It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

explosive information

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
What are some of the ten ways to initiate hydrogen reaction other than atomically?


I think red mercury (as a ballotechnic material) would be the best and most realistic culprit for a mini fusion bomb, especially for a terrorist group. Russia was supposed to be the leader in this type of technology and used it with their small portable nukes. But there is much skepticism about it's existence which is a whole other conspiracy in itself. Many stories of CIA trying to get their hands on this stuff as well as setting up sting operations with fake red mercury to ensnare wannabe nuclear terrorists. Very interesting stuff definitely worth looking into.



Red mercury is a substance of debatable existence purportedly used in the creation of nuclear bombs, as well as a variety of unrelated weapons systems. Samples obtained from arrested would-be terrorists invariably consisted of nothing more than various red dyes or powders of little value, which some suspect was being sold as part of a campaign intended to flush out potential nuclear smugglers.



en.wikipedia.org...

I have only heard of two other methods (beside fission>fusion and red mercury) being high powered lasers and antimatter based trigger, both of which would cost astronomical amounts - probably way more expensive than building two brand new towers! However, red mercury is relatively cheap, rumored to be available on the black market and was around long before 9/11/2001.

So if the towers we're indeed taken down with h-bombs my money would have to be on a ballotechnic trigger.

en.wikipedia.org...



Ballotechnics are a controversial topic in arms control, where it is claimed they may have a high enough energy density to be useful as a replacement for the fission-based "primary" in a fusion bomb. If this were to be true, the lack of fissile material could make attempts to stop nuclear proliferation almost impossible, as existing methods are based largely on control of the material and the enrichment process that extracts it.


[edit on 23-8-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 05:48 AM
link   

In the most popular indirect heating scheme, the spherical fuel capsule is mounted inside a cylinder that is about the size of a large paper clip. This cylinder is called a hohlraum, and it is usually made of some heavy element such as lead. Energy beams are shined through holes at the end of the hohlraum, vaporizing its inside surface and releasing a burst of x-rays. These x-rays bounce around inside the hohlraum, heating the fuel capsule much like heat from an oven bakes bread. Indirect heating achieves a highly uniform compression and heating of fusion fuel without the precise positioning of incoming energy beams required for direct heating.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
There are nuclear bombs of less than 0.01 KT.
They were available in 1958.
Hydrogen bomb making has progressed a lot since then.
That is fusion not fission.
Fusion does not leave radioactive material as a byproduct.
Look into the Bali explosion that was alleged to be a car bomb.
It was a mini thermonuclear hydrogen bomb.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



you read the encarta article and notice the dates cited:


1939 . In 1942 in July 1945. On August 6, 1945, on November 1, 1952. on August 12, 1953. Today, most nuclear weapons are fusion thermonuclear devices.
1960s, of 1968,
the most recent date in the article is 1968. That is Forty years ago.
Can you come up with some more recent information like at least this century.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   


Another find was a bottle of Red Mercury. Now this was a big deal for me. In order for a nuclear bomb to created fusion, you need fission, which is why nuclear missles are so complex. Back in the peak of the Cold War, the USSR came out with a story that stated they developed a chemical that could create fusion WITHOUT fission, thus creating the capabilites for the possibility of a small, cheap nuclear mega-ton bomb. It was called Red Mercury. Most people say it was just some urban legend that was whipped up by the Soviets to sell some crap on the black market for $200K-$300K per ounce (which they did). No tests have ever proved that this substance actually worked. It was produced on the USSR and Eat Germany, from what I know. It just goes to show what extent Iraq was taking to create something for mass destruction.




posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
picture of red mercury on previously posted external image.



new topics

top topics
 
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join