It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 05:02 PM
The core was concrete rebar reinforced tube.
the perimeter walls were steel columns and the interior columns or core columns surrounded the steel rebar reinforced center concrete core.

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 05:23 PM
the concrete core perimeter walls were seventeen feet thick at the base of the concrete hollow inner core. around the perimeter of this concrete core were the steel core columns. But the core was concrete. Reinforced with three inch thick high tensile steel rebar.

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 05:39 PM
the center core of concrete surrounded by steel core columns was similaar to grain elevator construction, which is nothing but a hollow cylindrical tube.

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 10:21 PM
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods

I conceded,after thinking about it.I have seen concrete expand and buckle when it gets real hot out.But the rest of the crap you blowing out your rear is lunacy.If you're going to continue "the secret plot to destroy the WTC and kill thousands of Americans so we can invade Iraq." You need to go with radio controlled planes or the hologram or thermite or some other reasonable scenario because your 4th generation neutron bomb conspiracy theory is full of it.

Let me say this.I have concluded that the whole 911 was a conspiracy,but I don't think it was our own governement.I firmly believe it was a Mossad/Zionist operation and they had the Islamics believing it wasn't. I think the one country that benefited from this whole thing was Israel.

I believe the story about the van full of foreigners speaking Hebrew cheering the destruction is true. I think our government was snookered.
After the first bombing, I believe they set into operation a very intricate plot to bring the U.S. and it's military back permanently into the middle east.

But. I think your neutron bomb theory is far fetched.It would have been no problem with maintenance people,janitors and others to place charges
in significant critical areas of the building over a period of time.

We as Americans always want to point fingers at the Moslems, but the Jews are just as radical too.

[edit on 1-9-2008 by calcoastseeker]

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 10:47 PM

Originally posted by fmcanarney
the concrete core perimeter walls were seventeen feet thick at the base of the concrete hollow inner core. around the perimeter of this concrete core were the steel core columns. But the core was concrete. Reinforced with three inch thick high tensile steel rebar.

I don't know how familiar this claim is to ATS members, but it was made endlessly by a 'christophera' over at JREF. I don't know if these two posters are the same, but it's a pretty ridiculous theory. There are obviously endless photos during the construction phase showing nothing of the sort but I fear there is no evidence that would convince the people who believe this.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:11 AM

Pictures of concrete core.
Statements by engineers of the concrete core.
Newspaper article about concrete core.
Mass of material used in construction tonnage of steel and cubic feet of concrete.
In one photo on this link you can see the core standing.

this subject here got side tracked but it is about 4 th generation thermonuclear hydrogen bombs at least to begin with.

Regardless, discussion can be off the subject somewhat.
Wizard sees the probability of FGNW's being used.
Seemore convicts my lack of credibility to the concrete core.
You now weigh in that there is no concrete core.
The poster prior to you says FGNW is coming out my ass.
I have not been dissuaded.

A 9KT FGNW will create an underground cavern, cave, cavity @ 260 feet in diameter.
A 4KT FGNW about 120 feet.
A 1 KT FGNW about 40 feet.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 10:09 AM

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Show me the nearly thousands of joints via photograph of these breaks at the connection points of bolted steel beams

I don't have 1000s of pics but these 2 clearly show the failed welded ends of core column sections.

Can you see any sign of radiation damage on that steel (infrared or ionising radiation)?
It doesn't appear to have been touched by flame either for that matter.

As for bolted connections, most that I've seen appear to have sheared as the holes are relatively undamaged which applies to the truss seats on the outer walls as well.

If the concrete core at the base is as your linked site suggests, how did the radiation pass through that without damaging it yet destroy material above it?

And remember neutrons can't be steered. They can be contained in a chamber which only allows them to escape in the desired direction while all neutrons not released in the direction of the opening are absorbed by the chamber itself (destructively). Secondary emissions within the chamber will add a little to the escaping flux. The bottom line is that the intensity decreases with distance if there's any angle of dispersion so the maximum destructive energy is produced at the immediate source of the explosion.

And while we're talking explosions, what effect would you expect when a relatively small quantity of ambient temperature air reaches fusion temperature in an instant (nanoseconds or less)?
Think about the mass/volume/pressure relationships applied to gases and how it reaches equilibrium with the surroundings.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 10:30 AM

Originally posted by fmcanarney
the concrete core perimeter walls were seventeen feet thick at the base of the concrete hollow inner core. around the perimeter of this concrete core were the steel core columns. But the core was concrete. Reinforced with three inch thick high tensile steel rebar.

Don't tell me.

The rebar was on 4' centers, right?

Got realstice?

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 11:01 AM
Ok, tell ya what. It's been fun watching you make a fool of yourself with all this mini-nuke garbage. I've got the yield that would be needed to do like you say. Let's see you refute the numbers.

I'll give you ALL your talking points:
1- 4th Gen nukes don't need a fission reaction to "light" it up
2- Neutrons can be steered
3- etc

I'm not even gonna challenge you on those, cuz I don't need to.

Here's some info on what it takes to vaporize steel. Note that the atomization number would be closer to what you're claiming, but it's 20% higher than the vaporization number, so I'll give you that too, just to give you every advantage.

Heat of vaporization for FE: 349600J/mol
Atomic mass of FE: 55.85 g/mol
Heat of vaporization for 1g FE= 349600J/mol /55.85 g/mol= 6259 J/g.

To vaporize 1000 tonnes of Fe, we get 6259J/g * 1,000,000,000 g= 6,259,000,000,000 J

1 gram TNT = 4184 J (exactly).

6,259,000,000,000J / 4184 J/gram = 1,500,000,000 grams of TNT equivalent.

=1,500,000 kg

=1,500 metric tons


Note that this for 1,000 metric tons ONLY.

While there was around 90,000 short tons in each tower, the core columns were about 25,000 short tons. Let's call it 10,000 metric tons. Now I'll give you a break and say that only half of the core columns were vaporized. That's 5,000 metric tons, or 5x my above estimate.

1.5kt *5= 7.5 kt.......

Your links say that 4th gen nukes only give out 20% as blast effects.

So the math says that the blast would have been equal to 1.5 kt of TNT. And 6kt goes to neutron radiation.

That's insane.

So no more discussion about melted steel, etc. Prove the math wrong if you can.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by Seymour Butz]

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by Seymour Butz

Nice post

Another consideration is how much fusionable (if that's a word) material is required to free the required amount of neutrons in the right direction to actually have any major physical effect on metal components. I think it's another insanely large number in terms of volume if the proposed source is gases like deuterium and tritium.

Neutrons can't be steered magnetically or electrostaticly like charged particles (electrons, protons, ions) because they have no charge. They are basically just inert projectiles (mass & velocity) that only stop when they impact a nucleus, splitting it if the KE is high enough.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 11:40 AM
reply to post by Pilgrum

All true, but it doesn't even need to be challenged to prove the insanity.

The insanity of the claim is proven in my post.

We've always known just how crazy this particular group of people are, NOW we have numbers that prove it..........

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:11 PM
Actually, I make the fuel requirement to produce enough energy in the form of high-energy neutrons to supply the heat of vaporization of a measly 1000 tonnes of steel as 4.6 moles of each reactant, or 9.2 grams of deuterium and 13.8 grams of tritium.

That's not what's important. What's really meaningful is that a D-T fusion reaction supplying that much energy would produce a neutron dose of 11,000 rads a kilometer away. At that dose, 99% of humans exposed will be dead within an hour.

The sudden, awful death of everyone within a 1/2 mile radius could not go unnoticed, nor could the considerable induced radioactivity in darned near every material object in the vicinity.

These effects are an inevitable consequence of a fusion reaction big enough to have even a fraction of the destructive power attributed to it by conspiracy fantasists. No such effects are observed.

Therefore, no fusion reaction of such magnitude took place. To doubt further is to misunderstand the issue.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 08:09 PM

Neat trick there Anon.

What kind of software hides your post like that?

Still not there!!

I'm intrigued what he has to say.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by Seymour Butz]

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by Seymour Butz

Insanity, now see you are beginning to sound like thedman in your attacks on me. I concede, the math is not 100% correct, however in the overall scheme of things it is not significant as to whether there is or is not a FGNW.

My original post got sidetracked as did I into connecting FGNW to WTC.
I believe I found a link to the dial a nuke reality as designed into a robust earth penetrator weapon.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:41 AM
eyewitness reports of bombs before plane impact

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:47 AM

Originally posted by fmcanarney

1- I concede, the math is not 100% correct,

2-however in the overall scheme of things it is not significant as to whether there is or is not a FGNW.

1- I think you meant that you concede, the math IS 100% coreect..... right?

2- Huh? If you're making the claim that a FGNW vaporized the core steel, then that's what it would take. You admit that. I've even given you EVERY advantage, every one of your talking points. I didn't even add anything for exploding the concrete.

The only way out for you now is to admit that no steel vaporized, and that your source - christophera - is a loon for promoting the insane idea that an FGNW was used on 9/11.

As far as whether or not FGNW actually exist, it doesn't even matter, because the idea of them being used on 9/11 is so bat#### crazy that it should be cause for some psychology student's master's thesis.

But really, at this point you and christophera have been debunked, fried, toasted, stick-a-fork-in-you done..

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:55 AM
reply to post by fmcanarney

While I think that we doubtless have 5th and likely even 6th gen fusion nukes that remain classified, I do take strong exception to the idea of the concrete-and-rebar core for the WTC towers.

There is no photographic evidence for this, during construction or at ground zero.

Also, structurally this makes absolutely no sense. The buildings had a massive wind load and a rigid concrete core is exactly the opposite of what was required. It is well known that the towers swayed in the winds--which could and at times did reach near-hurricane force--and this myth should be put to rest.

The core was composed of two outer lines of massive box columns, infilled with a grid of H beams in which the elevator shafts and hvac were placed. There was no concrete core; it would have soon degraded and splintered from the continuous forces of the windload.

posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 10:21 PM
reply to post by Seymour Butz

Never heard of christophera.

My initial source is the web site "COURSE ON MILITARY EXPLOSIVES"
I went from there and developed it, tried to rule it out.

It appears that directed FGNW's cannot and do not exist, according to prevailing opinion here on ATS this thread.
I had to prove that neutrons heat steel, vaporize concrete, comprise 80% of FGNW yield...

This is contrary to numerous links I posted.
Contrary to most recently "dial=a=nuke"
Ay odds with several nuclear scientific statements, a few by Cohen himself, and traceable back thirty plus years.

Apply the theory of evolution to the field of nuclear weaponry. That is directed evolution.
And trillions of dollars later, the military always gets what it wants.

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 08:28 AM

Another find was a bottle of Red Mercury. Now this was a big deal for me. In order for a nuclear bomb to created fusion, you need fission, which is why nuclear missles are so complex. Back in the peak of the Cold War, the USSR came out with a story that stated they developed a chemical that could create fusion WITHOUT fission, thus creating the capabilites for the possibility of a small, cheap nuclear mega-ton bomb. It was called Red Mercury. Most people say it was just some urban legend that was whipped up by the Soviets to sell some crap on the black market for $200K-$300K per ounce (which they did). No tests have ever proved that this substance actually worked. It was produced on the USSR and Eat Germany, from what I know. It just goes to show what extent Iraq was taking to create something for mass destruction.

top topics

<< 6  7  8   >>

log in