Micronuke theory question

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
You OBVIOUSLY have done zero research into the facts surrounding 911. And quite honestly, from this post, you have done very MINIMAL research on CT sites.

I have done lots of research like filed FOIA requests and e-mailed construction companies that were at ground zero.

What have you done ?

If you looked at that post, i was speaking to someone else. I realize you have put forth some effort into finding the truth..... To be honest, I am not at all impressed with all your efforts, what have you added?...all you have said was ... "Where are the crime scene reports?" "Where are the reports that match the plane parts to the airplane?"

Lol, i was wandering why posts after mine made no sense... then i realised that i had put "captain obvious" on ignore

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by jprophet420

so is believing the official story.
for example believing it took 40 minutes to scramble fighters, or that the fuel that burned down the towers couldnt burn computers in the area of impact in the pentagon. or that 'we made the decision to pull the building' means evacuate, even tho it had been evacuated for 6 hours or more.

You OBVIOUSLY have done zero research into the facts surrounding 911. And quite honestly, from this post, you have done very MINIMAL research on CT sites.

Weather you know it or not sir, you are a disinformation agent. The lack of a fighter plane over the pentagon 34 minutes after we knew for a fact that were were under terrorist attack AND had missing jetliners is absolutely indisputable. The fact that Larry SIlverstein said they made the decision to pull the building is indisputable.

because i didn't come to the same conclusion as you means i didn't research? I don't need a CT site to know the official story dos not compute, and that evidence is missing and incomplete.

if you feel that you can reach a solid conclusion without all of the evidence, then continue to do so. I will continue to question the questionable until there is nothing left. Thank you and have a nice thread.

CONE OF LIGHT = Path of Micro Nuke? !!???

The cone of light(s) was a series of searchlights set up as a tribute 6 mon
(March 2002 ) after Sept 11. I live a dozen miles west of NYC in NJ -
I could see the lights from my house.

As for micrnukes - to trigger a fusion (Thermonuclear) reaction requires
a primary (fission) of at least 250 tons (.25 kt). Such a blast would not
only vaporize the building(s) but kill everyone for hundreds of yards
(meters) around the site. (damage calculations - yield (in tons) divided
by 2500 (y/2500) . BLAST RADIUS = y ^.41 (fractional exponent), 4.6 psi
overpressure equivalent to 150mph, about a Cat 5 hurricane), THERMAL =
y^.33, 3rd degree flash burn on skin, RADIATION = y^.19, 500 rem lethal
dose)

For 250 ton blast lethal radiation would extend out 650 meters, considering
there were thousands of people in the area yet NONE exhibited signs of
radiation poisoning ! Even the smallest nuclear warhead fielded by the
US - the MK54 of only 20 tons (for "DAVY CROCKETT" recoiless rifle)
had a lethal damage radius (for radiation of 400 meters! )

The numerous health (lung) problems found in rescue workers is the result
of breathing toxic dust - mixture of cemet, gypsum, silicates and glass
fragments (from broken light fixtures, fiberglass/mineral wool insulation)
and heavy metals (lead, mercury, cadium, zinc)

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Lol, i was wandering why posts after mine made no sense... then i realised that i had put "captain obvious" on ignore

Spoken from the mouth of a REAL "Truth Seeker". Again...the slogan for this website.... ATS: Deny the Truth

Funny how people put you on ignore...when they cant back up the claims they make.

Originally posted by jprophet420
Weather you know it or not sir, you are a disinformation agent. The lack of a fighter plane over the pentagon 34 minutes after we knew for a fact that were were under terrorist attack AND had missing jetliners is absolutely indisputable. The fact that Larry SIlverstein said they made the decision to pull the building is indisputable.

because i didn't come to the same conclusion as you means i didn't research? I don't need a CT site to know the official story dos not compute, and that evidence is missing and incomplete.

if you feel that you can reach a solid conclusion without all of the evidence, then continue to do so. I will continue to question the questionable until there is nothing left. Thank you and have a nice thread.

ALL of these issues have been discussed and all debunked. The conclusion you came to was that of information gathered on a CT site like Prison Planet or Info Wars. You are not questioning ANYTHING...you came to your own conclusions based on FAULTY INFORMATION. Best of luck with that! - your friendly disinfo agent.

Oh... I challange you to find one post I have made that is false, a lie, or disinfo.

The dman, yes, the pillars of light = cone of destruction.

They do this all the time (putting the truth in plane site). Just imagine the buzz psychopaths get from knowing that kind of truth, and being involved in it, and still having the deception continuing to this day! its shocking, but definatly possible. the majority of the population are brain dead, thanks to TV propaganda, schooling and of cause, powerful neurotoxins like alcohol and aspartame or fluoride.

The info you used is slightly outdated. Americas nuclear program is basically underground, and many developments have not filtered down into the public domain. They have had mininukes since the 60's, and micronukes are not all that complicated.. the technology is yes, but the actual mechanisms not.

The problem is getting a fusion reaction going without a fission one. You need a special trigger to initiate the reaction, something that creates alot of pressure and high temperature. Lasers could do this, the Z pinch effect, or maybe something along the lines of "red mercury", a special explosive cap.

Whether you want to believe it or not, the towers collapsed to dust. Look at the rubble pile. A conservative statement would be to say "half of those buildings simply pulverized", when really alot more of them was..

The radiation from a pure fusion microweapon is short lived (days), and is primarily alpha, which can't even penetrate human skin, but can cause damage if inhaled into the body.. unsuprisingly, we are only just starting to see the real health effects to people from 9/11.

Once you get the technology for starting a fusion reaction, you can make fusion bombs as large, or as small as you want. The ones used in the twin towers would have been pretty small, about the size of softball or pineapple. Also, they were in direct contact with the core of the building, so alot of the heat and radiation would get absorbed, turning alot of the building straight into powder.

Just watch the videos of the buildings "collapsing".. they literally disintegrate in midair, as if the entire buildings just turned into giant sand castles.

Originally posted by Meatclown
I have done a little bit of reading on the theory that micronukes (fission-fusion hybrids) where used to bring down the WTCs.

Probably pure fusion and no fission if anything because fission has a lower bound on yield size where fusion practically does not.

Theoretically you could have a fusion bomb with the explosive energy of a couple sticks of TNT. It also leaves less radiation and a different kind. So it would be of extreme use to any military but so far as we've been told the US military doesn't have any and I think Los Alamos may have even declared them impossible after researching them for the longest time. I very highly doubt that they are impossible, and we probably even have them, so I've considered them as well.

My question is: if miconukes were used, would there be lingering traces of alpha radiation in the bodies of the victims of the immediate blast or rescue workers who died shorty after?

Not so much alpha radiation but depending on the reaction probably more neutrons, but it's really hard to try to assume those kinds of things. The amount of radiation in general would of course depend on the size of the device (yield) and the reaction, and what all was in-between to absorb any of that radiation.

Some unmeasured but insane amount of water was dumped on Ground Zero and there was still tritium and tritiated water, tritium being a radioactive hydrogen isotope, and tritiated water apparently being a true anomaly because that just doesn't happen by mixing water and tritium. If a pure fusion hydrogen bomb was used then I may be mistaken but I think a neutron and a tritium atom result. There was a lot of tritium at Ground Zero AFTER all of the water was dumped. I think there were six million gallons or something insane like that dumped onto WTC6 alone and it still had tritium left over in amounts that were comparable to normal background levels.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by bsbray11]

obvious, please. there were no jets at the pentagon or white house. you cant possibly debunk that.

you cant possibly debunk what silverstein said, he said it. you can spin it however you want but spinning aint debunking.

im glad OP questions micronukes. theres no reason not to. if you find out there were no micronukes used it was worth putting it to rest.

imagine how many "i told you so's" rang out about pearl harbor or the manhattan project when the truth was revealed.

if you want to say you've debunked the micronuke theory a good place to start would be radiation readings from 10 crash sites other than ground zero, and of course the readings from ground zero. spectrum analysis would be even better.

83 cameras cant be wrong, but they can be confiscated.

Although I am personally convinced that the buildings were pulled for whatever nefarious reasons I do not believe they used mini nukes. As noted earlier in this thread by many others the readings of radiation could have come from scattered debris already containing it. 911 still echos throughtout my mind as I saw it unfold that morning at the computer. I remember hearing multiple explosions from the TV News reports just before the towers collapsed.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]

Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
Although I am personally convinced that the buildings were pulled for whatever nefarious reasons I do not believe they used mini nukes. As noted earlier in this thread by many others the readings of radiation could have come from scattered debris already containing it. 911 still echos throughtout my mind as I saw it unfold that morning at the computer. I remember hearing multiple explosions from the TV News reports just before the towers collapsed.

I doubt you heard explosions, because most news channels at the time of collapse were panned away from the WTC and more than likley had their anchors speaking.

Again... explosions do NOT mean bombs.... and secondly... Google search BIG BLUE crane accident and listen to that STEEL crane collapse. you will be surprised at what it sounds like.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Lol, i was wandering why posts after mine made no sense... then i realised that i had put "captain obvious" on ignore

Do something for me please, put me on ignore also.

As you cannot see his text and therefore will never really ever again see all the sides to the story, then this makes you the number one ignorant poster on this thread.

And you somehow find this funny

Your actions are not funny; they are at best ignorant and at worst just straight up arrogantly pathetic.

SO stick me on ignore too please and keep on doing it, someday you will achieve to the point of where you will have one side to the story, your own.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by InterWeb]

Originally posted by InterWeb
The smart thing to, would be to take the picture down that?s below your forum name and then ask him a question, because if you think he is making a mockery out of the people who died, then what is that small gif achieving.

The 9/11 truth movement = they want the truth

Minds on vacation = you feel they are stupid

Mouths Working Overtime = you feel they should shut their mouths and stop asking questions. be hush hush.

Captain Obvious = dislikes people who stand for truth, does not want the truth, thinks the people that do are dumb and wants people to shut up and stop asking questions.

What position do you hold within the administration?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
First of all, I am a bleeding heart Liberal. Actually last night I went to see a play with my wife in Boston called RFK. Great play that deals with Robert Kennedy and his political life.
I am 100% AGIANST the war in Iraq. Although a registered Ind. I typically vote Democrat. I despise George Bush and his administration.

My Avatar is my opinion:
The 9/11 truth movement = they ignore facts
Minds on vacation = MOST of them don't think things through
Mouths Working Overtime = Open mouth insert foot. in other words..most do not think before they speak.

Please InterWeb...don't put words in my mouth. I have NEVER called anyone "stupid" in here. I personally question my government and seek the TRUTH behind it. I don't go to Prison Planet or Info Wars to get all my information. Alex Jones and Dylan Avery are not my sole source of media. My personal decisions are based on information gathered from a variety of sources.


Proof of my avatar... look at the post above mine! It speaks for itself

[edit on 23-6-2007 by CaptainObvious]

I apologise for my post, after reviewing my post and your info, I am able to say sorry and hold my hands up to not doing enough research before jumping onto the keyboard.

Sorry about that CaptainObvious.

Originally posted by InterWeb

I apologise for my post, after reviewing my post and your info, I am able to say sorry and hold my hands up to not doing enough research before jumping onto the keyboard.

Sorry about that CaptainObvious.

No worries dude!

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Lol, i was wandering why posts after mine made no sense... then i realised that i had put "captain obvious" on ignore

This kind of moronic arrogance is why so little can get done in so many threads.

Please, ignore these kinds of statements, along with people who whine at you for not doing enough "research on CT sites." Every thread is potentially the thread that advances a theory and our knowledge, nothing less.

Okay, thanks for all your responses. The reason i asked specifically about the bodies (i should have been more clear, i meant dead bodies) is because if we are dealing with a micronuke, the radiation type would be alpha unless im mistaken. It is my understanding that the alpha radiation, which isnt as potent as gamma, was only faintly detected at ground zero because of the massive amounts of water sprayed by the cleanup crew. My friend was telling me that alpha radiation, if inhaled, would remain in the body for up to 24 years. We know alpha radiation cannot penetrate the skin so if somebody who was exposed to the blast and subsequent wave of radiation managed to inhale it and die then wouldn't that radiation still be in their dead body?

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Lol, i was wandering why posts after mine made no sense... then i realised that i had put "captain obvious" on ignore

I know it�s taking it off track and it�s the last time I will bring it up, but are statements and actions like this, not the very reason we are all on here, whether we agree or not.

Never really come across a post like this before, kind of shocked at it how someone could be proud to admit it.

In fact, I am embarrassed for you shrunkensimon

What evidence is there for a Micronuke? Higher levels of background radiation?

Someone, PLEASE explain to me how higher levels of radiation automatically means it was a Nuclear bomb. Not just any Nuclear bomb... but I micro-nuke? A type of nuke which may not exist?

Oh come on. Grow up. That's like saying "The WTC collasped. It MUST of been godzilla... We even found scales near the wreckage!!!". Now, question. Does it feel good to make up theories of the top of your head? Mark you above the brain dead morons and there aspartame?

Sheesh...

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The info you used is slightly outdated. Americas nuclear program is basically underground, and many developments have not filtered down into the public domain. They have had mininukes since the 60's, and micronukes are not all that complicated.. the technology is yes, but the actual mechanisms not.

Your assumption, based on data from your bum.

The problem is getting a fusion reaction going without a fission one. You need a special trigger to initiate the reaction, something that creates alot of pressure and high temperature. Lasers could do this, the Z pinch effect, or maybe something along the lines of "red mercury", a special explosive cap.

You need more than a "special trigger" unless you're talking a fission nuke.

You don't have a real clue how much when you say "a lot". As also shows when you say "lasers can do this" - the lasers it requires to induce even a tiny amount of fusion in a pellet, and we're talking just enough to detect - require outputs in the billions of Watts. And the apparatus is huge. Same with the Z pinch effect - sure I can cause fusion even in a well-built Farnsworth machine, but it's at such a low rate that you don't even need shielding. Doing it all at once so you get a weapon grade explosion doesn't exist.

"Red mercury" doesn't exist. But even if it did, the real issue is...

The radiation from a pure fusion microweapon is short lived (days), and is primarily alpha, which can't even penetrate human skin, but can cause damage if inhaled into the body.. unsuprisingly, we are only just starting to see the real health effects to people from 9/11.

This is a piece of very confused mis-information. The radiation from a fusion reaction is one 3.5MeV alpha and one 14.1 MeV neutron per fusion. That's an energetic alpha particle - you can't just discount it. But the neutron, that's deadly even in tiny dose rates. The neutron flux from even a small weapon would have killed people for quite a range.

What you seem to have read and misunderstood is that the secondary radiation induced in materials by neutrons from a neutron bomb is short lived. But you forgot/left out that the direct effect of the neutrons emitted is instant death for kilometers around.

Whether you want to believe it or not, the towers collapsed to dust. Look at the rubble pile. A conservative statement would be to say "half of those buildings simply pulverized", when really alot more of them was..

And when I asked you what you thought the magic nuclear mechanism for turning towers to dust without an explosion was, you and WITW scrammed from the last thread. I'm still waiting - please tell me what you think happened here. Robert Boyle and his gas law are awaiting you.

Once you get the technology for starting a fusion reaction, you can make fusion bombs as large, or as small as you want. The ones used in the twin towers would have been pretty small, about the size of softball or pineapple. Also, they were in direct contact with the core of the building, so alot of the heat and radiation would get absorbed, turning alot of the building straight into powder.

Really, no. If you're going for just concussion, then it would have to be amazingly small, since it's obvious the sides of the building weren't breached. But then, you don't get "powderification". If you're going for radiation, then the neutron flux would not only penetrate the building, killing for a huge radius, but enough to heat the concrete to vaporization gets you an explosion. No explosion. No dead people.

Watch the building for lack of windows blowing out. Wow, that's a magic nuke.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Probably pure fusion and no fission if anything because fission has a lower bound on yield size where fusion practically does not.

So the trigger is...what?

Theoretically you could have a fusion bomb with the explosive energy of a couple sticks of TNT. It also leaves less radiation and a different kind.

It emits a huge amount of incredibly energetic neutrons.

Not so much alpha radiation but depending on the reaction probably more neutrons, but it's really hard to try to assume those kinds of things. The amount of radiation in general would of course depend on the size of the device (yield) and the reaction, and what all was in-between to absorb any of that radiation.

And the size of the trigger, which would have to be pretty large. Oh, and all the neutrons absorbed by materials release a lot of their energy as gamma and x-rays too, more radiation deaths.

Some unmeasured but insane amount of water was dumped on Ground Zero and there was still tritium and tritiated water, tritium being a radioactive hydrogen isotope, and tritiated water apparently being a true anomaly because that just doesn't happen by mixing water and tritium.
[edit on 23-6-2007 by bsbray11]

Oh, sure it does. Tritiated water is just tritium burned in oxygen. If I had a tank of tritium gas, and lit it off like a blow torch, tritiated water is formed, the same as if I had a tank of deuterium and burned it to get deuterated or "heavy" water.

If you had a big fire and you released tritium, tritiated water is exactly what you'd expect.

And if you're proposing tritium in your reaction, all of the tritium reactions release lots and lots of highly energetic neutrons, so your statement above about it depending on the reaction is a bit moot. Oh, and you'd also be expecting to see deuterium in the water if it was a fusion reaction. Was any deuterium found?