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.

 

Is another 9/11 set to unfold?

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Hx3_1963
 


I saw this same article today, it is being discussed at the tickerforum. Weird.




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
My only big problem with this is the 'suitcase nukes'. Has anyone really done much research on these? I did and it turns out that they are VERY unstable. Not unstable in the way that they could just blow up. But unstable in the way that the slightest offset of the uranium ball will render it inoperable. The slightest bump could cause this. They are very unlikely to work if moved any distance. Thus flying them in a small plane to detonate them is kind of stupid.

Anyway, just wanted to bring this up. Look into them.

If anything, I'm pretty sure that the nuke going off will be the one that is missing from that 'unannounced' flight a few years back where everyone involved has mysteriously committed suicide or died in other various accidents.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
I had a dream a long time ago about a nuke going off in NYC and Philly... this was before 9/11/2001.

i shrugged it off, and i wouldn't be surprised.

my predictions have come true before.

i predicted 9/11 when i was 16.... (posted this dream on ATS 2 years ago... Thought id share)

i had this nuke dream before i even knew what a nuke was.

perhaps it will happen... (hope it doesn't)

perhaps it wont, but i wouldn't put it past the PTB... they will do anything for a quick trillion or two.

S&F


wow i hope that doesnt happen. i just moved from philly and only like like 2 hrs from there and nyc each. id be right in the middle.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
www.timeanddate.com...


3119 days in between 9-11-2001 & 2-26-1993

8 years 6 months 16 days....



That means March 27, 2010 until the same amount of time has passed.


(I honestly believe nothing will happen in 2009 in terms of a huge False Flag event)



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


At this point I would say it is becoming more and more improbable all the time.
The more chatter there is on the net leading up to a supposed false flag event, the more likely the event won't take place.

The entire purpose of such an attack would be to deceive.
If people are onto you beforehand, and it is in public record, the more apprehensive you will be about actually carrying out the attack.

In regards to 9-11, a few people predicted it. They did their homework perhaps. Or perhaps they were in on it. Either way, the chatter obviously wasn't enough to offset the event.

Now, we are getting warnings at the rate of 2 or 3 a day. At some point someone at the top goes.... "ummm. they're onto us boss."



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Mentioning the dates and 8 year span between made me think of what happened 8 years before Feb. 26 1993. What I found was on Mar. 8th 1995 the CIA tried to assassinate a Cleric by the name of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.

Could this be a link?

Story on Wikipedia.


Rhain



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
This story was also carried in the Deseret paper from Utah today. It does seem like there is much chatter about this to us, but we all are looking around these sorts of sites. The general public is not thinking of that at all. I worry more about them putting a bomb on top of one of our very unprotected nuclear reactors. If Ginna blew I would be gone in that first wall of fire. French fries anyone.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg
My only big problem with this is the 'suitcase nukes'. Has anyone really done much research on these? I did and it turns out that they are VERY unstable. Not unstable in the way that they could just blow up. But unstable in the way that the slightest offset of the uranium ball will render it inoperable. The slightest bump could cause this. They are very unlikely to work if moved any distance. Thus flying them in a small plane to detonate them is kind of stupid.


OK brainiac... Riddle me this - How were they able to reduce a nuke in size so that it was able to be fired from a massive artillery cannon gun thing? Or launched from an M65 recoilless rifle for that matter - both methods would include a high amount of velocity change.

And not forgetting of course that ICBM's have a number of the things designed to go up and down then go bang.

Any 'research' you have done on 'suitcase' nukes is worth about as much as grass clippings, people on the internet will spew any nonsense just to sound credible - I note you gave no sources.

edit: And what would be the point in making a 'special atomic demolition munition' if you couldn't move the damnd thing?? You don't build a bulldozer wherever you want to use it do you?

[edit on 9/9/2009 by Now_Then]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Does this guy have any reason to believe this or is he just pulling this out of nowhere?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
I had a dream a long time ago about a nuke going off in NYC and Philly... this was before 9/11/2001.

i shrugged it off, and i wouldn't be surprised.

my predictions have come true before.

i predicted 9/11 when i was 16.... (posted this dream on ATS 2 years ago... Thought id share)

i had this nuke dream before i even knew what a nuke was.

perhaps it will happen... (hope it doesn't)

perhaps it wont, but i wouldn't put it past the PTB... they will do anything for a quick trillion or two.

S&F


This is great, I'm paranoid like the last guy also because I live in Philly. Man that scares the hell outta me. But I won't change my life for nothing, I won't give them the satisfaction, they have to peel my dead body off this city, I love Philly!



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Possibly another warning of an event to come?

www.reuters.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I can't believe this thread did not get more action than this. Seems the interesting or important one's go to the way side.

Just like the Apollo Alliance thread with Van Jones. A week later he has to quit after Obama thru him under the bus like many others.

So, are we all going to discuss this event on Monday?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


Have to agree with you. That was kind of a moronic statement.

The only trick of a small nuke, is the high explosive that drives the ball.
It takes "X" amount to drive a force of "X" velocity.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


Okay, maybe I should have been a BIT more clear. In reference to the 'suitcase' nuke. These were always discussed as being brought in piece by piece and then put together near the target.

I'm sorry, but I was simply pointing out information I found on various articles describing the precise methods involved. Of course this was done back in 2005 so of course I don't have a link. Why would I keep the link? I don't dwell on this crap.

So, in saying what I just did, in no way was I referring to the other 'MILITARY' grade nukes that you brought up mr. brainiac. Those are designed to endure what you described.

For a couple fanatical terrorists to put a nuke together in their basement in a suitcase and then transport it is a COMPLETELY different story. So please, before to try to come into a conversation and think you are king crap do some research of your own.

I was saying what I said because I believe that if a nuke does indeed go off it will have been a military grade bomb that either mysteriously disappeared from our own stockpile or was purchased elsewhere.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by j2000
reply to post by Now_Then
 


Have to agree with you. That was kind of a moronic statement.

The only trick of a small nuke, is the high explosive that drives the ball.
It takes "X" amount to drive a force of "X" velocity.


Yup, you're right. It was kind of a moronic statement that has been echoed by MANY MANY people higher up in government that actually have a flipping clue about what they are talking about. It's not just a matter of 'x' amount of drive to force 'x' velocity. There is a MUCH HIGHER precision when it comes to nukes.

Suitcase Nukes Said Not Likely to Exist




Members of Congress have warned about the dangers of suitcase nuclear weapons. Hollywood has made television shows and movies about them. Even the Federal Emergency Management Agency has alerted Americans to a threat _ information the White House includes on its Web site.

But government experts and intelligence officials say such a threat gets vastly more attention than it deserves. These officials said a true suitcase nuke would be highly complex to produce, require significant upkeep and cost a small fortune.


Not to say that they are impossible. Just HIGHLY unlikely for these 'TERRORISTS' to be able to put together on the spot my friends.

Stop the fear mongering. Well, at least tone it down a bit. If a nuke does go off it will come from an established nuclear nation or radicals from within the U.S. government.

Suitcase Nukes - Rise and Fall of the Suitcase Nuke Scare

But of course we're all just morons because we read up on things before we spout of with fear and delusions.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


You seem to be basing your comments on 2 main assumptions here (I by the way, re reading my post I was a bit stand offish - I'll put together a u2u later this evening).

But your 2 assumptions seem to be that 1) A 'suitcase' nuke will be of comparative size/weight and shape to an actual suitcase - I believe it is more of a phrase that lends it's self to action thriller type novels more than anything - a man portable low yield nuke device would be more accurate and...

2) That this device would have to use the much more complicated (and powerful) implosion technique for the detonation... Now yes this a formidably precise and complicated bit of engineering that would require test after test, huge resources and would be all but impossible for a terrorist outfit to develop (obtaining a pre-existing device on the other hand, well that's anyone's guess - and of course who says the terrorists aren't actually sponsored by a nation who possesses these things any way - but that's a tangent away from the discussion).

I put to you the much simpler method known as the gun device - the very basic theory behind any nuke explosion is getting your fissionable material to it's critical mass (and also doing it fast enough). Now the critical mass of the various fissionable materials can vary from (according to wiki - yes I know it's wiki but for a quick reference it is fine) from 5kg for californium-251 to a massive 750kg (±180?) for protactinium-231.... With Uranium 233 being a manageable 15kg and Uranium 233 a still manageable 52kg.

So you see depending on what material a ner do well can lay his grubby mits on he could definitely make a man portable device.

Instead of the complex sphere crushing precise implosion technique they could go down the gun bomb route where by a doughnut shaped mass of material (sub critical mass of course) is fired down a 'gun barrel' onto a spiked shaped mass of material - using conventional high explosives... The union of the 2 masses pushes the material beyond the critical mass and there you have your explosion.

The device would be large, and heavy - things such as the casing are critical, the casing has to retain the neutrons for a very short time during the explosion... Again another tangent... It would require a significant amount of HE and I believe things that are difficult to obtain are used in quantity such as Polonium (which has a very short half life - it would need to be acquired within say a couple of weeks of the detonation).

But all this could rather simply be made into a man portable package with the right expertise - and there you have your 'suitcase bomb' - which in reality I assume would probably take more of a very large backpack arrangement as opposed to a discreet almost business man's briefcase design as seems to be the general image that I see on the internet.

Now yes this principle does have inherrent 'problems' with the design, not least is that the 'doughnut' has to move perfectly down the barrel to union with the 'spike' - and it has to do it with such veloicty and force that the two do not seperate with what would be known as a fizzle (where the 2 blow them selves apart in the very small time where the cascade reaction is occiring - if that occurs you basically just have a dirty bomb) - It's probably something that would require some degree of very last minute assembly, checking and that - so not the romantic spy thriller brief case nuke that some dude in a suit can carry into a building on monday morning...

But that's not the point, It is very reasonable to assume that the device could be delivered by vehicle, be that car, truck, business jet or even 2 guys on foot - and then detonated. Would it be a sucide device? Who knows... Can it be done? The principles have been devoloped and I guess it only really comes down to the capabilities, the recources and the will of the bad guys.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Just bumping this thread because 911 went off without a hitch, but is there a corrilation to any future dates such as tonight at midnight as they say on another thread? Couldnt we get some intel here at ats? I wish we still had annonomous posts so that they would feel free to post some good stuff.




top topics



 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join