Micronuke theory question

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Smoke detectors... THOUSANDS of them!

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

Please let me know how much DU is in the smoke dectectors, would it add up to hundreds or thousands of pounds ?







[edit on 24-6-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I dont know ...i will look. How much DU would have been in 2 Aircrafts prior to the switch?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I dont know ...i will look. How much DU would have been in 2 Aircrafts prior to the switch?

www.americanfreepress.net...
A 747 may contain as much as 1,500 kilograms [3,300 lbs.]

There isn't any DU in smoke detectors.

The ionization types have a tiny bit of Americium in them, about 0.2mg.

Wel that ends that Thanks Tom!!

Sorry Ultima!

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Sorry Ultima!

Well ok, but that still leaves what caused radiation at the 9// 11 crash sites that those e-mails were talking about.

I took a quick peek (I'm in the middle of SPICE simulation hell and I'm reading ATS between runs), and what I see is someone speaking about radiation at or downwind of the Pentagon site?

Is that where they're talking about? It looked like it was getting sort of smeared together with the WTC stuff. I'm not sure if I'm reading it correctly.

edit: Did anyone ever take a spectrum survey meter out there? You can identify what you're seeing in minutes, especially if it's a single cause.

[edit on 24-6-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Tritium was present in a number of devices - the most common is
radio luminescent (aka glow in the dark paint) where some amount of
tritium is mixed with phosphors and used to coat the interior of a glass
tube. It is also used on watch dials and "night sights" on guns.
The two aircraft which hit the building had some 37ci (curies) of tritium
in the RL (radio luminscent) emergency cabin lighting. Some 60 police
officers (37 Port Authority, 23 NYPD) died in the building. Figure some of
police officers carried tritium sights on the weapons. The Secret Service
maintained an arsenal in WTC 6 - wonder how many weapons were stored
there and if had tritium sights on them. Also can assume hundreds of
watches (which contain from .5 to 2.7mc (millicuries) of tritium) were on
victims wrists. Emergency lighting in the stairways of WTC buildings also
had RL devices to show emergency exits.

From these sources can generate enough tritium to account for the
readings found in samples from the WTC site.

I am still wondering if anyone has a comment on Nuclear research that hasn't been in the public domain for 40 years.

Does anyone think its possible, considering the 2 trillion in lost money in the DOD, that in some "black project" we have achieved the ultimate weapon.... A Nuke that is capable of being directed where ever we want and produces a small trace of radiation???

Originally posted by hoochymama
I am still wondering if anyone has a comment on Nuclear research that hasn't been in the public domain for 40 years.

Does anyone think its possible, considering the 2 trillion in lost money in the DOD, that in some "black project" we have achieved the ultimate weapon.... A Nuke that is capable of being directed where ever we want and produces a small trace of radiation???

The problem is the same as ever. It can't be "magic", no matter how much money was put into it.

That said, given whatever you want it to be, how do you propose to achieve an effect similar to what you see? It's obviously not brute explosive power - the windows didn't blow out before the collapse started. It can't just be spewing radiation, the behavior of that is well known, regardless of whatever you're proposing for weapon behavior, a neutron's a neutron. They're not going to stay inside the lines for you.

The initial fall of the buildings released an "explosion" like effect. I have seen videos of windows being blown out at the same time or miliseconds prior to the actual collapse. The problem I face is that until we get a unbiased investigation, 6 years after the fact by the way which makes this type of investigation all the more impossible, I don't know what to believe. The only thing I do believe is that this could of been an inside job and I believe if it was done by the people they say it was done by than we had prior knowledge, which as far as I am concerned is just as bad as an inside job.

I still don't believe, unless your doing your own Nuke Research, that you can down play the probability of a Micro Nuke or whatever you want to call it as a theory as why the WTC's came down the way they did. If anything it was a conventional demolition.

Originally posted by hoochymama
I still don't believe, unless your doing your own Nuke Research, that you can down play the probability of a Micro Nuke or whatever you want to call it as a theory as why the WTC's came down the way they did. If anything it was a conventional demolition.

You're certainly free to believe whatever you like.

However, even if you want to say it's a Pandora's Box fairy bomb full of bad thoughts, you still have to make it fit into physics, unless you want to invoke magic. So, yeah, I can certainly downplay it.

Heck, I'll even buy small fission weapons, I know those exist, but how do you deploy them to get the effects you see? That's what I keep asking. There isn't a magic "turn it to powder" nuclear particle.

Tom I think you would get the point across to them quicker if you told them that neutron radiation could have been present but wouldn't have been used as the primary mechanism to actually destroy the towers.

Tritium could come from a number of sources, sure, but the problem is the amount that was left over after millions of gallons of water were constantly dumped on the site. There was tritiated water, too, and from what I understand you don't get that just from mixing water and tritium, which is just a hydrogen isotope.

If I had to point out some evidence of neutrons though it would be this:




And you can say its concrete breaking mid-fall or whatever Tom, but you know that isn't worth any more than me just saying it was anything.

Having the response of "you can believe what you want to believe" still doesn't answer the question whether its a possibility. Are you a Nuclear Phycisist?? That was my question. Until one of those types of people comes forward and says "Its not possible" than I will believe it. Than, the highest probablility is that it was conventional TNT.

I will put some videos up soon just to give some examples of why I think it might be a Small Nuclear device. Again, maybe it is maybe it isn't. I just leave the options open.

Ok. Back with the videos. If you watch the first video, it is a Underground test in 1962, 39 YRS before the 911 attacks and the collapse of the WTC's, the second video is a video of the actual colapse of WTC 1 and 2 with a nice little documentry feel to it. Just to be up front, I never based my beliefs on the second video and it was recently released.

Video 1: Underground Nuke explosion in 1962



Video 2: Nuke documentry on WTC's

Originally posted by bsbray11
Tom I think you would get the point across to them quicker if you told them that neutron radiation could have been present but wouldn't have been used as the primary mechanism to actually destroy the towers.

I agree - but I go a lot farther than you on the point. One, there are only two aneutronic fusion reactions. One requires a lot of helium-3, and the other is too hard to reach in a weapon due to the Coulomb forces involved, even if you do quirky stuff like muon shielding. Even in lab setups they're not sure they have managed it, but they're working on it.

(edit: actually, I want to try to post my first ever thread on this today if I get enough time free and no-one beats me to it)

However, neither requires tritium. Tritium fusion invariably emits high energy neutrons. And as I understand it, you also need neutrons for your material spewing a dust trail.

Tritium could come from a number of sources, sure, but the problem is the amount that was left over after millions of gallons of water were constantly dumped on the site. There was tritiated water, too, and from what I understand you don't get that just from mixing water and tritium, which is just a hydrogen isotope.

Maybe you missed it above - tritium is chemically indistinguishable from hydrogen, at least in terms of simple reactions. It has stronger hydrogen bonds than light hydrogen and has bond angles that are a bit off, so it doesn't do so well in fragile enzymes and it's hell on DNA. But in inorganic chemistry, it will undergo pretty much the same reactions.

In the presence of oxygen and an ignition source, it will burn like hydrogen, forming tritiated water. That's all it takes. You'd have had both aplenty during the collapse.

The tritium fusion reactions are well known. You get neutrons, usually the bulk of the energy is carried off in energetic neutrons.

These penetrate pretty well, and it takes very little neutron flux to kill. If you shield them, then as they are absorbed they tend to shed their kinetic energy in terms of gammas, x-rays and heat.

Next, you don't have a ton of free tritium in a fusion weapon, at least not a typical one, and certainly not in the secondary. The primary of a W88 uses something like 300 grams in the boost gas mechanism and in the initiators. But you seem to be arguing for a non-fission primary, so most of your boost gas is going to be absent. Liquid tritium is hell to work with, and since the 60's we've used Li6D to generate it in situ. However, that doesn't leave tritium laying around in huge amounts, it pretty much fuses as it's created until the very last few nanoseconds that the fusion reaction is still going on.

Next, if you're going to use tritium in a weapon for fusion fuel, and as far as I know they all do, and you're conjecturing they did, then there's no point in not using the D-T reaction, because we have a ton of data on it, it's the easiest to reach, and it's plenty energetic. A T-T reaction has nothing wonderful to recommend it. In terms of practicality, there's no point in NOT using a DT reaction if you're going to have tritium in the weapon.

Thus, the water would be full of deuterium as well. Was it? If not, no fusion bomb.

If I had to point out some evidence of neutrons though it would be this:

And you can say its concrete breaking mid-fall or whatever Tom, but you know that isn't worth any more than me just saying it was anything.

All I can say is that if you have a high enough neutron flux to heat objects to the point that they are vaporizing (sublimation isn't exactly what you'd have) then you have two big issues. If they're vaporizing in free air like that, then during the reaction the neutron flux would have been heating the materials inside the building to an insane level, and you'd have an explosion due to gas law expansion. And not one that just makes the building fall down gracefully, it would have been a big bang.

You also see material in that picture that ISN'T emitting smoke, yes? How do you propose some was heated to the point of vaporization and some not? How is the steel not glowing white hot? And isn't that piece from the top of the building, or near it? If the weapon was in the basement, emitting neutrons, and even if it was somehow channeled straight up, each floor would have absorbed or moderated some non-trivial percentage of the total flux. You had what, 110 floors or something? If in a few nanoseconds it heated (rather selectively I must say) your spire at the top, what temperature would the first floor have been heated to? (bang)

Next you have to deal with the radiation issue - enough neutron flux to bring that piece you circle to the point of vaporization is enough to have killed half of Manhattan in a blink. Not to mention you'd have also generated hell's own levels of gamma and x-rays.



[edit on 25-6-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by hoochymama
Having the response of "you can believe what you want to believe" still doesn't answer the question whether its a possibility. Are you a Nuclear Phycisist??

Actually, I have a masters in EE and I'm about 6 credit hours and the Grand Finale away from a masters in physics, on the way to my doctorate as a "non-trad".

Not to mention that I have what I'll call some specialized training in the field that there's not much point discussing. But it doesn't matter - because you either didn't understand or you're sidestepping my question.

Nukes go 'bang'. They put out explosive force; they emit radiation. The radiation they emit follows the laws of physics. You don't get "special magic neutrons" that stop two blocks away. You can't emit something that's not in the nucleus to be emitted to begin with. There is no 'hush-a-boom'.

Thus you're stuck with the basic problem - even if you have a magic hand grenade sized nuke, in what way does it allow you to produce the effects seen? Again, you can't simply wave your hands around, say "it was a nuke, therefore any and all weird things are explained without further thought, Mahadeo!"

Tom Bedlam

Nukes go 'bang'. They put out explosive force; they emit radiation. The radiation they emit follows the laws of physics. You don't get "special magic neutrons" that stop two blocks away. You can't emit something that's not in the nucleus to be emitted to begin with. There is no 'hush-a-boom'.

Okay, but the persistence of the radiation left from a nuclear explosion is a factor decreased by the purity of the core and the efficiency of the reaction, no? Doesn't it stand to reason that a micro-nuke would have to have an almost perfectly pure core in order to function at all, and would therefore produce a highly efficient reaction?

I'm really not trying to argue with you, just hoping for some information here.

[edit on 25-6-2007 by WyrdeOne]

What about the molecular dissociation of over 90% of the concrete? What sort of explosive could do that? From what I gather only something like a nuclear bomb could produce those sorts of results. There is no way they could of used normal demo charges as they would have to work every other floor with explosives and even then you would have far more macroscopic chunks.

I expect there are probably a lot of missing gaps in the public domain and whatever they are teaching as syllabus at university concerning the physics of such devices so arguing the physics of the bomb could ultimately be some what invalid just a few years later.

Its not impossible for the government to keep a lid on such things, remember the Manhattan project? That 'was' pretty damn secret. Need i remind you that the Germans probably would of been the first to build a crude nuclear bomb but they seriously over-estimated the plutonium required? Calculation error or intentional? Not saying your calculations are wrong, but I think there are a lot of figures put out to mislead and just plain wrong, thankfully. History has shown us you could get ridiculed for claiming the Earth was round. Why was that? Simply missing the ingredient of gravity.

Tom have you looked into the OKC bombing much?

[edit on 25-6-2007 by VicRH]

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Tom Bedlam

Nukes go 'bang'. They put out explosive force; they emit radiation. The radiation they emit follows the laws of physics. You don't get "special magic neutrons" that stop two blocks away. You can't emit something that's not in the nucleus to be emitted to begin with. There is no 'hush-a-boom'.

Okay, but the persistence of the radiation left from a nuclear explosion is a factor decreased by the purity of the core and the efficiency of the reaction, no? Doesn't it stand to reason that a micro-nuke would have to have an almost perfectly pure core in order to function at all, and would therefore produce a highly efficient reaction?

I'm really not trying to argue with you, just hoping for some information here.

[edit on 25-6-2007 by WyrdeOne]

Ok, I double quoted on purpose here mods

First, since you quoted that post:
*****************
My response to the other poster was based mainly on my ongoing bafflement as to how a nuke, if you had one, causes the damage seen. I'm willing to entertain any possible nuke configuration to get there. I guess I'm less a "something funky and perhaps underhanded happened to cause this" skeptic as I am an "and a nuke magically answers everything..well..just because it's a nuke, by god!" skeptic.

It's an interesting problem. If there's a way to set up one or more nukes that's not totally implausible, let's talk about it, we may never have the data to prove it one way or the other, but it's fun to think about.
*****************

That said, back to your question. You'd be talking about a fission weapon by your phrasing. The efficiency is influenced by a lot of things, how much and how perfect your compression is, the efficiency of your reflectors, the purity of the material (and how well you control the crystalline phase issues), when and how well you initiate, how supercritical the core is at the moment it initiates, how long you can hold the assembly together with inertia following initiation (how many generations it goes through), there's a few more.

If what you're asking is, how much of it ends up as radioactive crap after, there's a couple of factors. Unburned core is scattered around as fallout, so in that sense the efficiency matters. The unburned core material ends up generally being nastier than the original load, because of neutron activation which produces actinides. You'll have short-lived nasty radioactive isotopes all over the spectrum from core material. The neutron flux is dense enough in the core that you get some r-process stuff too, which is generally nastier still.

The primary emission from a reaction is neutrons. That's what's making the bang go. You'll also get whatever is typical for fission in what you're using, plutonium and uranium aren't that much different, there will be gamma and x-rays out the wazoo, and neutrons leaving the reaction. You can reduce the emitted neutrons (not the ones inside the core) with 'tricks'. Their energy is dumped into gammas and x-rays.

Neutrons leaving the bomb activate light elements in the vicinity, silicon and aluminum, iron and a few others light right up. Those tend to die down in a few days.

So you've got prompt radiation from the bomb, either in neutrons or as EM in the form of X and Gamma. You can 'tune' the EM to hit the band for Compton reactions in the atmosphere and thus opt for a bigger EMP.

You also have residual radiation from neutron activation and leftover core material, and any fissile material in the bomb frame. For example, it's typical in heavier weapons to use a lot of U238 in the bomb in the form of casing, tampers, reflectors and so on, because it will fission under the impact of high-energy neutrons leaving the core, giving you a bigger bang. For a cleaner weapon, you would use something else, but it reduces the yield.

did that answer what you wanted?