Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods Well, nowadays we can activate the nuclear fusion of hydrogen through various other means, e. g. high energy lasers. Which means we can make hydrogen bombs as small or as large as we like. We now can build nukes the size of a cherry-filled-olive!

Because our latest generation of thermonuclear weapons is “water-based” they’re considered “clean”. And when they’re small in size, some decision makers don’t even consider them to be nukes anymore. The key components are two forms of heavy water; deuterium (non-radioactive) and tritium (radioactive). The reaction releases alpha particles and neutrons.

Please allow me to ask what may seem to be foolish question.

If it's possible to generate and control fusion derived energy as you describe, why would anyone need to use such technology to instigate a war for oil?

If the fusion devices you described exist, oil is old news.

Further facts indicative of the use of nuclear weapons on 9-11:

1. It took 100 days to extinguish the fires at the WTC sites. There was — literally — a lake of molten steel at the bottom of the foundation pit beneath the bedrock.

2. NASA’s thermal survey of 16-Sep-2001 reported rubble temperatures as high as 1377 deg F four days after the “attacks”. FOY aluminum melts at 1220 deg F.

3. The thermonuclear explosions happened — out of sight – in the basement of the WTC buildings. And because those buildings were massive structures of concrete and steel, the blasts behaved essentially as all underground blasts do. They don’t show mushroom shaped fireballs. The neutrons vaporize all dense materials into a giant cloud of dust, long before the (relatively small) blast and heat waves arrive.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

The energy release you describe, which emits no gamma or beta radiation, woul dbe the answer to mankinds energy and climate dilemas (sp). Why keep the technology secret and use it only to instgate a war for oil?

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Please allow me to ask what may seem to be foolish question.

If it's possible to generate and control fusion derived energy as you describe, why would anyone need to use such technology to instigate a war for oil?

If the fusion devices you described exist, oil is old news.

...

The energy release you describe, which emits no gamma or beta radiation, woul dbe the answer to mankinds energy and climate dilemas (sp). Why keep the technology secret and use it only to instgate a war for oil?

This is actually an excellent question, because it goes right to the heart of the absolutely staggering hypocrisy of western govts regarding the world's most basic needs and their own technological hoarding.

The answer starts back in in the early 1910s, when Nikola Tesla (a long-forgotten genius rivaling--in my book even surpassing--Maxwell and Einstein; he invented AC, or basically modern-day electricity, and the radio, to start) was building a revolutionary earth transmitter at Wycliffe Long Island, with the backing of J.P. Morgan, that was to use the earth's resonant frequency to send information to Europe in competition with the trans-Atlantic cable--at least that was how Tesla sold his scheme to Morgan.

However, Tesla, the idealist, proudly but stupidly told Morgan during Wycliffe's construction that not only would his invention send data, it would also be able to generate electricity; all that was required was a simple antenna receiver that could be placed in any home on earth. Morgan (also a major investor in Edison and Westinghouse) replied to the effect of, "And just where do I put the meter?" and halted funding of Tesla and smeared his reputation to protect his electrical investments. Tesla's NYC lab, a 5 story loft building, then burned down, and the greatest genius of the century died a ruined, forgotten man in a seedy boardinghouse.

Well, that's the MO, right from the start.

The gov't suppresses those rare inventors who follow Tesla's work and create similar overunity devices. Why? Because the threat to the status quo is fundamental--energy is the cornerstone of the world economy.

The major oil companies, the car companies, the refiners, the utilities--all have a vested interest in seeing oil, gas and coal remain our energy sources, and the western governments have an even bigger interest because the control of energy, its high relative cost, is a lever of power. The west can afford high energy costs--which makes such wonderful profits for its major corporations, all while keeping the Third World in poverty and its own population in wage slavery.

Imagine what would happen if essentially everyone in the world could have one of Tesla's desktop receivers, or an overunity generator based on his principles--the Third World would be able to develop itself independently, and the economic underpinnings of the western economies would collapse.

Free energy is the ultimate equalizer, so we'd rather go through the elaborate kabuki of Middle East conquest and pollute the earth than permit the technology to be developed and spread.

And this is just concerning Tesla's work, as you point out, the tech behind hydrogen mini-nukes also offers the same benefits, so officially they don't exist, for strategic and economic reasons.

Energy is the ultimate conspiracy.


[edit on 14-4-2007 by gottago]

Dear darkbluesky:

There is no such thing as a “foolish” question. Asking questions is an expression of interest in something which is always a good thing.

1. It is not yet possible to control nuclear fusion in ways to harness its energy release commercially. We can’t be setting off nuclear explosions every few seconds at some powerplant just to generate electricity to power our ‘lightbulbs’ and ‘X-boxes’.

2. On a side note, since this doesn’t directly pertain to your question, but the trigger used to set off modern hydrogen bombs — antimatter — for the sake of this discussion let’s just agree it exists — is an energy SINK and NOT A SOURCE OF ENERGY. To generate antimatter, bazillions of kWh of electricity are needed.

As you can imagine it takes energy — and plenty of it — to send particles spinning around in circles. Especially big ones. And the largest particle accelerator — the Large Electron-Positron Collider — in Geneva, Switzerland at the CERN is REALLY BIG. It’s got a circumference of 16.6 miles. I’ve attached a graphic of the CERN facility layout for your review.

LEP: Large Electron-Positron Collider
SPS: Super Proton Synchrotron
AAC: Antiproton Accumulator Complex
ISOLDE: Isotope Separator OnLine Device
PSB: Proton Synchrotron Booster
PS : Proton Synchrotron LPI: Lep Pre-Injector
EPA: Electron Positron Accumulator
LIL: Lep Injector Linac
LINAC2: Linear Accelerator 2
LINAC3: Linear Accelerator 3
LEAR: Low Energy Antiproton Ring
Rudolf Ley, PS Division, CERN

View inside the Large Electron-Positron Collider (LEP)

(The Swiss aren’t that secretive about their high-tech facilities)

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods
Please note that the AAC — Antiproton Accumulator Complex is where ‘antimatter’ gets stored!

Two must sees.

That first video alone is absolutely amazing, Steve. I've always thought that visually illustrating NIST's theory would do a lot of harm to it, and that's exactly what the first video does.

Awesome.

Dear SteveR:

Thanks for posting those two YouTube links. They truly are monumental.

They concisely illustrate just about all the important points of the hydrogen bomb hypothesis in an easy to follow way. Unfortunately many might not have access to fast internet connections but that cannot be helped. In this case film footage can explain (dynamic) processes which are otherwise almost impossible to describe with (static) words alone.

The first video, which bsbray praises so much, shows another important point. This is not mentioned explicitly in the film, but is an important observation. I.e. had the truss ‘clip’ (angle iron/steel plate) attachments failed — as MIT and NIST claims — and had the trusses all fallen down, the core and the entire outer perimeter web of exterior columns would have still stood. Both were completely capable of standing on their own. Both were (immensely) strong, load bearing structures.

SteveR for President sounds good to me!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 4/23/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Bombs in the WTC Buildings Proves Nothing to Racist-Fascist Bigots www.thepriceofliberty.org...

Micro-Nukes at the WTC
www.thepriceofliberty.org...

Update: Micro-Nukes at the WTC
www.thepriceofliberty.org...

Update: Proves Micro Nukes in the WTC
www.thepriceofliberty.org...

For this and many other informative articles about governmental Constitutional tyranny see my articles:
www.thepriceofliberty.org...

Ed Ward, MD

What were the local radiation levels like after the collapse?

PROOF?

I ask because this thread is at 17 pages presently, and all I see is conjecture and suggestion.

I'm your target audience as I don't believe this theory presently. Show me some hard evidence to back your claims.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

With microfusion devices there would be relatively little radiation, as it disappears in days. If someone else could elaborate on this, please do so. I know what im trying to say, but i don't want to put it down wrong/mislead people. If i could find the link i would post it also.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
PROOF?

I ask because this thread is at 17 pages presently, and all I see is conjecture and suggestion.

Watch the videos posted above. Read Doctor Ward's research pieces. Study the thread, there are many facts and figures contained within.

Here's just one to get you started. The government explained the elevated radiation away as "depleted uranium" from the counterbalances in the plane's wings.

'Other than with its 747 jets, Boeing never used depleted uranium counterweights in its 767 and 757 jets - the types involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to Boeing speaker Heinrich Grossbongardt. '

[edit on 24/4/07 by SteveR]

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
With microfusion devices there would be relatively little radiation, as it disappears in days.

They call it "minimum residual radiation". At least that's the way it appears in Department of Energy documentation from the 1960's. It was a priority, and yes, they've been researching it. You think we have the same nuke tech now as we did in the 1960s?


Check this out:

E. RELATED DEVELOPMENTS

1. Enhanced Radiation Weapons (ERW)

1. The mere fact that the U.S. is interested in pursuing a program to determine the characteristics of an "enhanced radiation" weapon (neutron bomb). (63-5)

2. The fact that the W-79 is an enhanced radiation weapon. (78-1)

2. Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) Weapons

1. The fact that we are interested in and are continuing studies on a weapon for minimizing the emerging flux of neutrons and internal induced activity. (67-1)

2. The fact of weapon laboratory interest in MRR devices. (76-3)

3. The fact of successful development of MRR devices. (76-3)

3. Nuclear Directed Energy Weapons (NDEW)

1. The fact that DOE weapon laboratories are engaged in a research program to explore the feasibility of a nuclear explosive driven directed energy weapon. (82-2)

2. The fact that research is being conducted on the specific concept of a nuclear pumped X-ray laser. (82-2)

3. The fact that the DOE is interested in or conducting research on NDEW concepts of certain specified generic types of output; i.e., visible light, microwaves, charged particles, kinetic energy. (85-4)

4. The fact that underground tests at the Nevada Test Site have been and are a part of the NDEW research program. (85-4)

5. The fact that a specified NDEW could engage multiple targets by using multiple beams from a single platform and hence is a high leverage system. (85-4)

6. The fact that an NDEW could have lethal ranges of thousands of kilometers. (85-4)

7. The fact that a kill mechanism for an x-ray laser is ablative shock. (85-4)

8. The fact that standard laser techniques (e.g., lenses, rods, slabs, and oscillators) were considered in the nuclear-pumped x-ray laser program without discussion of details or experimental results. (94-2)

9. The use of materials for the x-ray laser program, provided otherwise classified information about nuclear device performance is not revealed. (98-3)

Source: Department of Energy: Restricted Data Declassification Decisions
1946 to the Present


Interesting, no?



Edit to add, I just found these and found them interesting too, from the same page:

V. NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND RELATED TECHNOLOGY
A. GENERAL

1. General Features

[...]

j. The fact of existence of weapons with tailored outputs, e.g., enhanced x-ray, neutron or gamma-ray output; that we are hardening our weapons to enhanced weapon outputs and that high-Z materials are used in hardening nuclear weapons against high-energy x-rays. (72-11)

[...]

n. The term “dial-a-yield” (DAY) and fact of its applicability to undesignated weapons. (89-3)

[...]

q. The fact of the use of high explosives in pure fusion weapon research. (98-2)

r. Experiments done with High Explosive (HE) systems which do not resemble implosion assembled device HE systems. (98-12)

Under materials information, Boron is also listed as reducing neutron flux. And this is apparently all old news.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by bsbray11]

(neutron bomb)

Not the same as "nuke" that decimates an area for miles around. A neutron bomb is supposed to be non-destructive to buildings etc.. it is the ideal weapon.

Do you have a link to the part about DU?

I bolded the parts I was most concerned with. The neutron bomb was not one of them. I don't think anyone here is confusing a pure fusion device with a neutron bomb but you.

Originally posted by SteveR
'Other than with its 747 jets, Boeing never used depleted uranium counterweights in its 767 and 757 jets - the types involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to Boeing speaker Heinrich Grossbongardt. '

Yet another Boeing admission -

“Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747,” Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing’s 767, told AFP. “Sometime ago, we switched to tungsten, because it is heavier, more readily available and more cost effective.”

You're going to have to start searching and reading for yourself, mirage. It's all there.

Changing the subject slightly - take a look at this.

Nuclear explosions are hard to disguise. We have always used seismic recordings as a way to check up on foreign atomic testing. They appear very similar on the charts -





Top, small-scale soviet test. Bottom, north tower explosion (during the fall).

It would defy logic and science to claim that the 9/11 seismograph depicts the physical impact of the towers, or even conventional explosives.

The U.S. State department says on their own website -

"Seismographs recorded no telltale spikes or anomalies that would have indicated the use of explosives."



Just for gags, my favorite State department quote is this -

In a November 2001 tape, bin Laden said, “We calculated in advance the number of casualties … who would be killed …. I was the most optimistic of them all. … Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only.”

Did bin Laden really say that?

You're going to have to do better than that.

A fission device is one whereby atoms are split by using neutrons. Only once at the point of a chain reaction (aka the critical mass) do you get an explosion.

A fusion device is the opposite of a fission device; it requires that the reacting elements fuse together (e.g. the H bomb whereby hydrogen atoms fuse together to create dutritium). Again, a minimum yield is required before you can get an explosion.

Apart from tons of ionizing radiation, etc.. as a direct result of either of these devices, and fall-out that is hot for thousands of years, I'd say it was rather implausible.

Apart from a non-destructive device, such as a neutron bomb, you can't have a mini-nuke of any kind with fall-out that lasts "a few days". By the very nature of the material, it doesn't work.

Neutron bombs can have limited impact however as it is the neutron bombardment that causes the damage (to living organisms) whilst buildings etc.. are left perfectly intact. Remove the neutron source, eliminate nearly all the radiation (excepting the fact that some materials will remain radioactive for a bit due to ionizing radiation effects).

So... where is this destructive mini-nuke with no fall-out then?

EDIT: Please also explain how the buildings started collapsing from the top when the nukes were allegedly detonated in the basement????

[edit on 24-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Mirage, what are your credentials in regards to nuclear physics? Because the guy that invented the neutron bomb, Sam Cohen, says that pure fusion devices exist that can be shaped to any size, and they do not produce the same radiation that "old school" fission bombs do.

Nuclear physics is a very complicated subject: there are variables upon variables. I would dare say that most of this is not in public domain. As soon as you start saying what is or isn't possible as if you know, I stop reading, because I know that you're talking out of your ass.


Look up any conventional demolition and show me where steel is launched horizontally by the cutter charges, and trails thick dust as it flies off.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
EDIT: Please also explain how the buildings started collapsing from the top when the nukes were allegedly detonated in the basement????

I for one don't believe there was a single, upwards-directed charge in each building.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by bsbray11]

Just to remind you.. humbly so.. "fall-out" is the permeation of nuclear material in the atmosphere and subsequent depositing over a mass land area via Earth's natural weather.

You're going to have to construct your rebuttals a little more thoughtfully.

The micro nuclear inferno was fully contained within the tower and sublimated the vast majority of material (as pictured above), leaving disproportionate debris. This was not a 'free' explosion, nor on any such scale or behavior as you are familiar with.

We have already spoken about the 'toxic dust' and radiation at ground zero. We have spoken about leukemia and radioactive precurors thereof. We have spoken about the containment of certain radiation types with the constant spraying of water (for months) on the constant, defiant molten steel (for months). What we have not addressed to my knowledge is "fall-out" and I do not beleive we need to do so.

I have an interest in nuclear physics, I'm not saying I'm an expert, and I'm sorry if I seemed to be stating "fact".

You have still yet to address one of my questions: PROOF?

We have already spoken about ... we have spoken about

Exactly - that is all this thread is. Show me some hard evidence.

Here is another quote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
You have still yet to address one of my questions: PROOF?

The proof of unconventional weapons in general is in the fact that no conventional demolition launches 20-ton sections of steel 600 feet laterally. I asked you this before: show me any conventional demolition, using high explosives, in which the high explosives physically displace whole sections of columns, giving them horizontal velocity.

Can you do that?

Also, show me any controlled demolition in which, in addition to the above, the steel is also trailing dusty material that seems to come right from the steel itself. I say this is steel sublimating. No one has ever been able to show me any other explanation that works.

Also, show me any controlled demolition in which steel is evaporated by high explosives. Evaporating steel is beyond the capabilities of even thermite.


In the same way that you say physics do not allow such a collapse without explosive devices, so I say that such a collapse is not physically possible with high explosives and thermite alone. I'll believe this until you account for phenomena such as the above using only conventional technology.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
What were the local radiation levels like after the collapse?

PROOF?

OK... PROOF!

Elevated Tritium levels found at ground zero and NOT at the "control sites" outside ground zero, located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Kensico Reservoir.

Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at[the]World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A method of ultralow-background liquid scintillation counting was used after distilling HTO from the samples. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.174 plus or minus 0.074 (2s) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53 plus or minus 0.17 and 2.83 plus or minus 0.15 nCi/L, respectively. Several water and vegetation samples were analyzed from areas outside the ground zero, located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Kensico Reservoir. No HTO above the background was found in those samples. All these results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure.

RIGHT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY... www.osti.gov...

So where did the tritium come from? I will give you a clue... google fusion and tritium.

FYI - Tritium QUICKLY is washed away by rain OR by the BILLIONS of gallons of water firefighters poured on the WTC site for months.