• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Thermonuclear devices?

i love the research in that link your friend sent. basically some pictures from nuclear explosions look sort of like certain frames of the WTC collapse, therefor they used nukes.

and i am sorry, i feel i can say this cause i come from a military family, but throwing a military rank onto a witness doesnt give them unlimited credibility to me...there are a lot of fruitcakes in any profession.
 
Ah yes, the (in)famous Finnish nuclear expert and the extra-special thermonuclear bomb that doesn't give off light, sound and radiation but sure is a whiz at knocking down skyscapers...:boggled:

I still the hologram planes hitting WTC1 and WTC2 is loonier than this but it is a strong #2 in the wacko sweepstakes.
 
Two things, firstly I have to say comparing the WTC pictures with images of the Operation Storax, Shot:Sedan (to give the test its full title) are just plain stupid.

To state that an image of a 104kt boosted fission weapon detonated in a pit as a cratering experiment can in any way be compared to what amounts to an open-air tower shot shows a complete ignorance of the effects of nuclear weapons, in just the same way that the claimants have ignored the consequences of such detonations in terms of cancers/radiation sickness.

A couple of sites with good information on nuclear weapons and what they can do are:

The Nuclear Weapons Archive.
(http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/)

Nuclear Test Personnel Review
(http://tinyurl.com/epvmj)

The second point is something found on pg152 of Dave Hirshmans account of the FedEx705 hijacking ('Hijacked: The True Story of the Heroes of Flight 705'). It seems that depleted uranium was used to make counterweights for aircraft elevators, at least in the case of DC10's. I have no idea if this was the case for 757's & 767's but it might be worth finding out before CTs try and twist this into claims that nukes were hidden on the planes that were crashed into the WTC.
 
An H bomb?

Seriously, an H bomb?

Why the heck can't they just grasp the fact that 2 fully fueled and loaded jetliners crashed in to the towers?

They need to make up an H bomb?

Why can't these lunatics just cliam that it was Delta force, or Mossad, or the super secret NWO cops, or how about FEMA that hijacked the planes and flew them in to the buildings and the field?

I mean, there is a conspiracy theory that is at least somewhat plausible (not that it really is, but hey, it could happen, I guess).

But no, they need holographic planes and H bombs and controlled demolitions.

Holy cow.

I would seriousy like to know what drugs these guys are on, cause I'd like to get me some.
 
Sorry guys and gals. It seems my friend is a coward, who's also an "expert" on the subject (with his industrial engineering studies and being engineer minded), eats the "pod theory", thinks that comparing the Windsor tower case with the WTC is fair, thinks that it was remote controlled detonators were used(!?!?), and of course, he has better things to do than to talk to COINTELPRO herded fools...

So, I guess he's to far off to even have an intelligent discussion with.

Thanks guys, and gals, for your info.
 
Graham2001 said:
The second point is something found on pg152 of Dave Hirshmans account of the FedEx705 hijacking ('Hijacked: The True Story of the Heroes of Flight 705'). It seems that depleted uranium was used to make counterweights for aircraft elevators, at least in the case of DC10's. I have no idea if this was the case for 757's & 767's but it might be worth finding out before CTs try and twist this into claims that nukes were hidden on the planes that were crashed into the WTC.
Click to expand...

Just to elaborate a bit here...

If you're trying to use depleted uranium in a nuclear weapon...you're wasting time. You're almost as likely to induce fission in Velveeta. Depleted means that most of the higher-energy isotopes have already decayed...it's very very low on the radioactivity scale and stable enough that is won't produce a boom like you want (if at all).

This is why we talk about things like enriched uranium, which is pretty much the opposite of depleted uranium, and is what;s used to make actual, effective nuclear weapons. And no, it doesn't turn into depleted uranium when it goes boom.

This is like the whole sulfur means thermate issue. There are several other materials that would be present in much higher abundances had thermate actually been used...likewise, I'd expect to find many, many other fission products in exponentially higher amounts before I found traces of depleted uranium (if they'd be found at all).
 
Huntsman said:
Just to elaborate a bit here...

If you're trying to use depleted uranium in a nuclear weapon...you're wasting time. You're almost as likely to induce fission in Velveeta. Depleted means that most of the higher-energy isotopes have already decayed...it's very very low on the radioactivity scale and stable enough that is won't produce a boom like you want (if at all).

This is why we talk about things like enriched uranium, which is pretty much the opposite of depleted uranium, and is what;s used to make actual, effective nuclear weapons. And no, it doesn't turn into depleted uranium when it goes boom.

This is like the whole sulfur means thermate issue. There are several other materials that would be present in much higher abundances had thermate actually been used...likewise, I'd expect to find many, many other fission products in exponentially higher amounts before I found traces of depleted uranium (if they'd be found at all).
Click to expand...

True enough. It's why I suggested doing a filter paper swipe and having it analyzed. When I worked for state Emergency Management I had to deal with untrained woo-woos using a Geiger counter to search for UFO activity. A tremendous variety of fission products results for a nuclear explosion, and a careful analysis of these would likely tell you plenty about the type, construction and even origin of any nuclear device used. But any CTer claiming nukes were used to bring down the WTC would of course neither understand nor accept any such analysis.
 
Huntsman said:
This is why we talk about things like enriched uranium, which is pretty much the opposite of depleted uranium, and is what;s used to make actual, effective nuclear weapons. And no, it doesn't turn into depleted uranium when it goes boom.
Click to expand...

Sadly that won't matter to CTs as far as they are concerned 'Uranium is Uranium', which is say it can be used to make bombs no matter what word is put in front of it.

Back in '93 Galileo was crashed into Jupiter, as soon as this was announce people went online and claimed that this would make Jupiter explode. As far as they were concerned a Radiothermal Generator (RTG) full of plutonium was just like a nuclear bomb.

Interestingly the protestors who opposed the launch of Cassini and New Horizons used a similar brand of spurious logic to justify their actions.
 
Graham2001 said:
Sadly that won't matter to CTs as far as they are concerned 'Uranium is Uranium', which is say it can be used to make bombs no matter what word is put in front of it.

Back in '93 Galileo was crashed into Jupiter, as soon as this was announce people went online and claimed that this would make Jupiter explode. As far as they were concerned a Radiothermal Generator (RTG) full of plutonium was just like a nuclear bomb.

Interestingly the protestors who opposed the launch of Cassini and New Horizons used a similar brand of spurious logic to justify their actions.
Click to expand...

True.

It just shows that the majority of these arguments are based in ignorance, rather than fact.

I still say we should require a license to breed.
 
Graham2001 said:
Interestingly the protestors who opposed the launch of Cassini and New Horizons used a similar brand of spurious logic to justify their actions.
Click to expand...
While I think the objections to Cassini were way over-stated, at least those that I heard were that Cassini's gravitational slingshot fly-by of Earth posed a risk because if they missed and Cassini actually hit the Earth, plutonium could be scattered in the atmosphere, and it's pretty dangerous - it takes only a very small particle of it to lodge in your lung, to pretty much guarantee that you'll get lung cancer.

I didn't hear any hysterics that Cassini could actually cause a nuclear explosion.
 
GlennB said:
It gets much worse TAM
Over on the UK 911 forum there's a poster arguing for "directional min-nukes" that work in a linear fashion. They'd melt the steel columns specifically upwards, but not trouble the dry walling etc and show their ugly faces to the outside world. Some radioactivity found at one of the recovery storage depots proves this, we hear.
Click to expand...

directional mini nukes.

OMG. well since we are totally losing our F&*KING MINDS here, lets just stick with my original theory...the leprachauns did it. They were small enough to get into the WTC, plant the explosives, and remove the Billions of gold (they love gold) on the way out. As well, if something slipped, they could just use their "magic" to make it right.

Yup...the Leprachauns...they did it.

TAM
 
CurtC said:
While I think the objections to Cassini were way over-stated, at least those that I heard were that Cassini's gravitational slingshot fly-by of Earth posed a risk because if they missed and Cassini actually hit the Earth, plutonium could be scattered in the atmosphere, and it's pretty dangerous - it takes only a very small particle of it to lodge in your lung, to pretty much guarantee that you'll get lung cancer.

I didn't hear any hysterics that Cassini could actually cause a nuclear explosion.
Click to expand...

Not that it mattered since the Soviet Union had been putting up nuclear powered satellites already.
 
T.A.M. said:
directional mini nukes.

OMG. well since we are totally losing our F&*KING MINDS here, lets just stick with my original theory...the leprachauns did it. They were small enough to get into the WTC, plant the explosives, and remove the Billions of gold (they love gold) on the way out. As well, if something slipped, they could just use their "magic" to make it right.

Yup...the Leprachauns...they did it.

TAM
Click to expand...

They just tell it that to get it into bed...
(Sorry, Mr. Pratchett....)
 
CurtC said:
While I think the objections to Cassini were way over-stated, at least those that I heard were that Cassini's gravitational slingshot fly-by of Earth posed a risk because if they missed and Cassini actually hit the Earth, plutonium could be scattered in the atmosphere, and it's pretty dangerous - it takes only a very small particle of it to lodge in your lung, to pretty much guarantee that you'll get lung cancer.

I didn't hear any hysterics that Cassini could actually cause a nuclear explosion.
Click to expand...

Just to defend my shop, not that you guys don't already know all of this -- Cassini's RTG's (that's "radioisotope thermionic generators" in civilian) contain relatively non-fissionable Pu-238, not the weapons-grade Pu-239. The other key ingredients of a fission bomb are also missing, obviously, so the threat of an atomic explosion is laughably small.

The plutonium is in small fuel pellets of plutonium dioxide, about the size of my thumb. They're clad with layers of iridium and encased in several more layers of carbon fibre. Very tough pieces of hardware.

The principal danger from Cassini was on the Earth fly-by gravity assist pass, where Cassini passed reasonably close to the Earth (about 1100 kilometers at closest approach) at high speed. A navigational error would probably have burned up the entire spacecraft, scattering the plutonium through the upper atmosphere as microscopic particles. Other accidents, e.g. launch failure, probably would have left the RTG canister reasonably intact and, while requiring cleanup, the principal danger would have been from the solid mass hitting you in the head.

While spreading 38 kg of plutonium in the upper atmosphere wouldn't be a good thing, it's almost insignificant compared to the amount of plutonium that was vaporized and scattered during the above-ground atomic tests in the 1950's. Also not a good thing, but that experience proves the wild-eyed predictions that Cassini could have killed thousands to billions of people are clearly not realistic.
 
Lurker said:
My CT friend just sent me this site:

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/24/ward.htm

Has anyone debunked this site yet? They talk about 0.01kt nukes with low yield radioactivity, limited light emittance and so on. I am formulating a response.

Lurker
Click to expand...

Idiocy.

The quote from the 50's about nuclear weapons designed for demolition is true. They were designed for moving earth, and had been proposed as one method for digging the Panama canal. They were not designed to blow up buildings, as the cost of manufacturing a nuke would be enormously more expensive than the cost of conventional demolition.

MRR is what almost all our modern nuclear weapons are. The idea was to get less of the energy in radiation (which is tactically ineffective and strategically undesireable) and more in blast and heat. They will still make areas near the detonation point much higher than background radiation, as well as producing numerous tell-tale fission by-products.

He continually mixes up hydrogen fusion bombs and conventional fission bombs (For example, he calls a 51 lb. micro-nuke a hydrogen bomb...it is not). He contradicts the sources he sites himself.

I could do a detailed debunk, but really just reading the sources he provides disproves most of his nonsense.

It's even worse as I glanced through a bit more. He seems to mix MRR nukes and Neutron bombs interchangeably...whah? One if designed to minimize radiation, the other maximize. He's an idiot, and has self-contradictory statements through out:
Summing up known information, an underground explosion of a pure (most likely) or semi-pure, Minimum Residual [Radiation] direction focused 0.01 kt yield hydrogen bomb with selected enhanced radiation dispersal - most likely neutron since that radiation would be absorbed by the ground and building, and would decrease the blast and temperature effects.
Click to expand...

Neutron bombs were designed to kill organics and leave equipment more intact.

Heck, it's written by someone who claims to be an MD-no knowledge of or experience in engineering, physics, or any other related field. While he may be qualified to speak on the effects of radiation on the body, that isn't what he speaks of (except generally, when making additional bogus claims based on unsupported evidence).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom