is spew the same crap over and over! You, pal, need to grow up and move on to Romper Room with your opinions!

Good luck in your demented world.

[edit on 9/1/2008 by cashlink]



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   
First of all.would the poster that keeps repeating "the water in the concrete boiled" and the "water in the steel boiled" stop saying such nonsense.Solid concrete has no water in it,that is why it is solid.Neither does steel.
Also reading through the posts someone keep saying neutron bombs are 25 years old technology.It is over 30 years plus technology.Carter banned the use of the neutron bomb in 1979.

Now a true back pack nuke was strictly a Navy SEAL weapons options. Nuke land mines. No other branch( that I know of had access to them). Marchinko is right on about their weight and shape. I have transported dozens of these from magazines to maintenance bays and back. We called them "coffins",because it took 4 guys to carry them, like a coffin. They weighed about 200 lbs. inside their lead lined containers.The back pack looked just like a backpack except the bottom was cone shaped(think of a upside down boob) olive drab, green rip stop nylon.

I never saw one with a weapon in it but the supply guys had one hanging in their area on a hook and I asked what it was for.

My question to those debating this subject about a explosion taking down the WTC is no one has explained the absence of overpressure.

If a conventional or nuclear device of a big enough force to take down those structures was present, why was no overpressure not detected or experience by any of the witnesses,or even seen on tape.

And please don't tell me it was directed straight up or down or somewhere physics don't work that way it goes out in all direction equally.

If you or anyone here on this forum has ever been around a explosion of any type be it military or industrial or accidental and have felt the over pressure or shock wave you won't forget.

Explanation please.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Not even close.

Like I said, I haven't seen any indication yet that you have an original thought on the subject of 9/11.

All I see is copy/paste jobs, and repeating lies from troofer websites.

To think that this qualifies as any kind of a win is perhaps the very definition of delusional.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by calcoastseeker

Solid concrete has no water in it,that is why it is solid.

My question to those debating this subject about a explosion taking down the WTC is no one has explained the absence of overpressure.

If a conventional or nuclear device of a big enough force to take down those structures was present, why was no overpressure not detected or experience by any of the witnesses,or even seen on tape.

Explanation please.


Of course concrete has water in it. E’rybody knows that!
The water ‘hooks up’ with various components of the Portland cement, which hold the sand and the rocks together (in the concrete).

Portland cement=50% tricalcium silicate, 25% dicalcium silicate, 10% tricalcium aluminate, 10% tetracalcium aluminoferrite, 5% gypsum.

The equations for the hydration of tricalcium and dicalcium silicate are given by:

Tricalcium silicate + Water--->Calcium silicate hydrate+Calcium hydroxide + heat

2 Ca3SiO5 + 7 H2O ---> 3 CaO.2SiO2.4H2O + 3 Ca(OH)2 + 173.6kJ

Dicalcium silicate + Water--->Calcium silicate hydrate + Calcium hydroxide +heat

2 Ca2SiO4 + 5 H2O---> 3 CaO.2SiO2.4H2O + Ca(OH)2 + 58.6 kJ

And yes, we have explained the lack of overpressure. The fusion nukes didn’t take down the WTC-1, 2, 7 and blow a big-ass hole in WTC-6 by overpressure – like conventional chemical explosives would. The did it by ‘cooking’ the structures into oblivion with invisible, silent, high-energy Neutrons. Blast (and overpressure effects) were mainly absorbed by the bedrock but still could partially be observed above ground when feathery pieces of 100 ton-plus chunks of steel (beams) were being hurled across the NYC sky.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 9/1/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Mechanical and thermal effects
The mechanical and thermal effects of conventional and nuclear weapons are well known [59, 60]. For instance, their scaling laws with explosive yield are simple power laws: direct proportionally (∝ Y 1) for thermal effects, and third root dependence (∝ Y 1/3) for blast overpressure.
The factor of three difference However, “effective utilization of precision munitions demands that a premium be placed on the collection and analysis of target information” [3, p. 15]. Figure 8: As a consequence of increased accuracy, new weapons are required that will “reduce destruction outside the radius of an intended target — while
enhancing destructive force on the target.” (Illustration for Ref. [58].)
in the exponent of these powerlaws makes that, in comparison to blast effects, thermal effects are generally negligible in conventional explosives, but dominant in Mt yield nuclear explosives (which are in fact gigantic incendiary bombs). This means that for kt yield nuclear weapons, and FGNWs with yields between 1 and 100 tons, both effects should be taken into consideration. A first significant difference between DT based
FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of highenergy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor √3 5 = 1.7 reduced blast effect 21 —
provided one assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast.
The second significative difference between DT based FGNWs and all other
types of explosives is the high direct coupling with intended targets made possible by the flux of highenergy neutrons. Since according to the discussion in Sec. 4.4 this increased coupling corresponds to a factor of about 10 relative to a conventional or nuclear explosive, the factor of 5 considered in the previous paragraph is actually equivalent to a factor of about 50 when the comparison is not made in terms of In reality, and for multiwarhead systems, the factor of 5 could be more like 3 or 4, leading to a smaller reduction in collateral heat and blast effects.
40 total explosive yields, but in terms of the energy that is actually coupled to the intended target. Under these conditions, the reduction factors in collateral heat and blast effects become truly significant, i.e., 50 and √3 50 = 3.7, respectively. However, direct coupling to a finite size
target has a 1/r2 dependence on the distance r between the point of explosion and the surface of the target, and this distance should be on the order of a few meters at most for a circa 1 ton FGNW to be effective. This requires truly high accuracy in delivery, and a corresponding accuracy in the knowledge of the target coordinates. Finally, as will all types of explosive weapons, debris will be sent at random to large distances from the target. But since the kinetic energy available for sending these debris is directly related to blast energy, this collateral effect should be portionally reduced in FGNWs.


here is the link to above excerpt:

arxiv.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">arxiv.org...

Underground placement of this FGNW reduced EMP by fifty percent, the remainder of the EMP was shielded by the mass of building and metal electrical circuits in WTC.

Direct coupling of this FGNW to the WTC minimized collateral damage and contained the blast wave immediately to the WTC building structure. There was no air coupling, as air is the poorest coupling substance on earth.

One witness described this blast wave as beginning in the basement and travelling upwards through the structure.

Direct coupling and highly focused and directed cone of destruction placed "all" of the highly energized neutrons into the WTC mass.

You are correct 100% in that the neutron bomb is thirty years old.
I of course was 74.5% correct.

There is not water in steel. The neutrons and x-rays are responsible for heating the steel up.

There is water in concrete, as tests using electroconductivity, MRI, comparison of mass of dry concrete components before use and dry concrete after use. Additionally one would assume that the 250,000 gallons of water were being used via the sprinkler system to extinguish the jet fuel fires that there was elevated water content on at least some of the floor slabs.

The entire destructive force of this hydrogen bomb was for all practical purposes a "100% hard kill" situation. The bomb did not explode beside the building, above the building or beside the building. It exploded immediately and directly under the building directed upwards with a solid and immovable foundation underneath it called bedrock. There is a website I posted earlier in this thread that shows several unexplained craters at the WTC site. The crater, when underneath a target such as WTC, being in bedrock, will in fact redirect, and so to speak ricochet, even more of the total energy output upwards into the building.

[edit on 1-9-2008 by fmcanarney]

[edit on 1-9-2008 by fmcanarney]



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
I have thirty two web sites/articles that I have links to on my FAVORITES list. AND I have read them, and have pretty reasonably common sense understanding of the contents of a large majority of them.
The classified information is of course unavailable as i suppose it should be. We will be working on fifth and sixth generation stuff or probably already are so we wont know till it is unclassified.
The thread was conversation about 4 th generation nuclear devices. The topic sometimes goes to other issues, but fourth generation is THE BUZZWORD in the field of nuclear bombs.
The US and other governments that relied on second generation thermonuclear bombs were able to tightly control the possession of these weapons due to the fact that you needed plutonium or uranium for a fission reaction to make the fusion reaction occur which was then enhanced with more fission.
The third generation bomb was the neutron bomb. Already twenty five years old.
The fourth generation bomb is the pure fusion with no fission material used to start the fusion. Now nuclear bombs can be 0.01 to 100 KT.
These are grapefruit sized bombs.

1st generation=fission uranium or plutonium only
2nd generation=fission + fusion + the neutron burst is not allowed to escape
3rd generation=fission + fusion but the neutron burst is allowed to escape
4 th generation=fusion with no plutonium or uranium or other heavy isotopes. Ignited several ways. Laser, plasma, magnetism, electrostatic current, perhaps antimatter.


Nuclear reactions require a minimum amount of fissionable material.
The 4th generation is obviously clearly speculative at best.
Just thought I'd throw that info out there.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink

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?


My guess is that by default people seem to say molten steel. It's like calling a photocopy a Xerox copy. When they said molten steel, they used it as a general term even though it may not be technically correct.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink

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!

Did I ever, at any point, in time, at all, EVER, say he couldn't have his opinion?????
But an opinion isn't necessarily correct and/or factual.


Or is he not aloud to have one! or are you only allowed an opinion?

Redundant, see above for answer.


OP is offering another way the WTC came down.

And here's another way. The WTC's were taken down by giant, flying invisible, purple Wombats. They chewed through all supportive structures until the towers collapsed. It's another way
Doesn't mean it's right does it ? Also prove my other way is wrong. You see, that's what "truthers" have done. Made things up, twisted facts and then asked "skeptics" to prove them wrong.


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]

1. Prove the science behind the NIST final reports is BS. Please show me your scientific research that disproves their reports.
2. It's pretty obvious that large planes impacting caused massive structural damage and ensuing fires caused additional structural weakening which lead to final collapse. Oh yeah, this is my opinion based on my background and everything I've researched regarding the trade towers. I can have an opinion, can't I ???



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
EMP in openair high altitude detonition is uninhibited.
EMP in underground detonition with a 1.5 million ton building on top of it would be absorbed by the sheer mass of the surrounding building.
FGNW's 80% is high energy neutrons, 20% blast and heat.
FGNW's detonated at ground level (in the bottom of WTC will leave a crater and craters are visible at
www.thepriceofliberty.org...
Would you expect official government channels to identify craters at WTC?
Me either.


Contrary to nuclear fission, where heavy atoms such as uranium are split, nuclear fusion is a process in which light nuclei fuse together to form heavier ones: during this process a very large amount of energy is released. This process powers the stars in the universe. In the core of the Sun, the lightest and most abundant element, hydrogen (H), is converted into helium (He) at a temperature of 15 million degrees. Because of its low reactivity cross section this reaction is not relevant on earth. Hence for a fusion reactor it is planned to use instead the two isotopes of hydrogen: deuterium (D) and tritium (T), which fuse together much more readily than any other combination of light nuclei according to the following reaction:
D2 + T3 ⇒ He4 + n + 17.6 MeV
The end products are helium and neutrons (n). The total energy liberated by fusing one gram of a 50/50% mixture of deuterium and tritium is 94000 kWh, which is 10 million times more than obtained from burning the same amount of oil. Most of this energy (80%) is in the form of fast neutrons carrying an energy of 14 MeV, while the remaining 20% is carried by the helium nucleus. This energy of the helium nuclei should energize the injected fresh fuel and maintain the reaction conditions. The released energy will eventually become heat to be stored or converted by conventional means into electricity.
The reaction rate of all fusion reactions only starts to become significant at temperatures above a few tens of millions of degrees. For the D-T reaction, the optimal temperature (highest reaction rate at constant pressure) is of the order of 70-200 million degrees K. While the Sun works at temperatures lower than optimal because of its enormous size, a fusion reactor on earth will have to work in the optimal range. At such temperatures the D-T fuel is in the plasma state, the 4th state of matter (the 3 other states being solid, liquid, gaseous).



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


No offense but it doesn't say anything about emp being absorbed by a bunch of glass and drywall. Could you repost that part?

The building feel from the top down so the nuke couldn't have been in the basement. Videos clearly show this.

Oh and the cut and past job is inaccurate as it mentions there are only 4 states of matter.


plasma state, the 4th state of matter (the 3 other states being solid, liquid, gaseous).


In reality, there are 7 states of matter:
solid, liquid, gas, Ionized Plasma, Quark-gluon plasma, Bose-Einstein condensate and fermionic condensate.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   
""Nuclear reactions require a minimum amount of fissionable material.
The 4th generation is obviously clearly speculative at best.
Just thought I'd throw that info out there. ""



1st generation 1945-1950
2nd generation 1950-1970+
3rd generation 1971-1980
4th generation 1980-????

This means that the discussion of FGNWs requires some intellectual effort
— especially for nontechnical minded people — because FGNWs are in many ways very different from previous generation weapons. This can be illustrated by comparing a few salient features of typical first and fourth generation explosives:
First generation: 6 kg Pu ≈ 10 kt yield at 10% efficiency
Fourth generation: 25 mg DT ≈ 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency
Consequently, going from the first to the fourth generation implies a total
change of perspective about nuclear weapons: A “change of paradigm” where the concept of very large yield and big nuclear weapons for deterrence use is shifting towards the concept of very high precision
and compact nuclear weapons for battlefielduse — with yields in the 1 to 100 tons1 range, that is intermediate between conventional and contemporary nuclear weapons.

Fusion reactions since 1950 investigation and research has been underway: achieving fusion energy called "magnetic confinement." There is, however, a second strategy for achieving fusion energy, one that has only recently been thrust into the r&d spotlight. This second strategy is called "inertial confinement," and its future is now.
In contrast to MFE, the capacity of IFE to produce far more energy than is consumed has already been vividly demonstrated by hydrogen bomb detonations.
In the most popular indirect heating scheme, the spherical fuel capsule is mounted inside a cylinder that is about the size of a large paper clip. This cylinder is called a "hohlraum," which is German for "cavity" and it is usually made of some heavy element such as lead. Energy beams are shined through holes at the end of the hohlraum, vaporizing its inside surface and releasing a burst of x-rays.


fusion generator/reactor can be built at home for under $10,000.00 dollars. Posted list of materials earlier in thread.
fusion has been produced by laser heating both direct and indirect for over ten years.
fusion does not require fission to occur.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
By the way FGNW=Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon.

Examples of TGNW are listed
Third generation nuclear weapons
Third generation nuclear weapons are basically “tailored and special effects” warheads and systems developed between the 1960s and 1980s, mainly for tactical uses or ballistic missile defense. Examples of these developments comprise the following concepts:
• ERW — Enhanced Radiation (neutrons, hard Xrays)
• RRR —Reduced Residual Radiation (enhanced blast)
• EMP— Enhanced Electro Magnetic Pulse
• DEW — Directed Energy (plasma jet or Xray laser)
• EPW — Earth Penetrating Warhead

arxiv.org...



[edit on 1-9-2008 by fmcanarney]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join