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.

 

Advancd H-bomb type Tactical nano-Nukes @ WTC 1 & 2 Only?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Its truly amazing and bizarre anyone with a brain can look at 1,2 and 7 and say NORMAL COLLAPSE, NO CD or nothing unusual.

Yep, no doubt about it... sure looks like a normal collapse to me. LoL











Note the HUGE difference between the "collapse" of 7 versus 1 and 2. Explosions are almost non existant at 7.
www.livevideo.com...
www.livevideo.com...

Seems hydrogen nano-nukes were most likely used at 1 and 2 but not on 7. and we see Pyroclastic explosions at 1 and 2 only.


what the top of the wtc should have looked like on a small scale as it fell over
www.livevideo.com...




posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


Why'sit have to do with such complicated devices?
Personally, I have never ever heard of their existance, not even as prototypes...
How is it "most likely"?

What is wrong with "Thermite" as most probably used?

Aren't you crossing the river to get some water?

Just a thought.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I had not heard this one yet.

do a google search for "Tactical nano-Nukes"

Interesting.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oolon
do a google search for "Tactical nano-Nukes"


Ehm, two hits on Icke's forum, one on ATS and one on Pravdas forum...

Okaaay...



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raud
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


Why'sit have to do with such complicated devices?
Personally, I have never ever heard of their existance, not even as prototypes...
How is it "most likely"?


just because you haven't HEARD of it,,, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

compared to the original or OLD theory of what general truthers believe, there's new data that needs to be factored in, revised or updated in the theories and evidence on the "collapse" of 1 and 2.

do some research on the observed evidence coming forth or the evidence of effects that are known to have been found or were apart of the wtc 1 and 2 demolition / "collapse".

you can honestly just "look" at those pics and say thermite can do that?

LOL

you need to expand your horizons, consider new evidence and rethink old ideas or observations that people have continued to cling to... that is if you're ready for it. Most aren't and haven't even begun to see the basic evidence proving CD. So yeah, i'm talking about advanced theories which would be very difficult for most to resonate with if they don't even understand or see the most basic evidence and theories.

I think JW's coining of 911 being the new hiroshima is quite accurate and her theory way ahead of its time.


Originally posted by Raud
What is wrong with "Thermite" as most probably used?


you mean thermate?

well I never said it wasn't used. In fact I believe it was ALSO used in tandem.

oh, and although its relatively new, there are many discussions of the nano-nuke issue.

but then, if its limited, what do people expect when nano-tech is in its infancy and understanding especially outside of military research or use?



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
From a demolitions standpoint, with prior weakening of the load bearing members realtively low-yield explosives could be used take down the building.
Most low-yield packages don't create large sonic booms, especially if used somewhat underground.

Basically what I'm trying to say is there isn't need for the use of a device like this to bring that building down in short and silent order with the correct prep work in place.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 
The nukes have been discussed on another thread "Thermate, C4, Micro Nukes Prove 911 Was and Inside/Outside Job" and the nuke proponents have not been able to resolve the issue of a complete lack of evidence that any nuclear device was detonated.
This includes: No blast damage, no neutron flux, no heat signature, no EMP disruptions, no immediate radiation deaths, and no bomb related nuclides.
This means "no nuke."



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Yeah, I ment Thermate.
Seems like you got what I ment anyway...

What about Thermate, regular explosives, and a hell of a lot of mass pushing down from above?

Still thinking you are crossing the river for water... But hey, you seem pretty into this stuff so I rest my case unil furthur notice.


But don't come to me with "expanding horizons" mind you.
I used to believe the "official" story for quite some time! Even took me until recently to understand how this most, or, more likely was a "CD".

Would not the area, or at least the debris be radioactive?
Or maybe you have info on that as well? (serious question)



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 



Just answer one question...

Why are you so set on evil on the U.S. part and no evil on the part of the drivers of the planes?

Nano-nukes? For real?

Try Occams razor.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 



Just answer one question...

Why are you so set on evil on the U.S. part and no evil on the part of the drivers of the planes?

Nano-nukes? For real?

Try Occams razor.


Uh-oh! I see a flame with your name on it, heading in your direction...!


We've all used that razor, but the deal is to cut along not across!


Come on man, have you been looking into the subject, by yourself, on your own, at anytime in your life?

Sorry to bust your bubble, but there is another world out there, known as the real one! '

Sorry if I made you upset hereby... I tried to be gentle...



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I will let all you humans know the truth.

Nano-nuclear bombs sound highly unreasonable, both in cost and effect, smaller tactical nuclear warheads are a reality though, and on direct impact to midtown manhattan would reduce new york to a four borough city on the map instantly, as radioactive fallout blows east out to sea, potentially making most of long island, connecticut, and the eastern tri-state/metro area inhospitable for roughly half a century.

The best evidence to support federal government involvement in these attacks is also the best evidence the federal government has to defend it's innocence.

1. how many planes were hi-jacked in total the morning of 9/11/2001?

2. how many planes were "unofficially intercepted" by F-16's before reaching their final targets?

MOST IMPORTANT
3. how do 4+ commercial airliners cancel scheduled flight paths and make it to three of their unintended targets, before being questioned by air traffic control, or ultimately intercepted.

4. how do formaly c.i.a. funded islamic radicalists dwelling in caves with leftover U.S. made stinger anti-air missiles develop such a well planned attack that the wipe out the three buildings containing the only hard documents recording 90% of total debts exported and imported to the U.S.

and here, all along, we thought they just wanted to kill people, why else would they destroy the center of western finance, and then cripple our physical defenses. Judging by the state of our economy now, it looks like Mr. Bin Laden took the first two rounds versus Uncle Sam, and we still can't throw punches back at him, because....well we gotta find him first.

Final Question:

How do you catch a former C.I.A. trained, funded, and armed asset called the taliban after you just spent a decade teaching them how not to get caught by the Russians while shooting down Russian supply choppers bring freshly purchased munitions to Iran?

Now ask yourself if we would of been better off just letting the Russians slaughter thousands of afghanies in retaliation, undenounced, while we simply stopped giving them weapons to fight the Russians back with?

Wait we did... ahhh... so when a man's entire village is leveled by Russian Hind choppers, he might have all the time in the world to come up with a good plan to exact revenge.

So yes, you could say our Federal Government did have an indirect and crucial influence on members of Al Qaeda (an extremist's offshoot of the larger Taliban faction) that carried out these attacks.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raud
Yeah, I ment Thermate.
Seems like you got what I ment anyway...

What about Thermate, regular explosives, and a hell of a lot of mass pushing down from above?

Still thinking you are crossing the river for water... But hey, you seem pretty into this stuff so I rest my case unil furthur notice.


But don't come to me with "expanding horizons" mind you.
I used to believe the "official" story for quite some time! Even took me until recently to understand how this most, or, more likely was a "CD".
Would not the area, or at least the debris be radioactive?
Or maybe you have info on that as well? (serious question)


are you aware of the evidence found regarding elevated levels of tritium?

have you researched the widespread cancer/thyroid related deaths and sickness from 911? You think all this was just coincidence?

how do you account for the PULVERIZATION, DUSTIFICATION etc?

Look at the PICS... can a normal collapse or thermate create such EXPLOSIONS or ENERGY RELEASE by themselves?

excellent threads from dr ED! and Labtop
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

here's an interesting article on this subject
www.thepriceofliberty.org...
www.thepriceofliberty.org...

perhaps i should have titled this thread including the term MICRO NUKES as well.

some insight into nukes..
en.wikipedia.org...

also interesting seismic evidence, EMP anomalies and even the hutchinsons effect were found.

and are you aware of the huge advances in nuke tech? or nano tech?

check out this video series to get your started...

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 

Why are you reposting everything that EdWard posted on the other micro-nukes thread? The answer will be the same: No evidence of a nuke of any sort.
No blast damage, no neutron flux, no heat signature, no EMP disruptions, no immediate radiation deaths, and no bomb related nuclides.
This means "no nuke."
I hope one of those awesome flames doesn't come my way, Trix.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by n1zzzn
From a demolitions standpoint, with prior weakening of the load bearing members realtively low-yield explosives could be used take down the building.
Most low-yield packages don't create large sonic booms, especially if used somewhat underground.

Basically what I'm trying to say is there isn't need for the use of a device like this to bring that building down in short and silent order with the correct prep work in place.


so please offer some explanation for the vaporization, dustification, and pulverization or whatever you want to call it of nearly the entire towers structural material including STEEL and concrete. Kind of odd as well with all this VAPORIZATION taking place, so much PAPER didn't. Have you looked into how much WATER vaporized?

explain the incredible ENERGY release going on.

explain the widespread CANCER related illnesses.

This black OP was much more than a mere CD.

Why and How? I have no idea... but to say it can't exist or that there was no need for it to be used when evidence exists that shows/reveals anything but just a typical CD, is silly and close-minded imo.

to me, whats interesting about 911 is the amount of and implications of the questions that the evidence raises whether it can be explained or not by known science or technology.

are you saying the military has never or would never use or experiment with advanced tech thats not been officially confirmed?

Please tell me you don't think that.

Now of course i agree thats not conclusive proof i'm right or you're wrong, but I just don't see how any reasonable person can look at the "collapses" let alone all the other evidence in full context and imply its all a coincidence or the issue on how the towers came down is BLACK AND WHITE.

I submit there are so many dynamics involved that we haven't even begun to scratch the surface on nor begin to comprehend yet.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 

Why are you reposting everything that EdWard posted on the other micro-nukes thread? The answer will be the same: No evidence of a nuke of any sort.


I'm posting a few discussions and the evidence some may have missed on this subject, which I submit hasn't been conclusively refuted or disproven yet.

I'm looking for a line by line counter-argument to the arguments and evidence ed et al's have presented that claim otherwise.


Originally posted by pteridine
No blast damage, no neutron flux, no heat signature, no EMP disruptions, no immediate radiation deaths, and no bomb related nuclides.


So if thats the crust of your argument (and i'm not saying its not true even though I've seen evidence to the contrary), I'd be interested in Ed or Labtops response since your claim and response is based on some of their research and material etc.


Originally posted by pteridine
this mean no nuke


conventional perhaps.

but then again...perhaps none that you know of or thats been officially confirmed.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


Trix,
Regardless of the technology employed, there are physical limitations to nuclear weapons. You may subscribe to theories on "fusion only" but understand that such a device needs, somehow, a way of heating and containing the fusible materials so fusion can occur. This doesn't mean a mechanical compressor and a heat gun. In a bomb, this is done with a fission bomb surrounding the fusion core. That is the heat and containment that is necessary.
Pretend you can magic the fusion only bomb and set it off. What happens?
Obvious things first: Big energy release throughout the spectrum, from IR to gamma. "Brighter than a thousand suns" as the quote goes. Look at the videos. Notice anything like that?
Next: adiabatic expansion of air and vaporized materials in the fireball. this would be that part called the bang. It would come with a significant overpressure that would knock over all sorts of things and break windows for miles around. It would be also the part, along with the heat, that Eddie says made the craters by throwing a lot of soil, rock, and metal building parts high into the air. Look at the videos. Notice anything like that?
Neutron flux: Nukes all fling neutrons around. Neutrons penetrate really well and kill people. People that are close die within hours. People that are further away can take weeks or months. How many people do you thing were within a mile of the buildings when they collapsed? Did you see 50,000 dead within a few weeks?
Nuclides: These are radioactive compounds that are made when the bomb goes off. They are nasty and not readily overlooked. They are much more than the tritium anomaly and actinide background that Ed rants about. Did you or anyone else find analyses of anything like radioactive elements not in the background? Were there any deaths as the result of fallout? Was NYC ever evacuated?
EMP: This is the electromagnetic pulse. It can induce voltages in conductors. It will cook unshielded integrated circuits and overload the power grid causing failures. Computers will be destroyed in a large radius. Did anyone notice anything like this?

My conclusion: No evidence = No nuke.

[edit on 2/17/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I love it...

The real world is the one of YOUR making...

You think it is true so it is... Along the lines of Jews are control the money because of the supposed long list of Jews running banks or Christianity is simply stolen ideas from previous civilizations.


You did not answer the question...Why are you not displaying anger for why radical jihadis decided that innocent Americans must die as a response to supposed wrong done by America?

Why is America the bad one? Please answer that question if you want to live in your real world?



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by crmanager
 

Well lets see why america is the bad one. First during ww1 sending a ship into territory the germans advertised in american newspapers that any breach of this area by sea will be met with force. What happened, Germans sunk the ship which influenced the people to back government plans to enter war. Second during ww2 a certain group of Islands in the Pacific called Hawaii where the americans had their Pacific fleet stationed was attacked By Japan after being provoked by America, what did leaders in Washington do when intel of an imminent attack was recieved, they made sure it was desaterous for them so the public would back plans to enter the war. In which the americans dropped 2 atomic weapons on Japan where the side effects are still being felt 70 years and 2 generations later. And then every foreign policy they have had since. The American i snot bad at all is it.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Wow, is that an incoherent post.

America tricked the Germans and Japan into world war?

I THINK your final sentence is "America is as bad as it is."

OK...

I disagree...

America has never kept a country it has invaded; we are a nation of fighters not occupiers.

America has spent more money in Africa then all other nations combined.

America has been the economic engine for the world since WW1 in money and moral leadership.

America is still the nation everyone in the world wants to emmigrate to.

America is the worlds best and greatest hope.

Please do not respond with a list of wrongs for which you will blame America...it is trite and boring to blame America first.

You have your opinion and I have mine.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by matrixNIN11
 


Trix,
I think Ed is done ranting for a while. His posts were repititious and he fails to address anything but the tritium. He may have a strength in medicine but he has little knowledge of nuclear weapons.
As people get further and further away from reality, the theories get less and less believeable. Nukes and hologram planes are really not worth arguing because too much evidence says neither ever happened. Ed may be the only person who believes in the possibility of a micro-nuke or at least says he does.
If demolition continues to be a topic, it will be with advanced chemical demolitions or secret ray guns. Nukes are out.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join