Imaginary Weapons: A Journey Through the Pentagon's Scientific Underworld

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

while I think the original design of this
device was similar to a grenade. I'm
relatively sure some modifications
have rendered it relative to it's intended
use or location. Like a mini-nuke custom
made for a specific purpose. However,
each one would be small enough to
fit in your hand or in ur pocket.

Hafnium Isomer Grenade Bomb.
i would worry about Rods from God or enhanced Rods from God
www.popsci.com...

pure-fusion warheads
The "enhanced" Rods from God would have a capsule containing a deuterium-tritium mixture in the back half of the Rod.
The heat and pressure of the rod hitting the earth with impact speeds of Mach 10+ could be high enough to cause a pure-fusion yield of the deuterium-tritium mixture.

Originally posted by rajaten
Seriously not cool.
At all.

ur right, it's not cool

the development of such a high yield device
from such small packaging reeks of plans
of sabotage, terror or false flags. It would seem
that's what it's purpose might be.

Originally posted by ANNED
Hafnium Isomer Grenade Bomb.
i would worry about Rods from God or enhanced Rods from God
www.popsci.com...

pure-fusion warheads
The "enhanced" Rods from God would have a capsule containing a deuterium-tritium mixture in the back half of the Rod.
The heat and pressure of the rod hitting the earth with impact speeds of Mach 10+ could be high enough to cause a pure-fusion yield of the deuterium-tritium mixture.

what you posted would not have the effects you perceive.
That is a kinetic weapons platform, meaning it's propulsion
comes from it's base and there is no propulsion after it leaves.
Kinda like a bullet does leaving a gun.

What do you think would happen to this rod once it
makes it through our atmosphere?

It falls like a rock with only it's weight and gravity
to give it speed. Hitting the earth at Mach 10+
as you describe sounds like a fantasy more than reality.
That platform is to be used on space objects like
asteroids or space junk. Once fired from it's
base, it needs no more propellant to hit's
it's target in outer space. Making it through
our atmosphere is a totally different ballgame.
no offense

I was just stating plausibility over weapon of choice. If we're talking Hafnium as a weaponized tool, then I would definitely buy into as a suitcase bomb, or even a body bomb (if the person was indeed suicidal).

While I do believe 9/11 was an inside job, I think eluding to mini nukes and space based weaponry bringing down the buildings does more to hurt 9/11 truth movement than anything.
Mainly because it takes such a leap of logic to believe something as sinister as an inside job anyway, then to add to that people throw in to the fray exotic and never before heard of technologies which only serve to muddies the waters.

When I here unsubstantiated claims like .."this is how they could have brought down the twin towers" ..it makes me feel like truthers are a bunch of nut-ball conspiracy theorists......Then I realize OH wait I'm one of those guys too, damn!

This is not an attack on you boondock because I agree with most of your posts and your threads and we see eye to eye on most things. I just think such assumptions about the destruction of the buildings by nuke may be a little off the grid where logic is concerned. However if you can introduce the practical application of such weaponry as well as the logistical placement and deployment within the buildings to account for their peculiar collapse that day maybe that would be better for everyone. After all this is the crux of the issue for debunkers...evedence ..evedence... evedence. Otherwise we are giving ammo to every one who disbelieves the idea of an inside job.

reply to post by snowen20

snowen, I know it's not a personal attack
And to clarify, I was not the one to bring up
space based weaponry. It was forced onto this
thread by someone else. My OP was about a
grenade sized bomb that was capable of
mass destruction similar to leveling an entire
city block. And that is exactly what happened
on 9/11. And it was proven that the initial experiment
for this weapon was accomplished 3 years prior to
9/11. I did however leave it open to the reader
to make up their own mind about the similarities
between the 2.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Yeah I understand where you are coming from, I wasn't trying to implicate you in my post per se. It is more directed toward the ideology behind such exotic weaponry and it's effective if not questionable deployment in the field, be it false flag or otherwise, and how such concepts are picked up by 9/11 truthers, of which I am one.

The concepts who have brought forward are enlightening as hell though and really bring to light some of the lengths the government will go to develop ever new and improved ways to carry out murder.

I have heard of these mini nukes but not until now have they actually been clarified to me. Like I said interesting.

reply to post by snowen20

thank you snowen
you place your ideas
on the table so eloquently
I applaud you for your
communication skills
star for u

There is a thread that mentioned that mini nukes had been used to destroy the towers before and this post would help that argument. Check out this thread and the article.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It would also explain the lack of radiation poisoning.

reply to post by boondock-saint

sounds like there is a fair bit of hafnium about

It is possible that some exporting enterprises may be unaware of the proliferation risks of particular goods; others may intentionally take advantage of poorly enforced or corruptly administered export control
laws. A Ukrainian firm reportedly has already exported tens of tons of hafnium and zirconium, metals on the Nuclear Suppliers Group list of restricted dual-use items

from Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks - August 1993 PDF from www.au.af.mil.

Other research papers look into using it to assist ICBM propulsion.

And, from 2009 a paper on future tech (pdf) - not to say the work isn't already underway:

A host of other high-tech weapons systems are on the horizon. These are minor revolutions when compared with, say, nanotechnology, but they will make themselves felt. Non-nuclear explosives for mass efect will appear in the near future. These include:
- Fuel-air and dust-air bombs with explosive power 15 times as great as
the same weight of TNT. The first such devices already are available.
...
-And perhaps a meta-stable isomer called hafnium-178. In theory, a kilogram of Ha178 could deliver as much energy as a quarter-kiloton of TNT. Unlike conventional explosives, all of this energy would be released as hard gamma rays, efectively sterilizing the surrounding area without harming useful structures. There is some debate over whether this theoretical possibility, reminiscent of the traditional neutron bomb, could ever be realized.

Proteus USA
From the above and elsewhere, a mass of Gamma rays wont drop a building, just turn you to soup.

And in the Budget:

(U) Nuclear isomers, such as hafnium 178m2, store in the nucleus 10,000 times as much energy per gram as TNT. The goal of the Simulated Isomer Energy Release program is to develop a technique to control the release of this energy. It will develop a way to make these isomers in
gram-size quantities. The program will demonstrate that as much energy can be released as is used to initiate the reaction (a breakeven experiment) and, by its conclusion, demonstrate a 50 pound bomb that has the explosive force of a 2,000 pound bomb. The SIER effort was
initiated as an alternative energy program in PE0602712E, project MPT-01, but was subsequently moved to project TT-04 when its potential as a explosive was realized.

DARPA Budget Estimates - Dated Feb2003

what you posted would not have the effects you perceive. That is a kinetic weapons platform, meaning it's propulsion comes from it's base and there is no propulsion after it leaves. Kinda like a bullet does leaving a gun. What do you think would happen to this rod once it makes it through our atmosphere? It falls like a rock with only it's weight and gravity to give it speed. Hitting the earth at Mach 10+ as you describe sounds like a fantasy more than reality. That platform is to be used on space objects like asteroids or space junk. Once fired from it's base, it needs no more propellant to hit's it's target in outer space. Making it through our atmosphere is a totally different ballgame. no offense

You apparently havent seen a rail gun in use have you? Look it up , youll see plenty of prototypes and the damage they cause, not only do they not need propellant, they are shot at such a high rate of speed that the actual projectile ignites without any fuel source......

One only has to perceive the same technology implemented in space where there is no friction to inhibit acceleration..........once it hits the atmosphere at a speed like that youre statement about "Mach 10" is no where CLOSE to fantasy........gravity is an amazing force when its pulling on an object moving at a speed that even here on earth is mindblowing......

Couple gravity with entering the earths atmosphere, along with the speed at which this thing is "zapped" out at.......and you have a devastating weapon.........

I actually wouldnt be surprised if this technology was already orbiting above us...........most of the time when we hear about something or see the technology its already been in place for quite a while......

wow, amazingly cruel minds these people have to make this kind of thing. People turning into glue? Of course that statement was back in 2003, 7 years ago. Who the hell knows what this technology can do today? Amazing thread!

Well, I was looking at the picture. I would prefer a Nuclear grenade launcher... Or a shoulder RPG Nuclear launcher- I would like to go to sleep for a decade or so... Imagine what the weapons tech will look and be like.

I thought this would be a good place to ask this question... Boon, you seem to know a thing or two...
Are the rumors of lost suit case nukes, exactly that, a rumor? If the are real... Where were they "lost" from?
What are the rumors, about their current location?

Are they a 7 day trip suit case... or a brief case?

reply to post by boondock-saint

Originally posted by boondock-saint
Ladies and gentlemen, meet the new Hafnium Isomer Grenade Bomb.

I'm pleased to make the acquaintance of the Hafnium Isomer Grenade Bomb fortunately in such friendly circumstances. If it was used in Bali, it would explain the ease of getting it 5 feet down into a monsoon drain.

With the threat of a new arms race, it's believable that the Pentagon sat on the official idea of this technology until they'd got a good headstart or confirmed it to be worthless. The subsequent funding hints at a successful covert development campaign that now needs to be brought into the light.

Nice one, boondock-saint! S&F!

reply to post by boondock-saint


Yes I did read the part that said it was available prior to 9/11, thats why I also commented on the 9/11 aspect. Yes its possible they could have used it since it was available at that time. However, like I said, NO one saw one giant huge explosion like this. Things would have blown out more. what we saw was the buildings support structure being demolished in a vertical high-to-low sequential fashion.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Interesting read, unsettling as it is. The reference about turing people into glue tripped something in my mind. I seem to remeber stories of the assault on the Baghdad airport and possible use of laser weapons as buildings remained standing while those inside them "melted"...this sounds more plausible. Was this our mega grenade in action?



Link works...just a dumb dork right now...also this...(maybe better to check out than an hour long vid)

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Majid Al Ghezali Yes… Yes, I think. They shoot the bus. We saw the bus like a cloth, like a wet cloth. It seemed like a Volkswagen, a big bus like a Volkswagen.

ColoradoJens

I have news for you guys though. If we're even hearing about these weapons they're probably obsolete, or at least in the catalog of weapons to be sold to our enemies. I remember about 9 years ago, a guy I know [to remain unnamed] who has multiple SCI clearances, told me that "the government was working on projects that won't even fit in your brain." He was referring to new technologies in weaponry. I can only imagine what they've cooked up in the last decade.

hahaha thats funny