Micronuke theory question

Originally posted by VicRH
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.

One: who says it was "molecularly dissociated"? How do they know? If it's similar to WITW's statement that it turned back into Portland cement, the same question to you as I put to him - why then didn't it harden when wet down by the firemen later?

Two: Is it typical in the fall of a massive highrise for the concrete to powder? I posted a bunch of pics in another thread (I think you were there) that showed a pile of powdery concrete crap that looked amazingly like the WTC.

Three: By what mechanism are you proposing the nuke powdered the concrete? Why can a nuclear weapon produce those results? If the building was blown to hell and gone, yes, it would powder the concrete the same as if you'd loaded the building up with TNT. But the building didn't blow to smithereens.

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 agree it would have been a pain in the arse and far from covert to use standard demolition techniques. I don't know what a 1200 foot (more or less) building looks like when it collapses. I looked at some 10 story collapse photos and they weren't a lot different looking to me than WTC. I couldn't find any nice camera shots of explosively demolished 110-120 story buildings, have you seen any? What SHOULD it look like? I don't have a knowledge base. The appearance of WTC could be typical. Without a baseline you have an observation but no hooks to hang it on.

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.

Sure, but I'm always going to come back to the fact it doesn't really matter what was in the bomb casing. Treat it as a black box. A Thevenin or Norton equivalent. I don't care what's in the box. Now, how does something emerging from the box cause what you see? Concussion, radiation, I don't care, whatever comes out ain't magic anymore.

Sandia's new initiator that makes the magic in their latest no-boost bomb run is cut-your-throat-before-reading secret, sure. But once the weapon's gone off, it's just neutrons and heat. You don't get magic heat, or magic neutrons, or magic Star Trek phaser particles that go "BXZZZZZ" while the building glows and vanishes.

I'm the guy you hate that says during the movie "How can the phaser make the bad guy glow and vanish, but not carve a pit in the floor? How does it know to stop at his shoes?"

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?

Actually, the guys in Germany were intentionally misleading the Nazis, but that's another story.

Not saying your calculations are wrong, but I think there are a lot of figures put out to mislead and just plain wrong, thankfully.

Like I say, what's in the bomb doesn't matter. You're overfocusing on the technology used. What comes out, and how it causes what you see, that's the question. I hope you're not seriously proposing magic new particles that stop at the interior building walls.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam


One: who says it was "molecularly dissociated"? How do they know?

I believe there were official studies done that show this, there were record quantities of this abnormally fine powdered concrete.

Two: Is it typical in the fall of a massive highrise for the concrete to powder?

The concrete was turning to dust before it even hit the ground, it appeared as though steel members and other materials were too. Yet lots of unburnt paper which has been shown to be evidence of a nuclear device or DEW (perhaps NDEW) ?

Three: By what mechanism are you proposing the nuke powdered the concrete? Why can a nuclear weapon produce those results? If the building was blown to hell and gone, yes, it would powder the concrete the same as if you'd loaded the building up with TNT. But the building didn't blow to smithereens.

Well for what i understand things with sufficient mass were superheated, instantly evaporating all water molecules inside the concrete making huge amounts explode into such fine dust thoroughly 'pulverising' it.

Actually, the guys in Germany were intentionally misleading the Nazis

hehe thats what i think too.

I hope you're not seriously proposing magic new particles that stop at the interior building walls.

I just think there are many unknown unknowns, and known unknowns. If a nuclear bomb can be as small to have the effect as a few tons of TNT then it should be pretty easy to calculate how much would be required to make it stay within the boundries of the walls.

Originally posted by VicRH

I believe there were official studies done that show this, there were record quantities of this abnormally fine powdered concrete.

Got a link? I'd love to read about it. Not to prison planet or something, but a real discussion by someone in a scholarly journal or report would be nice. I"m not being smarmy here, I'd really like to read something by someone who knows if you've got it, I've never seen a really big building demolished like that.

The concrete was turning to dust before it even hit the ground, it appeared as though steel members and other materials were too. Yet lots of unburnt paper which has been shown to be evidence of a nuclear device or DEW (perhaps NDEW) ?

Back to the same question - in what way? Who says it's evidence of a nuclear device? What does a nuclear device emit that powders concrete but doesn't burn paper? Or even worse, powders steel? There was a lot of the usual metallic debris in the rubble.

Well for what i understand things with sufficient mass were superheated, instantly evaporating all water molecules inside the concrete making huge amounts explode into such fine dust thoroughly 'pulverising' it.

Yes, I've heard that. Now, reconcile how that doesn't burn paper..? Also, with a distinct lack of an explosion. The "sufficient mass" argument doesn't hold much water, I've heard WITW try that with density at one point, but it really doesn't work that way, and when challenged on the point he beat a strategic retreat.

I think his argument was "things with high density absorb neutrons and are heated". However, pretty much EVERYTHING absorbs neutrons. What really counts is neutron cross section and mass. Some elements absorb neutrons readily and some don't, at least not at the same rate. The denser materials have more mass so they absorb more total energy, cross section for cross section, but they heat more slowly, too, and it takes a lot less energy to burn paper than to melt a mass of steel.

But you're back again to other issues such as overpressure. Let's say all of your conjectures about the neutrons magically only heating water are correct (they're not), how does that melt the steel? And, the water vapor doesn't go away - if you're "instantly vaporizing" the water on the top floor, to what temperature must you jack the water vapor on the first floor? It doesn't quit absorbing neutrons just because it's steam. The overpressure would be unbelievable. And that much neutron flux would kill everyone as far as you could see. It doesn't take much. There were survivors in the building. Certainly there were people in the surrounding area.

I just think there are many unknown unknowns, and known unknowns. If a nuclear bomb can be as small to have the effect as a few tons of TNT then it should be pretty easy to calculate how much would be required to make it stay within the boundries of the walls.

And - how do you get the effect you see with a few tons of TNT? A ton of TNT is a LOT. You don't think that going off in one place isn't going to blow the building out there? Or knock the windows out? It doesn't take a lot of overpressure to peel a building facade.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Got a link? I'd love to read about it. Not to prison planet or something, but a real discussion by someone in a scholarly journal or report would be nice. I"m not being smarmy here, I'd really like to read something by someone who knows if you've got it, I've never seen a really big building demolished like that.

the weird thing is I can't find the links atm and one site looks like it has been hijacked by hackers. I will get back to you when i find them, Jim Hoffman and Mike King (MIT) were talking about it quite a bit i recall.

Back to the same question - in what way? Who says it's evidence of a nuclear device? What does a nuclear device emit that powders concrete but doesn't burn paper? Or even worse, powders steel? There was a lot of the usual metallic debris in the rubble.

Paper has a high strength to weight ratio so certain effects of this bomb (like super-heating through various wavelengths) passed straight through it, much like microwaves in a microwave oven pass through paper yet cook the food inside. The over pressures mearly pushed all the heavy and dense matter outwards accompanied with the paper from what I understand.

Yes, I've heard that. Now, reconcile how that doesn't burn paper..? Also, with a distinct lack of an explosion.

I just explained that I thought? Lack of explosion is because its heavily dampened by the extreme mass of the building surrounding it.

I think his argument was "things with high density absorb neutrons and are heated". However, pretty much EVERYTHING absorbs neutrons. What really counts is neutron cross section and mass. Some elements absorb neutrons readily and some don't, at least not at the same rate.

Yes but this isn't a neutron bomb, neutron bombs don't blow up buildings. And Neutron bombs aren't hydrogen bombs, which shouldnt be confused with atomic bombs, But they are cohesively nuclear in nature.

how does that melt the steel?

At the very epicenter of the blast it creates a super hot fireball of anywhere up to a million degrees, which would easily melt just about anything. If one had the ability to control such temperatures produced in said fireball than one could taylor it to melt anything.

And - how do you get the effect you see with a few tons of TNT? A ton of TNT is a LOT. You don't think that going off in one place isn't going to blow the building out there? Or knock the windows out? It doesn't take a lot of overpressure to peel a building facade.

Ok even less than a few tons of TNT but in that ball park. Just enough basically to level ALL the floors evenly and thoroughly including contents and getting it down to microscopic levels... hmm.. There is certainly nothing normal about the 'demolition' here either, this was way so much more explosive than demolition normally is. You need to try and respect how damn huge these buildings were! Even WTC7 in its own right was a pretty big.

Originally posted by VicRH
Paper has a high strength to weight ratio so certain effects of this bomb (like super-heating through various wavelengths) passed straight through it, much like microwaves in a microwave oven pass through paper yet cook the food inside. The over pressures mearly pushed all the heavy and dense matter outwards accompanied with the paper from what I understand.

Strength-to-weight ratio doesn't have beans to do with heating or not heating from neutrons, which is what I'm assuming the vaporized-concrete crowd is still using for a cause. A microwave oven also doesn't heat fresh oil very well, but it's a liquid. It heats material by dielectric heating. At any rate, there couldn't have been beans for overpressure since the windows didn't blow out until the collapse.

Overpressure, heating due to neutrons or EM and strength-to-weight ratios are sort of like comparing parakeets and cheese - they don't really relate.

Yes but this isn't a neutron bomb, neutron bombs don't blow up buildings. And Neutron bombs aren't hydrogen bombs, which shouldnt be confused with atomic bombs, But they are cohesively nuclear in nature.

A pure fusion bomb IS a neutron bomb. All neutron bombs ARE hydrogen bombs. Neutron bombs have explosive yields, usually in the 1-5kT range. The reason they don't blow up buildings is that you toggle them off at several thousand feet, but the stuff under the bomb is usually flattened. The reason you use one is that neutrons are so damned lethal, you can kill everyone in the open within a couple of km of popping off even a 1kT job. The neutrons come from a D-T fusion reaction. The reason you don't get as big a "boom" is that you let the energy escape as energetic neutrons, which for the D-T reaction is about 80% of the total energy output.

At any rate, most of the "all the concrete turned to powder" guys are invoking neutrons as an intermediary, are you claiming something else?

At the very epicenter of the blast it creates a super hot fireball of anywhere up to a million degrees, which would easily melt just about anything. If one had the ability to control such temperatures produced in said fireball than one could taylor it to melt anything.

Yes, and this is one of the very reasons it can't be a nuke. A super hot fireball of a million degrees heats gas, and creates gas by vaporization of materials. Hot gas has pressure. Pressure goes boom. PV=nRT. A building of that type would fly apart at a very low overpressure internally, probably 5-10 PSI would do. No million degree source inside.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Strength-to-weight ratio doesn't have beans to do with heating or not heating from neutrons, which is what I'm assuming the vaporized-concrete crowd is still using for a cause.

Alright, let’s try this. Neutrons will primarily heat — deposit their kinetic energy in — an object dense enough — massive enough — to stop them. Paper won’t interact easily with a Neutron akin to how a feather won’t stop a bullet or get much damaged from it.

Of course Neutrons will kill people. And I agree, we haven’t seen any 9-11 pictures proving that. Either no one died on 9-11 — not likely — or someone somewhere is diligently censoring images showing damages to living beings.

The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Yes, and this is one of the very reasons it can't be a nuke. A super hot fireball of a million degrees heats gas, and creates gas by vaporization of materials. Hot gas has pressure. Pressure goes boom.

That’s exactly WHY there were nukes at the WTC’s. A pure hydrogen bomb releases only a small fireball 15% relative to its overall destructive yield. 80% are high-energy Neutrons. Conventional chemical explosives are nothing but — 100% — fireball. Their entire output is incendiary pressure.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Alright, let’s try this. Neutrons will primarily heat — deposit their kinetic energy in — an object dense enough — massive enough — to stop them. Paper won’t interact easily with a Neutron akin to how a feather won’t stop a bullet or get much damaged from it.

Incorrect. There are two ways in which neutrons can transfer energy, by elastic collision, and by absorption. Moderators have good scattering cross-sections and poor absorption cross-sections, and are typically light nuclei. We use what as a moderator in reactors? Things like water and graphite. Paraffin is a great moderator. Are they massive? No. Do they absorb energy from neutrons? Yes. In fact, air is the limiting factor in the kill radius of a neutron bomb, because the air slows and absorbs energy from neutrons as a moderator.

The two factors which influence absorption of neutrons are absorption cross section, and mass. For each atom, there is an absorption cross section, and the likelihood of absorption is a product of the number of atoms like this and the cross section, which gives the likelihood that any one atom of any element will absorb it.

So it scales - and you have two things going on. For a piece of paper, it's not like "shooting a bullet at a feather" at all. That paper heats easily, that is it has low specific heat, and it burns at a relatively low temperature, and it is not massive. This means it will heat easily, with relatively low energy input, and will burn easily. Yet it did not.

Also the air didn't absorb a lot of the neutron energy, heat, expand and blow the building to smithereens either. There's a lot missing in your neutron evidence.

Of course Neutrons will kill people. And I agree, we haven’t seen any 9-11 pictures proving that. Either no one died on 9-11 — not likely — or someone somewhere is diligently censoring images showing damages to living beings.

The Wizard In The Woods

Damn right you don't - because it didn't happen. You have a lot of tapes showing live people in visual range of the collapse. Had the collapse been engendered by neutron flux, you'd have seen them all fall to the ground dead.

I get it.

Either an explosion took down the Towers, or Neutrons caused the Towers to disintegrate.


If an explosion (or multiple explosions) took down the Towers, then an explosion large enough to do the job would have spread the debris far, far beyond the footprint of the collapse; and there would be the problem of residual radiation from the interaction of the, limited, but inescapeable physics (be it fission, fusion, or antimatter!) of the blast itself.

If the neutrons simply disintegrated the Towers, the amount and intensity of the neutrons required to do the deed would have fried the greater population of Manhatten, and possibly New Jersy as well.


Neutrons are too stupid to selectively interact with concrete while avoiding flesh.


So if NOT a Nuke of some kind, then a plane?

I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe that something as crudely imprecise as a plane strike could cause a building the scale of just one of the Towers to virtually implode, collapsing almost entirely within its own footprint.

Not just once, mind you, but Twice! And in Succession!


Has anyone ever tried to calculate the Odds of such an occurance?


What ever happened to the old caveat: "Extrordinary Claims require Extrordinary Proof!"

And if neither a nuke nor a plane, that leaves us with: "The Inside Job"

Tom, from other threads I've read, you argue quite eloquently for the possiblity of "unique" forms of specialized demolition munitions.

Quite compelling, And far more freightening than a few religious snakes on a plane!

The manpower and logistical support that would have been required for planting such devices, be it pre- or post planes' impact, points to a Far wider conspiracy. The participants in such a conspiracy would have to be far more numerous, far better trained, far better equipped and far more dedicated to their ultimate goal than a handful mideastern fanatics. In fact, such a complex operation wouild almost require that most of its opperatives in no way differ in appearance from the targeted population to minimize suspicion and jeopardize the mission.

They would have to look like Us!

Likely, many of them would have to even Be some of us.


My great fear, and the reason I would most like to reject the notion of an "Inside Job", is that for such a conspiracy to have been as successful as it was, a great number of people had to have been working,knowingly or otherwise, toward the goal.

And some of them might have been some of us.

But no one has come forward, out of conscience, or pride.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

That’s exactly WHY there were nukes at the WTC’s. A pure hydrogen bomb releases only a small fireball 15% relative to its overall destructive yield. 80% are high-energy Neutrons. Conventional chemical explosives are nothing but — 100% — fireball. Their entire output is incendiary pressure.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

You're right, the neutronicity of D-T reactions is 80%, and you're wrong, that is more proof that it wasn't a nuke. Again, where is the energy going? You're saying it was neutrons, despite the lack of dead people everywhere.

What happens when the neutrons transfer their energy into the building materials? At one point you said it "vaporized the silica in the concrete" although I'm not sure how you came up with that one. Do you understand how much gas volume that would be, even if you ignore the problems with the energy being very unequally distributed?

PV=nRT. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

well I am certain there were bombs in those buildings, and they had a definitely likeness to what one might expect from a small scale nuclear detonation, minus the nasty side effects. Additionally I think whatever they used was fueling the fires in the rubble, either some type of chemical or isotope.

The concrete and other material was pulverised, the amount of macroscopic concrete was negligible. Molten steel in the basements, albaiting steels and materials, people literally vanished. Elevated tritium, craters, massive pieces of the building being thrown over 60 meters..

I actually ran a few of my own 3d tests using particle arrays and particle bombs (some of which took hours to generate) and I could get a very rather close likeness by placing a series of spherical blasts throughout the structure and detonating them in sequence top to bottom. I will have to upload them for you to check out sometime.

Tom
Thanks, that addressed many of my internal questions. The single question I remember posing out-loud (so to speak), that one was not answered. My question again, for the record: Would a miniature nuke, with a proportionately miniature core, have to be extraordinarily efficient in order to work at all?

I think so, but I'm no expert in the subject...

For what it's worth, it doesn't appear to me that nukes were used in NYC. I'm more interested in the concept of small nukes in connection with Bali...

Anywho, thanks for taking the time to respond.

Originally posted by VicRH
well I am certain there were bombs in those buildings, and they had a definitely likeness to what one might expect from a small scale nuclear detonation, minus the nasty side effects. Additionally I think whatever they used was fueling the fires in the rubble, either some type of chemical or isotope.

I actually don't have any issue with it being some sort of bomb(s), I just don't see it being nuclear. I don't see a nuclear connection with the concrete.

The lack of people I sort of put in with the lack of desks, and the presence of fires under the rubble for months. They're scattered all over the downwind range as people carbon now.

edit - I don't really even have any issue with it being small fission nukes, as long as the conjecture is that they were used for just blast effects. It's the magic neutron/sublimation/powder thing I can't buy, because it is so far afield of the physics and the missing side effects.

If you had some big solid chunks of remaining metal, a nice piece of fairly intact beam would do, that was near the center of the building, you could answer the neutron question with one microscopic analysis.

Neutrons penetrate metal, but some proportion of them will decelerate and stop due to elastic collisions, and won't be absorbed into a nucleus. A few seconds later, the neutron will convert to a hydrogen ion, with the energetic expulsion of an electron. It leaves a characteristic crystalline flaw. If the metal's heated too much, the flaw will anneal out, so you would need a piece that was exposed above ground and not annealed under the heap.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Well maybe my fear might have some basis.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

Bear in mind that the "source" is WorldNet Daily.

But IF internal, supposedly secure, communications systems have been compromised, we really do not know how far the collusion extends.

These two threads seem to have a disturbing convergence.

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
I get it.

Either an explosion took down the Towers, or Neutrons caused the Towers to disintegrate.


If an explosion (or multiple explosions) took down the Towers, then an explosion large enough to do the job would have spread the debris far, far beyond the footprint of the collapse; and there would be the problem of residual radiation from the interaction of the, limited, but inescapeable physics (be it fission, fusion, or antimatter!) of the blast itself.

If the neutrons simply disintegrated the Towers, the amount and intensity of the neutrons required to do the deed would have fried the greater population of Manhatten, and possibly New Jersy as well.


Neutrons are too stupid to selectively interact with concrete while avoiding flesh.


So if NOT a Nuke of some kind, then a plane?

I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe that something as crudely imprecise as a plane strike could cause a building the scale of just one of the Towers to virtually implode, collapsing almost entirely within its own footprint.

Not just once, mind you, but Twice! And in Succession!

Bingo! That is a good summation of what I'm trying to say, with the exception that I think it probably was some sort of explosive rig, but not a typical demolition (too likely to have been spotted) and not a magic anti-concrete nuke (doesn't fit). I might buy a bunch of smaller ones, if you're only using them for very strong demolition charges. But I think there is still a lot of conflicting evidence and there may be better ways with less brute force. That's what I'm looking for, tossing out ideas like the pipe bomb theory. I'm not emotionally married to it - I'm trying to get some creative thought going that doesn't involve antimatter or magic anti-concrete radiation. Hell, I even like the LMET idea, and it could cover gallium contamination in the basement, if there was any. It's nuts, true, but a nutty thing could be it.


I might have bought the plane idea - if the dang tower had fallen over. Or if one did and the other did not. Two near perfect pancakes from something as random as a plane strike seems too odd to be true. If we were investigating a weapon system failure, or a design flaw in an large electronic system (I've been in on both more than once), and I saw something analogous to this, I would never expect it was just happenstance. I'd go looking for the root cause, because it would probably lie close to or BE the problem. I mean, I guess it COULD be random occurrence, but I'd put the odds so low as to be ignorable.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Tom
Thanks, that addressed many of my internal questions. The single question I remember posing out-loud (so to speak), that one was not answered. My question again, for the record: Would a miniature nuke, with a proportionately miniature core, have to be extraordinarily efficient in order to work at all?

Sure, you don't have a lot to work with so you'd want to burn as much of it as you could. Also, if it's small, the normal tricks you can do to increase the burn time aren't available to you, which also reduces the yield.

For what it's worth, it doesn't appear to me that nukes were used in NYC. I'm more interested in the concept of small nukes in connection with Bali...

Anywho, thanks for taking the time to respond.

The one site I ran into long ago that I recall mentioning this also had some mighty bogus garbage posted on there.

I don't know which one you're going to, but I recall this one had some statement about "performing chemical tests on the soil to detect excess neutrons". You should know that this is as bogus as bogus gets. First, neutrons don't lie on the soil like worm eggs. Second, if you could get yourself a bag of neutrons, you couldn't detect them with a chemical test - chemistry is all about interactions with electron shells, which neutrons are out of. Third, neutrons don't last long. Outside the influence of a nucleus, a neutron decays. In just a few seconds, a free neutron will expel an electron and become a hydrogen ion, which won't last long in a free state before reacting with something. You might see the acidity of the soil increase a minute amount. I doubt you could distinguish that from natural variations.

Actually, I hadn't read anything about chemical tests on the soil. The evidence I saw from Bali that made me very curious was the size the crater compared to the amount of explosives used, the damage to concrete buildings across the street, the supposed suspect, and the wounds suffered by those near the blast.

All were very odd, and pointed to unconventional means.

Anyway, it's neither here nor there - my apologies for diverting the thread.

Carry on!

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Actually, I hadn't read anything about chemical tests on the soil. The evidence I saw from Bali that made me very curious was the size the crater compared to the amount of explosives used, the damage to concrete buildings across the street, the supposed suspect, and the wounds suffered by those near the blast.

All were very odd, and pointed to unconventional means.

Anyway, it's neither here nor there - my apologies for diverting the thread.

Carry on!

Hey, do you have a link to the site you got it from? Is it the one saying it's a SADM? Sort of tan/beigy look, goes on forever, page after page of single spaced text? Some guy named Beals, Byals, Vialls, something like that?

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
I get it.

Either an explosion took down the Towers, or Neutrons caused the Towers to disintegrate.

Aha! You just got how Mr. Bedlam is dividing up the issue.

If the neutrons simply disintegrated the Towers, the amount and intensity of the neutrons required to do the deed would have fried the greater population of Manhatten, and possibly New Jersy as well.

Which is why one could argue that disintegration via neutron radiation was not the primary mechanism used to bring the towers down.


Now, one has to establish that this is the only way one could use a small fusion device. Tom says he has no problem with a small fission device for that purpose. Why not a small fusion device for that purpose?

[edit on 27-6-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Aha! You just got how Mr. Bedlam is dividing up the issue.

I mean, if you think it was neutrinos or muons or something, let's discuss what you can get out of a nuke...

Which is why one could argue that disintegration via neutron radiation was not the primary mechanism used to bring the towers down.

You see, WE probably agree on that, but not gottago, WITW or a number of others.

Now, one has to establish that this is the only way one could use a small fusion device. Tom says he has no problem with a small fission device for that purpose. Why not a small fusion device for that purpose?

Mostly because I know the small fission devices exist, but small fusion devices probably don't, due to the minimal trigger size issue. You got to get the little boogers moving fast enough to get through each other's Coulomb barrier. And you have do to it to enough of them. And you have to have them do it as many times as you can before they fly apart. That's why you need density (read: pressure) and temperature. Also, fusion devices mostly emit neutrons, especially those reactions that use tritium.