4th Generation MicroNukes Used on WTC1,2 and 7

What about they place thermite in the bottom of the WTCs, then when everyone know it's collapsing, you blow up massive explosives or nuke so people think the explosion is floors pancaking?

What good would thermate do in the basement?

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
What good would thermate do in the basement?

It would most likely melt the core columns at the base, pulling down on the structure via the hat truss?

i can't believe my eyes and my brain can't get around what i just read .
at lease i think i just read it .
this is truely a piece of brillant work , here's the quote - re; nukes used
"" Actually the Thermate was to coverup up was going on inside the building. ""

FANTASTIC - a cover-up to cover-up the cover-up . who would have thunk it .

Originally posted by Pootie
It would most likely melt the core columns at the base, pulling down on the structure via the hat truss?

Trusses do not pull columns down.

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
What good would thermate do in the basement?

It would most likely melt the core columns at the base, pulling down on the structure via the hat truss?

But the towers clearly fell from the impact zone. If they had been severed at the bottom, there would be no gurantees that it would fall evenly, which it did, relatively speaking.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
But the towers clearly fell from the impact zone.

The towers did not fall from the impact zone. Watch again.

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by Pootie
It would most likely melt the core columns at the base, pulling down on the structure via the hat truss?

Trusses do not pull columns down.

What I am saying is... IF you take out the core... the hat truss would redistribute the loads to the perimeter by design... IF the perimeter columns could not hold the load it would push/crush/bend/break them in some sort of fashion.

Especially if the core was severed in the basement... then the outer columns would be holding the mass of the entire building PLUS the mass of the core colums via the hat truss.

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by Pootie
It would most likely melt the core columns at the base, pulling down on the structure via the hat truss?

Trusses do not pull columns down.

What I am saying is... IF you take out the core... the hat truss would redistribute the loads to the perimeter by design... IF the perimeter columns could not hold the load it would push/crush/bend/break them in some sort of fashion.

Especially if the core was severed in the basement... then the outer columns would be holding the mass of the entire building PLUS the mass of the core colums via the hat truss.

Just a wild guess but I would expect they planted explosive charges not just at the base of the building but throughout the entire central core, top to bottom and detonated them in sequence. Like they used multiple demo nuke charges, one for every 10-20 floors or so, possibly augmented with other types of explosives.

Anyone remember the OKC news reports of finding multiple devices in the Murrah Building?

A unit from the Military Expert Forensic team stated this:

"There were micronuclear bombs placed on support pillars in the walls of the Federal Building, by special units of the ATF and FBI. They were paged out not to enter the building on the morning of the detonation, and the Federal Judge was warned to cancel court that day. We removed TWO undetonated softball sized micronuclear bombs, and one C4 pineapple bomb, attached to the pillars of the remaining building."

freedomunderground.org...

Now if thats true and the same devices were used at the WTC, then the WTC would seem to require multiple mini nuke devices of this yield (the OKC was only about 10 floors above ground, compared to 110 floors of the WTC) They may of included some of those c4 pinapple bombs. So possibly 8-10 devices planted or more, 1 for every 15 floors or so (or possibly 4 for each corner of the core every 15-20 floors). Also planting them on the core would keep them out of sight. Just some thoughts I have about this atm. If the spacing and the timing is correct it would appear like a smooth rolling demolition wave top to bottom as each spherical blast merges into one another.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Just a wild guess but I would expect they planted explosive charges not just at the base of the building but throughout the entire central core, top to bottom and detonated them in sequence.

I agree... I was just clarifying the dynamics of core removal from the sub basements.

Micronukes used at WTC? So where's the radiation poisoning? Where's the fallout?

There is no way to avoid a prompt radiation pulse, and the smaller the nuke the more prominent the radiation would have been as a component of the energy release. You'd have activated stuff all throughout lower Manhattan. The isotope pattern could easily be traced back to a neutron pulse at a certain time. There is no evidence at all.

In any case, I personally don't believe these "micronukes" exist, because there are severe physical and technological limits that make them essentially impossible.

You do know the principle of "critical mass"? It was one of the most important computations of the Manhattan project. You need enough fissile material in a small enough place so that when you compress you can get enough chain reaction fission to happen before it pushes itself apart.

When you run the numbers there is "natural" size of nukes which is roughly the parameters which arise from the simplest solutions. That's about 10kt, not coincidentally about the same size of the first weapons that all nuclear weapon states have made.

Well the generalized concept still applies. Modern nukes have cores which are further from criticality and are more highly compressed with explosives, but even still there is a minimum. If you have less fissile material then you need more, and more powerful explosive, and more beryllium neutron reflector. Try to reduce the size of the core too much and you need more stuff outside it, and you don't overall reduce size any more.

The small weapons and the large weapons, but especially the small weapons, greatly challenge the limits and ability of the design laboratories. There's no evidence at all that there was any of the very hard actual investment (versus a white-paper science-fiction invention) done to even try to remotely make a 'micronuke'. There would be no military use for one anyway, no funding and it certainly wouldn't happen without nuclear testing which hasn't happened.

At the ultimate limit of course there is no appreciable fission and the explosion is just an expensive conventional bomb.

So, a hypothesized "micronuke" which has just a few grams of fissile material and yet undergoes a comprehensive nuclear chain reaction and energy release? Doesn't exist.

Of course you can have a 'bad' 10kt bomb which doesn't work right (a 'fizzle') but then there would be lots of dispersed uranium and plutonium everywhere.

Don't underestimate the sensitivity of modern analytical physical methods to detect truly tiny amounts of radiation and peculiar isotopes. Anything with a nuclear weapon reaction connection would certainly be VERY noticable.

This idea ought to be buried.

Originally posted by mbkennel
So, a hypothesized "micronuke" which has just a few grams of fissile material and yet undergoes a comprehensive nuclear chain reaction and energy release?

No, a fusion bomb. The idea is that pure fusion bombs exist as a classified weapon and have existed probably over a decade at least. These are the kinds of bombs that neutron-bomb creator Sam Cohen says now exist. The method used to initiate the fusion reaction doesn't require fission and doesn't have a critical mass. For example, some members here can cite a fusion reaction that only produces something like an atom of helium and a neutron.

Originally posted by mbkennel
Micronukes used at WTC? So where's the radiation poisoning? Where's the fallout?

See my thread on MRR: www.abovetopsecret.com...
... and those are old news.. not pure fusion devices.

Pure fusion bombs release neutrons, helium and high energy gamma radiation... There is no HEAVY ATOM FALLOUT as seen with a Uranium/Plutonium fission device. Geiger counter have a VERY difficult time detecting this as they are designed to detect Alpha and Beta emissions and the devices that do properly detect gamma emissions are very expensive and I doubt that in any circumstance would have been deployed that day as "no terrorist could possibly have a fusion device"...

Some Geiger counters can also be used to detect gamma radiation, though sensitivity can be lower for high energy gamma radiation than with certain other types of detector, due to the fact that the density of the gas in the device is usually low, allowing most high energy gamma photons to pass through undetected (lower energy photons are easier to detect, and are better absorbed by the detector. Examples of this are the X-ray Pancake Geiger Tube). A better device for detecting gamma rays is a sodium iodide scintillation counter.

As for as the effect of the gamma particle emissions on the first responders... it will be years before the the effects are seen.

Look to the residual tritium reported by the EPA as evidence of a pure deuterium-tritium fusion detonation. Also note, their numbers do not take into account the sever watering down of their samples or tritium lost in the air...

[edit on 4-5-2007 by Pootie]

I find it very interesting that over and over we see posts in this thread that keep stating that it would have been impossible for a pure fusion device to have been used, and that no nuclear device could have been detonated without creating huge amounts of radioactivity.

The only way for a person to make that claim to even be able to suggest it - is to know the most highly classified projects under research by the US and various other governments, and clearly they either A. Cannot justify the claim because they don't know. and B. Do know and are attempting to spin the thread.

Irrespective of this we have car lots full of cars with burned out engine blocks, and even buses over 200 yards away from the WTC debris piles that burned up starting at their engine blocks [first messages in this thread] Papers on 4th Generation Nuclear weapons clearly state that the emissions of X-Rays and Gamma rays will exhibit that exact trait of melting or setting fire to any large dense object such as a engine block.

However if one is going to make the 'thermate' claim and uses the Inverse Square Law of Radiation it becomes very apparent that either the thermate must burn at millions of degrees centigrade in order to burn up a bus at that distance (which it DOES NOT) - OR the entire building would need to be made of thermate to cause a focal point on that distant bus.

The Inverse Square Law of Radiation can be looked at here
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

It clearly and strongly suggests that the point source of radiation was a incredible temperature in the millions of degrees centigrade.

Well what size device are you talking about here? It's not like the cars were "melted" by whatever it is you're talking about.

well I think the cause is likely to be super heated debris that were chaotically ejected in the collapse, even though you guys are saying no (large) debris hit those cars, perhaps these were relatively small peices of superheated debris that travelled much further than the heavier sections, landing and eating into some of these cars. It seems too selective to be a distributed wave of heat (i.e why some cars were burnt whilst others werent). I feel though perhaps some of the unburnt cars were parked there later.

Perhaps some of the molten metal we saw dripping from the impact zone was chaotically sprayed in various directions from the tower, or pockets of heat carried by the pyroclaustic flow were to blame.

Another idea is it was some kind of arson attack, either from the alleged secondary truck bombs detontating or vandals taking advantage of the situation.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by Insolubrious]

Originally posted by mbkennel
Micronukes used at WTC? So where's the radiation poisoning? Where's the fallout?

There is no way to avoid a prompt radiation pulse, and the smaller the nuke the more prominent the radiation would have been as a component of the energy release. You'd have activated stuff all throughout lower Manhattan. The isotope pattern could easily be traced back to a neutron pulse at a certain time. There is no evidence at all.

In any case, I personally don't believe these "micronukes" exist, because there are severe physical and technological limits that make them essentially impossible.

You do know the principle of "critical mass"? It was one of the most important computations of the Manhattan project. You need enough fissile material in a small enough place so that when you compress you can get enough chain reaction fission to happen before it pushes itself apart.

When you run the numbers there is "natural" size of nukes which is roughly the parameters which arise from the simplest solutions. That's about 10kt, not coincidentally about the same size of the first weapons that all nuclear weapon states have made.

I chuckle each time somebody gets on here and tries to totally spin and distract how much information is available on micro-nukes and how incredibly advanced the technology is. The Davey Crokett was in the employ of the US Army going all the way back to 1958 - it had a variable yield warhead from .01kt to 1 kt. That was 48 YEARS AGO, back when computers were made out of vaccuum tubes.

Here read about it yourself : www.brook.edu...

Declassified August 1958: “Mere fact that the U. S. has developed atomic munitions suitable for use in demolition work.” Declassified January 1967, “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.” Declassified March 1976, “The fact of weapon laboratory interest in Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) devices. The fact of successful development of MRR devices.”
- source : www.nogw.com...

From the governments own website: www.osti.gov.../rdd-1/drwcrtf4.html

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

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

Buses burned up 200 yards away, many cars caught fire. Consider one persons arguement that is being used against their being any explosives at all!

J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)
www.implosionworld.com...

WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson. en.wikipedia.org...

WTC 1/2 was 1,368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision. One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder.

The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"
www.history.com...

Even according to the Loose Change guys, the heightened security and bomb-sniffing dogs had only been lifted for 5 days.

So if WTC1, 2 were far taller than the Hudson Building, via conventional explosives it would have taken WEEKS to load all the thermate/explosives etc etc. Pretty tough to pull off on the unsuspecting public.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by XR500Final]

Originally posted by XR500Final
Buses burned up 200 yards away, many cars caught fire. Consider one persons arguement that is being used against their being any explosives at all!

I was trying to let you argue your nuke case, but I advise you remove the cars as evidence if you want to be taken even almost seriously.

I was trying to let you argue your nuke case, but I advise you remove the cars as evidence if you want to be taken even almost seriously.

Ah hello - I would suggest looking at the entire picture of what happened there not using just 'burning cars' to state that micronukes were a impossibility. The gas line theory alone would not explain why cars burned up all over the street and parking lots. Car to car combustion could have definitely taken place, however how then did it not burn the papers that lay strewn all around and between burned cars? It is harder to ignite a car on fire than a piece of paper? Gamma and XRays can pass right through a piece of paper without interfering with it - to ignite a solid object such as a cars engine block. For Thermate alone to have been the cause - it would have to have been ejected literally all over the place. If this is the case, drops of molten thermate would have been projected right through many of the victims as they fled the rubble pile - it would have burned right through the fireman suits. The collapse of the Hudson tower took 12 days of loading and placing explosives in a empty building unimpeded - How long would it take to do it 'sneakily' around office workers - in two buildings that are TWICE the height.

Was micro-nukes the only devices used in the building I absolutely do not believe for one minute that it was micro-nukes alone. Were other explosives used, possibly C4, Thermate and other high incendiary devices - absolutely. Jones has the science to back the claim towards thermate, but would thermate or C4 alone have made buses ignite at 200 yards, I don't think so.

Lets go over the paper on 4GMN again.

In the case of nuclear explosives the situation is more complicated because the different kinds of radiations can have a variety of effects, especially if they are very penetrating, as is the case for high energy neutrons and gamma rays. The most important of these effects are as follows:

**** Heat the volume of a material. Penetrating high energy radiations neutrons, pions,15 or high energy gamma rays)will easily cross a low density intervening medium such as air and deposit their energy deep into any high density material. As a result, a substantial (i.e., centimeter to meter thick) layer of a bomb irradiated material can be brought to a temperature sufficiently high for it to melt, vaporize, or even explode. ****

pg 14 of www.citebase.org...

Finally there is the 'pillar demolecularization'. It shows clearly that the pillars have NOT melted, they have turned to powder. Thermate will NOT do that. For anyone who cares to still follow this thread here are some photos for it:





For some form of 'space beam weapon' to 'laser drill' a hole, the building would have emitted molten metal all over the place. Go look at any footage of a uncooled laser cutting - its white hot - a space beam weapon would have made the top of the building white hot as well.

... melt, VAPORIZE or explode....
... melt, VAPORIZE of explode.....

Pg 14 pg 14 of www.citebase.org...

This paper is literally BEGGING to fit what happened to the WTCs on 911. Its almost like the guy knew all along and hes quietly hoping someone will pick up on his papers details..



[edit on 6-5-2007 by XR500Final]

Damn you guys are funny, i know this is a conspiracy site and you take things tongue in cheek, but just because you hate bush, all the sudden hes responsible for everything. I have whackjobs telling me he was responsible for the terrorist attacks during the 90s when Slick willy was in office. Everyone has their own theory which should tell you something, pretty much you saw the truth on TV. Towers are heavy, steel gets weakend from jet fuel fire and the buildings go down, nothing more, nothing less. No explosives, none of this thermite crap. You know 20,000 people work in the towers daily and to hide all this crap and have them come down like this, gimme a break. Out of all the leaks that come out, noone would be able to hold onto a leak like this if anything you say is true. Its pathetic and when you spit propaganda, you hurt the country far worse than Bush could ever, because its coming from the inside out.

All these retarded 9/11 theories, laughable. If you want to talk about UFO's, now theres some stuff.