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.


Barometric or A-neutronic bomb, any more info?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 06:47 PM
This is what I have unearthed up till now, which is not too much.
It seems to be a highly classified project, with just a few insiders knowledgeable about the subject :

Moreover many eyewitnesses reported not one, but two explosions, and this is a certifiable fact. Investigations at the Oklahoma Geological Survey at the University of Oklahoma revealed seismographic records indicating two explosions, ten seconds apart. The first occurred at 9: 02 and 13 seconds with another following at 9:02 and 23 seconds. According to General Partin and many explosive experts that investigator Ted Gunderson has spoken to, this rules out the explanation of a truck bomb.

A more plausible explanation, they say, is a barometric bomb. This works via a process that involves not one but two explosions; the first uses an explosive known as PETN which releases a lethal cloud of chemicals, ammonium nitrate and aluminium silicate. This cloud is energized with what is described as a “high potential electrostatic field.” A few seconds later there follows another blast using an explosive called PDTN that ignites the cloud created with a much greater force than TNT.

This would account for the two blasts heard by witnesses and it would also explain the extensive damage caused by the explosion. However such a bomb would be beyond the scope of a supposed ‘lone nut’ like Timothy McVeigh. In fact knowledge of how to construct such a device is available to only a few with the highest level of security clearance because the barometric bomb is still highly classified. In other words only those with a high level of security clearance in the U.S. Government and security services would have access to the know how to construct such a device.
3rd, 4th and 5th generation nuclear devices.
Post nr 5 last part :

On possible other than nuclear devices used on 9/11 :
The fabled a-neutronic bomb :

"Riconosciuto's talents were much in demand. He had created the a-neutronic bomb (or "Electro-Hydrodynamic Gaseous Fuel Device"), which sank the ground level of the Nevada test site by 30 feet when a prototype was tested. Samuel Cohen, the inventor of the neutron bomb, said of Riconosciuto: "I've spoken to Michael Riconosciuto (the inventor of the a-neutronic bomb) and he's an extraordinarily bright guy. I also have a hunch, which I can't prove, that they both (Riconosciuto and Lavos, his partner) indirectly work for the CIA."

Riconosciuto's bomb made suitcase nukes obsolete, because it achieved near-atomic explosive yields, but could be more easily miniaturized. You could have a suitcase a-neutronic bomb, or a briefcase a-neutronic bomb, or simply a lady's purse a-neutronic bomb. Or just pull out your wallet for identification and... The Meridian Arms Corporation, as well as the Universities of California and Chicago owned a piece of the technology."
Michael Riconosciuto & Ted Gunderson's 1986 Meeting with 'Tim Osman' (Osama bin Laden)

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 06:52 PM
Post nr 7 :

Yet some critics of the government's story have gone beyond the relatively ordinary explanations of Partin, Gronning and others to suggest that the Federal Building was destroyed by a device called an "A-Neutronic Bomb." These advocates cite as evidence the nature of the spalling (the disintegration of the concrete into tiny pieces) on the top of the building, and the extent of the damage to surrounding buildings that even men like General Partin claim would be impossible for an ANFO bomb.

Larens Imanyuel, a Berkeley assistant physics professor who has studied the bombing, is one such advocate. Imanyuel's analysis, which appeared in Veritas newsletter, indicates that the wide extent of the collateral damage was not consistent with a conventional explosion. As Imanyuel writes:

There was some very sophisticated bomb that was capable of causing a tremendous blast atmospheric pressure wave that blew out windows in so many of the surrounding buildings. This had to be some sort of very high-tech dust explosive-like bomb — one that creates a widely dispersed explosive mixture in the very air and then detonates it with a secondary charge. This last spectacular high-tech bomb served the purpose of convincing the general public that the alleged solitary truck-bomb was powerful and "devastating" enough that it could wipe out and collapse a nearby building.[36]

Consider the comments of a local structural engineer, Bob Cornforth, "The range of this blast has really impressed me — the extent of the damage and the distance out." A mile away, window frames had been pushed back two feet. On the other hand, he inspected two buildings just a little over 200 ft. from the so-called crater, the YMCA center and the Journal Record building, which lost part of its pitched concrete roof. To his surprise, "The structural frames performed extremely well. We design for 80-mph winds," which he says seems adequate. The lack of damage to the frames, despite the massive light-structural damage showed that the shock waves were of short duration. This was consistent with a many-point explosion, but not with a single-point explosion large enough to knock out the four heavy columns that had collapsed in the Murrah Building.[37]

The A-Neutronic bomb, or "Electro-Hydrodynamic Gaseous Fuel Device," was reportedly developed by the young scientist-prodigy in the early 1980s while he was working for Hercules Manufacturing in Silicon Valley, CA. The first bomb test at the Pentagon's super-secret Area 51 in Nevada apparently resulted in the death of a technician and injured several others due to their underestimation of its power. The project was reportedly compartmentalized and classified under a "Nuclear Weapons" category by President Reagan. [For a description of the device, see Appendix]
(LT: I can't get my hands on this Appendix, anyone can?)

[What does Samuel Cohen have to say about the A-Neutronic bomb? "Well, I'm not expert enough to really vouch for his statements, but I've got a hunch that it's technically well-based. I've spoken to Michael Riconosciuto (the inventor of the A-Neutronic Bomb) and he's an extraordinarily bright guy. I also have a hunch, which I can't prove, that they both (Riconosciuto and Lavos, his partner) indirectly work for the CIA."]

According to Imanyuel, a member of a public watch-dog group that monitors military and nuclear procurement activities, "The design would be particularly suitable for use as a cruise missile warhead, where a non-nuclear charge is required that can reliably destroy a hardened target despite a several-meters targeting error. Such weapons are designed as part of the Advanced Technology Warhead Program of Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories."

Ted Gundersen, who has independently investigated the bombing, included numerous letters and memos in his report which pointed to the existence of such a device. He reported that the government contract number for the bomb was DAAA-21-90-C-0045, and was manufactured by Dyno-Nobel, Inc., in Salt Lake City. Dyno-Nobel was previously connected with Hercules Manufacturing, where Riconosciuto worked. The Department of the Army denies that contract DAAA-21-90-C-0045 exists. Dyno-Nobel refused to respond to inquiries from Gundersen or the author.[38]

Curiously, the bomb specialist the government called as its expert witness during the Federal Grand Jury testimony was Robert Hopler. Hopler recently retired from Dyno-Nobel.

Sherrow raised the issue of the Electro-Hydrodynamic Gaseous Fuel Device in his Soldier of Fortune article. According to Imanyuel, "Gundersen's bomb model was clearly unworkable as presented in Soldier of Fortune, but contained the essential information that the bomb generated an electrostatically charged cloud."[39]

One victim in the HUD office in the Murrah Building described in a National Public Radio interview on May 23, 1995 how she felt a heat wave and a static electricity charge immediately before the windows blew in.

Daina Bradley, who lost her mother and two children in the bombing, said she felt electricity running through her body right before the bomb went off.[40]

Another victim, Ramona McDonald, who was driving about block away, remembers seeing a brilliant flash and described the feeling of static electricity. "It made a real loud static electricity sound. It sounded like big swarm of bees — you could actually hear it. The next thing was a real sharp clap, like thunder.…" McDonald also described both gold and blue flashes of light. Interestingly, Riconiscuto has called his device "Blue Death."[41]

Another survivor of the blast was quoted on CNN as saying, "It was just like an atomic bomb went off. "The ceiling went in and all the windows came in and there was a deafening roar…"[42]

Proponents of the A-Neutronic Bomb conclude that these are all signatures of such a device.[43]

Source :

Much of that reminds me of Ground Zero, with the heat generated from the collapses, blowing out windows of nearby buildings for some distances, pulverizing concrete, and the "clap of thunder" was literally used to describe the initiation of WTC7's collapse, just as it was the explosion at the Murrah Federal Building.

posted on May, 19 2007 @ 09:26 PM
Wow, awesome information dude

On a side note, do you think these devices would have been used in the WTC demolition? I recognise the evidence that some exotic weapon was used, but have only come to the conclusion of a micronuke, simply because i don't have access to any info like you've just presented.

I would appreciate any thoughts you have on how the towers were demolished, and using what type of devices.

posted on May, 20 2007 @ 05:19 AM
Did you READ the WHOLE TEXT of my first link?

and then read all other links provided in there?
There is an immense amount of info in there, which cost me months of research.

Is there some mechanism in place in the modern (USA and ??) schooling system, which let all young western pupils avoid READING more than a few sentences?
Or is it just the effect of modern indoctrinating techniques, implemented in all advertising ads on television?

Which teach you day by day that only a few very fast pronounced sentences, played out as loud as can be, mostly 3 times louder than the preceding programming, can attract the attention of the viewers for a few moments.

For well done research, you must meticulously follow all leads and lines, found in numerous conversations, books and online info, then try to compare valuable pieces of info, and put them together in a feasibility scheme.

This can provide you with a few possible demolition techniques, used on 9/11 and other events before that date.

I strongly suspect some sort of a barometric bomb was used at several floors in the WTC Towers, triggered by simple shock and movement sensitive mercury switches.
A top to bottom demolition would then subsequently trigger all mercury switches.
The barometric bomb suspensions will have been stored in the most simple containers, like boxed-in inside core columns, or better in the fire department emergency standpipes in all 3 towers, which coincidentally ALL were not in working order on 9/11 , so also not in WTC 7.

posted on May, 20 2007 @ 08:39 AM
Dude take it easy alright, i was just asking you a question, no need to bite my head off. I appreciate the fact that you've gotten so far with your research that you have no time for those who've yet to reach that point, i completely understand why you would not want to waste time. But i was only asking a question

Two points i think you mite find interesting, which i found yesterday;

-There was "dust" inside the WTC towers in the week before the attacks. Was someone removing concrete somewhere?

-Strange noises from empty floors. So much so that the ceiling was shaking on the floor below.. were they stripping concrete from the structure in order to place devices/substances? Yet, when someone peaked into one of the floors, it was completely empty?

Barometric bombs sound plausible, but i'll have to do more research on that, aswell as logisitically working out where they would have been, and trying to account for all explosions and visual evidence.

Im still swayed towards a micronuke in the basement though, due to the oddly melted cars surrounding the base of the WTC.

posted on May, 20 2007 @ 11:30 AM
This 'a-neutronic bomb' must really be classified, since the only references I can find to it seem to be either 'Demopedia' links, 'Wikkipedia' links, or conspiracy sites. Odd that there don't seem to be *any* references to it outside the conspiracy community, and most of those seem to be a cut-and-paste of the same text. Reading said text, the 'a-neutronic bomb' sounds like det cord wrapped around a tank of something volatile, with a second 'ignition' charge on a delay other words, a fuel-air munition. That's not exactly ground breaking (at least not in the sense of theory...if you're close to one, it can break a LOT of ground).

It's also odd that boy-genius Riconosciuto managed to win science fairs left and right, re-wire an entire neighborhood with a new phone system, and generally be the new Einstein, but never managed to make the papers with any of his amazing exploits.

All my questions about the a-neutronic bomb and its alleged creator aside, I thought we already had the WTC collapse accounted for without yet more exotic 'black tech' being added to the mix....let's see...demolition charges (conventional)? check. Thermite / Thermate? check. Micro-nukes in basement? Check. Super-secret bombs that are more secret and more super than last month's super secret super weapon? check. Bouncing Budha on a rocket-assisted pogo stick! It's amazing that those towers didn't wind up in ORBIT.

posted on May, 21 2007 @ 04:52 PM
Let's lift out a few words.

"a-neutronic bomb."
This means, in my opinion, you don't get neutrons, but you get about the same blast effect as from real neutrons spitting bombs, the well known early fusion or fission devices.

"Electro-Hydrodynamic Gaseous Fuel Device"
I think the "electro-hydrodynamic" part, is what sets this device apart from fuel-air munition bombs.

This cloud is energized with what is described as a “high potential electrostatic field.”
That electrostatic field is also no part of a normal fuel-air munition bomb.

Samuel Cohen, the inventor of the neutron bomb, is by no means a part of any conspiracy site, as far as I know.
He thought Riconosciuto was a bright young man, at the time he met him.
He met him.
Why did he meet him? If he was not to be taken serious, Cohen would not have met him.

Did you find this ?

It could be, that the electrostatic cooling effect he talks about in this page, is part of the inner working of an a-neutronic bomb, developed by him.

posted on May, 21 2007 @ 07:11 PM
Btw, I intend to exactly explain to you all, how these devices work, and how they were used in several bombings, during several years.

And especially, how they used and placed them before and during 9/11/01 in all 3 collapsed WTC towers.

Because I know.

Still interested?

posted on May, 21 2007 @ 08:08 PM
By all means

Just because I'm skeptical doesn't mean I can't be convinced. I'm particularly curious about the workings of the devices, whether they were used in covert operations or not. I don't think electrstatic cooling would have much impact on a weapon's yield. I think the 'electrostatic' part is what's really puzzling me. How do you energize a cloud with an electrostatic field fast enough? You'd need a *lot* of energy, delivered very fast...but you also don't want a spark, or your device might self-ignite prematurely. The engineering, and the rationale behind it, have me very curious indeed.

I'm also not denying Riconosciuto's brilliance. I just find it odd that a teen prodigy like that didn't manage to make the 'human interest' section of his local newspaper, if not a short segment on the 18:00 news.

posted on May, 22 2007 @ 04:48 AM
From my point of view a normal FAE (fuel air explosive) detonation seems to fit the whitnesses descriptions easily. And FAE technology has been in use for decades and i assume you could easily obtain specifications from for example Russia (they've use FAE MRLS systems in chechenya). So even a loner could prehaps build one.

This a-neutronic bomb is a harder piece of information to diggest. I would assume, based on my physics skills, that you create the described effect with rapidly expansing gas cloud from a FAE and creating a strong current into the cloud. But do we have any gasses that are both good conductors and explosives?

posted on May, 22 2007 @ 09:27 AM
Anything that's particulate in nature can become explosive if it's dispersed finely enough. Common household flour is a favorite of practical jokers (Pardon me while I try to look really innocent!), and wheat dust has been known to blow apart reinforced concrete.

The electrostatic charge keeps bothering me, though...given a finely dispersed powder, that electrostatic charge won't 'energize' your'll detonate it.

posted on May, 22 2007 @ 10:00 AM
hey, patch-eyed pirate baby with a will of iron, do you know if this electrostatic field causes visible 'sparkling' in the air? i remember more than one witness describing this effect.

posted on May, 27 2007 @ 01:23 PM
Let's use this extensive description of a thermobaric bomb to find out, which features of this type of explosive fit the observed facts on 9/11.

There is already a short discussion on possible use in the 9/11 WTC collapses, launched here :

And the best discussion, scientifically based that is, is as always at :

I think Griff will like the engineering facts thrown in, during their discussions.

Billybob, as you can see in my first link, the Piezo-electric charge exists of high-voltage, and very low amperage.
And the way the cloud gets charged, will have a sparkling effect at the outscores of the cloud.
But I don't understand how a witness could survive the detonation of such a charged cloud, to tell about the sparks in the air. Perhaps the charge travels further than we suspect, especially in dry air-conditioned air.

See also this post of mine :

[edit on 27/5/07 by LaBTop]

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 06:01 AM
Damning WTC explosions :

Now you could understand how a top-down demolition was engineered.
Every few floors, a thermobaric was installed, and ignited at the facades, thus forcing the explosion front inside the gaseous cloud, inwards to the columns, then imploding there on itself, and bouncing back to explode out of the window panes.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:58 AM
Fuel Air explosives were developed in Thuringia by the SS in late WW2. the characteristics you've described simply fit the profile of an FAE.

By puffing a cloud of aluminum silicate into the air and passing a charge through it you create a huge over pressure explosion.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 01:22 PM

Originally posted by LaBTop
Billybob, as you can see in my first link, the Piezo-electric charge exists of high-voltage, and very low amperage.
And the way the cloud gets charged, will have a sparkling effect at the outscores of the cloud.
But I don't understand how a witness could survive the detonation of such a charged cloud, to tell about the sparks in the air. Perhaps the charge travels further than we suspect, especially in dry air-conditioned air.

PO: I just kept running. I was aware there were other people running as well. After passing the cars on fire, I was trying to find someplace safe. I tried to run into the lobby of 6 World Trade, but there were federal police -- maybe 4 to 6 of them -- standing in the open doorways. As I tried to run in, they wouldn't let me, waving me out, telling me "you can't come in here, keep running." As I turned to start running west again, I saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that "chase" in pattern. I think I started running faster at that point.

the whole interview at killtown

physorg. my other home, lol! i miss foxx.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by billybob]

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 04:03 PM
Well, billybob, I found this link in a post of him there (did he leave, or did they kick him out??? I like him very much.) :

Aspects of thermobaric weaponry

The weapons are particularly effective in enclosed spaces
such as tunnels, buildings and field fortifications. Fireball
and blast can travel around corners and penetrate areas
inaccessible to bomb fragments. Blast waves are
intensified when reflected by walls and other surfaces.

All explosions form a blast wave, which travels faster than the
speed of sound. Box 1 shows typical pressure histories for a
conventional high explosive and a thermobaric explosive
observed as the expanding shock front moves outwards from the
centre of explosion. A shock front originates at the interface
between detonation products and the surrounding atmosphere.
There is a dramatic increase in pressure across the shock front
(time t1 on the graph), which has a crushing effect on objects in
addition to an instantaneous lateral force. As can be seen in Box
1, the peak overpressure is much higher for the high explosive
detonation (P2) than for the thermobaric detonation (P1), but this
pressure drops much more rapidly. The positive phase is
followed by a negative phase below atmospheric pressure. The
negative phase results in a reversed-blast wind and causes human
targets to be bodily lifted and thrown.
This phase can be longer in
a thermobaric detonation than a high explosive detonation. Thus,
despite the lower initial blast pressure, the total impulse
(represented graphically in Box 1 by the area under the curve)
can be comparable or even higher for thermobaric explosives
compared with high explosives. Target effects are dependent on
peak blast overpressure as well as on the duration (impulse) of
the event.

Thermobaric weaponry basics :
Detonation of a high explosive device produces a rapid, localized
energy release. The formation of a blast wave, thermal radiation,
break-up of the munition casing and acceleration of the
fragments dissipate this energy. In the case of conventional blast/
fragmentation warheads, a large part of the energy is taken up by
the break-up of the casing and acceleration of the fragments.

Thermobaric weaponry usually has very thin casing and most of
the energy ends up as fireball and blast/shock wave. The energy
release in explosions occurs over microseconds and is governed
by the detonation velocity of the explosive. Detonation velocities
of thermobaric explosives (3–4km/s) are similar to those of
mining blast explosives, and considerably lower than those of
military high explosives (about 8km/s).
Explosives used in thermobaric weapons are generally
oxygen-deficient; additional oxygen from the air is required to
achieve complete combustion of the charge. Only part of the
energy is released during the initial detonation phase, which
generates high levels of fuel-rich products that undergo “afterburning”
when mixed with the shock-heated air. The energy
released through after-burning and combustion lengthens the
duration of blast overpressure and increases the fireball. In
conventional blast/fragmentation TNT-based munitions, no
significant after-burn occurs. Fragments inhibit the mixing of
detonation gases with air and the rapid expansion of the
detonation has a cooling effect before mixing with atmospheric
oxygen occurs.

Remember :

1. The "banana peeling" effect when we saw the corners of both WTC 2 and 1 split open during collapses, thermobarics exploding in square places expose the highest forces on the 4 corners.

2. The fireman telling in a NIST report, he lost his helmet on the stairs in a WTC tower when collapse started, because a strong upward wind sucked the helmet from his head and blew it up the stairs, while he was fleeing downward.
That is a strong indication of the " reversed-blast wind " mentioned in the above report, and thus indicative of some sort of implosion effect after an explosion.

[edit on 28/5/07 by LaBTop]

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 07:13 PM
I'm not sure how I missed this thread Labtop. At the moment, I haven't read past the first few posts but I will. So far, it sounds plausible to me. Could also be because I know nothing about this stuff. LOL.

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 07:17 PM

Originally posted by LaBTop
Is there some mechanism in place in the modern (USA and ??) schooling system, which let all young western pupils avoid READING more than a few sentences?

Yes. If you actually read the NEWS paper (I know...reading...yuck) the first 2 sentences have all you need to grab what the story is about. So, in conclusion, I'd say yes it has been programed into us from the start of our lives. Are they dumbing us down? YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
..let's see...demolition charges (conventional)? check. Thermite / Thermate? check. Micro-nukes in basement? Check. Super-secret bombs that are more secret and more super than last month's super secret super weapon? check. Bouncing Budha on a rocket-assisted pogo stick! It's amazing that those towers didn't wind up in ORBIT.

At least we are trying to find out what happened to include ALL observed criteria from that day. Has the government's explaination? I don't think so.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in