Micronuke theory question

um and theres really no evidence at all that there is even such a thing as a micronuke....the smallest nuclear weapon the american military has ever had in its arsenal was the davy crocket which had a selectable yield of 10 to 20 tons and also created a extreme radiation hazard if a nuke had gone off in the trade centers then it ould have been incridebly obvious even when we were watching at home there wouldve been an incredibly bright flash of light people for about a few blocks would have radiation burns and everyone for a good little ways wouldve taken a lethal doseage of radiation....and i scaled that down to fit with the micronuke theory if it was a large warhead nuclear device people all over new york wouldve suffered radiation poisoning

If I had a penny for everytime I heard that... Please try reading some of the posts in the forum. Seriously!

because im VERY familiar with how nuclear weapons work and at a certain point you cant make them any smaller or you wouldnt get a critical mass reaction.....itd be whats called a dirty bomb kills solely by radiationplus if there is proof of a micronuke existing anywhere ide love to see it i believe that the theoru goes that it uses 99.78% pure plutonium or something like that but still that in itself cant reach critical mass in small amounts also if a micronuke had gone off if such a thing exists the buliding would have instantly been weaakened enought to collapse going on the assumption that it generates even half the heat of its larger counterpart....

Read the posts like Vic said. We're not talking about fission reactions. We're talking about pure fusion.

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter

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?

I fail to see the logic in your analogy. Basically you are saying forensic evidence should be ignored at a crimescene. Sorry, i disagree. I think all evidence should be considered not just the convenient pieces. But i guess that just makes me another "brain dead moron" right?

I understand the need for healthy skepticism but in your case your simply jumping down my throat. I was asking a question relating to a theory i wasn't trying to prove said theory. I would highly suggest taking a chill-pill, as i think it would do you a lot of good.

The only reason I would believe in the Mini Nuke theory is that there havent been wide spread "public" advances in Nuclear Bombs since, what the 60's??? Now, considering the Government hid the Stealth bomber and fighter for 10+ years without any knowledge from the general public, I dont think it is undeniable that we have made some huge advance in nuclear research and development without the knowledge of Scientists and the Public in the last 40 years.

I understand the reasons that you dont believe it wasn't some kind of mini nuke because were so used to seeing videos from 40 years ago which show massive explosions and massive radiation problems. What if the Government, considering the DOD has lost some 2 trillion dollars, has some how created the ultimate weapon??? What if this new weapon has the capability of destroying these two buildings without the massive explosive power outward but UP and with the radiation containing itself withing a 2 block radius???

Originally posted by bsbray11
Read the posts like Vic said. We're not talking about fission reactions. We're talking about pure fusion.

Pure fusion = neutrons.

Neutrons penetrate matter fairly well, and even a miniscule percentage from a fusion explosion will kill. A dose that wouldn't heat the mass of a car engine measurably will kill a human instantly.

Neutrons decelerate in matter, expending energy as EM.

This EM emerges across the spectrum from the level of the initial neutron energy down. Most of the energy initially is expressed as gamma and x-rays, but in the end, it's all heat, either in the building, or spread out across Manhattan in the form of hard radiation.

Gammas and x-rays kill. They also tend to penetrate concrete pretty well.

The heat from the neutrons, gammas, x-rays and alphas would cause a "prompt overpressure" in the building that gives rise to what we generally call "a massive explosion".

WTC: windows didn't break before the building fell.

Originally posted by hoochymamaWhat if this new weapon has the capability of destroying these two buildings without the massive explosive power outward but UP and with the radiation containing itself withing a 2 block radius???

The top of the building didn't fly off, though. And radiation just doesn't contain itself.

You'd have to have some mechanism for "powderizing" the inside of the building that almost magically didn't blast through the walls or break the windows. Nor did it heat the interior enough to cause overpressure sufficient to break glass (pretty low,

I think that Tom rebutted the nuke theory pretty well.

As has been pointed out, the damage at ground zero doesn't really fit with concepts of a nuclear device, mini or otherwise. At least, that's my understanding, based on what I've seen.

I don't think it's wise though to dismiss the notion of miniaturized nukes altogether, especially considering the evidence smuggled out of Dimona by Mordechai Vanunu. Generally people scoff at the notion, and dismiss it as internet fiction, but there's a lot of circumstantial evidence surrounding the Bali blasts that really makes me wonder.

As far as the radiation, depending on the efficiency of the reaction (which, in theory, would have to be exceedingly high to allow for the concept of a micro nuke in the first place) a device need not spray long-lasting radioactive residue of the sort that could be identified days or weeks later.

My understanding of these concepts is limited, so I don't want to come off as some sort of authority on the subject. This is just what I've picked up along the way...

Micronukes/Nanonukes Can Be Made by the US

Statement by Dr. Peter Leitner, before the Joint Economic Committee United States Congress, Tuesday, April 28, 1998:

Mix and hydrodynamics: These experiments involve the actual testing of extremely low-yield fission devices (as low as the equivalent of several pounds of TNT) within a confined environment . . .

The Hiroshima bomb was 20 kilotons TNT equivalent.

Several pounds TNT equivalent is roughly 1 millionth of a Hiroshima bomb-- making it easily a "micronuke" in comparison to a smallish nuke.

"Modern nuclear warheads range in yield from 100 kt to 20 Mt TNT equivalent."

Several pounds TNT equivalent is roughly 1 billionth of a 20 Mt TNT equivalent bomb-- making it a "nanonuke" in comparison to a large nuke.

www.house.gov...

[edit on 23-6-2007 by VicRH]

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 23/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by Johnmike
I think that Tom rebutted the nuke theory pretty well.

Yeah props to Tom but I think his logic is some what flawed, especially in his rant about turning the towers into some kind of pipe bomb. The only way anyone can know for sure is if the research and results of such devices were on the table which they clearly are not. I think the effects are within reason to believe small nuclear bombs would be a close approximation, don't you think?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
This "report" is just an exchange of E-mails. Not at all a report or legal document that is based on a legitimate investigation.

That was not the point that it is part of an investigation. The point was why would they blame it on the depleted uranium on the planes when the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

Boeing stopped using DR in the later 747s because of radiation problems in accidents. It shows how much the people in thses e-mails did not even know and if more poeple at ground zero were thinking like this they made it harder on the lives of the first reponders who are now dieing.

Ultima..

I dont understand. Did NIST, FEMA, or the 911 Comm. state that there was DU in the rubble due to the aircrafts? I think im missing something here.

Originally posted by VicRH
Yeah props to Tom but I think his logic is some what flawed, especially in his rant about turning the towers into some kind of pipe bomb.

I was asked for a conjecture that would fit, I came up with one.

Also, I'd LOVE for you to point out the rant part. Especially as I was picking it to pieces along with the rest that didn't run off. Although I imagine I'll have a long wait - still waiting for gottago and WITW to come back with their description of how a nuke vaporized only the interior of the building. Or even a firm stance on WHAT they claim was vaporized. I especially liked WITW's description of how it turned the building back into Portland cement, but I think he vacated when I asked him why it didn't resolidify when wet down later.

The only way anyone can know for sure is if the research and results of such devices were on the table which they clearly are not. I think the effects are within reason to believe small nuclear bombs would be a close approximation, don't you think?

No. Such things leave traces which should be easy to spot, like dead people from radiation. Like isotopic forms of silicon that are out of proportion to the norm.

Oh, and by the way, back in the thread where you think I was "ranting", I brought up the small fission devices, funny how you left that out, eh? But yes, you can get small fission devices. They leave signatures as well. And the fun part is, if you have them small enough to be 'only a few pounds of TNT', might as well use the few pounds of TNT, right?

The trick would be, in your case, to come up with a means by which you can use it to make the buildings collapse in place, without blowing the building to bits (or shattering the windows), with a reasonable amount of effort. Otherwise, it's no different than the magic cleaning crews that come in and plant conventional demolition charges that no one noticed somehow. Waving your hands frantically and saying "it was a nuke, all questions are answered" doesn't get it, might as well say it was well-armed evil fairies using the Avada Kadavra charm.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Ultima..

I dont understand. Did NIST, FEMA, or the 911 Comm. state that there was DU in the rubble due to the aircrafts? I think im missing something here.

Well it seems the EPA did according the this quote from the e-mails. " but the EPA rep said "oh... it's probably depleted uranium... it's not a health hazard unless you breathe it". Firefighters, Pentagon personnel, and communities nearby DID BREATHE IT."

Unless you knew a something about aircraft most people would have assummed the planes had DU. One of the reasons the EPA requested NASA to overfly the area with the AVIRIS to check for hotspots and toxic areas.



[edit on 24-6-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well it seems the EPA did according the this quote from the e-mails. " but the EPA rep said "oh... it's probably depleted uranium... it's not a health hazard unless you breathe it". Firefighters, Pentagon personnel, and communities nearby DID BREATHE IT."

Unless you knew a something about aircraft most people would have assummed the planes had DU. One of the reasons the EPA requested NASA to overfly the area with the AVIRIS to check for hotspots and toxic areas.

Ok, the EPA made the claim...but did they claim it was from the aircraft? We all know there could have been several reasons why DU was there.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Ok, the EPA made the claim...but did they claim it was from the aircraft? We all know there could have been several reasons why DU was there.

Where else would a large amount of DU come from ?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Ok, the EPA made the claim...but did they claim it was from the aircraft? We all know there could have been several reasons why DU was there.

For some reason I'm thinking that they sometimes use DU in building elevator counterweights, but that may be incorrect.

Smoke detectors... THOUSANDS of them!

I will look into the counter weights of elevators...i never heard of that.