4 th generation thermonuclear hydrogen devices

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes EMP is absolute.

The only thing that is absolute is your statements.

Ok prove a nuke can explode without creating an EMP burst. You can't but go ahead and try. It'll amuse me

Originally posted by jfj123
Even a small nuke would create an EMP that would be miles in diameter and would wipe out ANY/ALL non-hardened electronic equipment.

I want these specific statements proved. 1, all EMP bursts are "miles in diameter", and 2, always "wipe out ANY/ALL electronics".

Good to want I'll tell you the same thing you told me. Why don't you go research

Originally posted by SteveR

Please direct us to appropriate scientific papers that outright reject these premises.

Ofcourse neutrons will heat steel.

Quieter: Huh? It's not my claim. It was Wiz's. He was asked and he ignored the question. And what you're doing now is asking me to prove a negative - namely that something isn't true and can't happen. A scientific paper that says this would be adequate, but I haven't seen it. Also, it goes against science to say that a fusion reaction that produces an explosive yield of 1 ton is quieter than a chemical explosive that yields a ton. Explosive force = explosive force, no matter what the energy source is.

Heat steel: Again, I'm asking for some proof and/or technical papers that state this. Original sources would of course be better than a statement from a troofer site.

reply to post by jfj123


What do you think cause the pool of molten steel that was found weeks later at all the three WTC?

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by jfj123

 

What do you think cause the pool of molten steel that was found weeks later at all the three WTC?

Not a nuke

No emp, no nuke

(all nuclear weapons produce EMP to some extent), they work by sending out
an electromagnetic pulse which would induce more or less heavy currents
in conductors. This could damage electronic equipment and electric
power lines, generating stations and substations.

The resistance to EMP by device is listed below, from most to least
vulnerable:

1. Integrated circuits (ICs), CPUs, silicon chips
2. Transistors
3. Vacuum Tubes (also known as thermionic valves)
4. Inductors, motors

Transistor technology is likely to fail and old vacuum equipment
survive. However it must be considered, that different types of
transistors and ICs show different sensitivity to EM: bipolar ICs and
transistors are much less sensitive than FETs and especially MOSFETs.

To protect sensitive electronics, a Faraday cage must be produced
around the item.

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by jfj123

 

What do you think cause the pool of molten steel that was found weeks later at all the three WTC?

Here's a thought...Provide evidence that there was a nuke Good luck

Originally posted by fmcanarney

a modern thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb. In the picture below, a hydrogen bomb explosion, the bomb having been placed in the cellar and directed to the core, has reached the roof of the tower and the upper parts of the outer walls. On its way up the waves of fire pressure partially penetrated about 100 floors of concrete and steel. Over ten million degrees of heat caused by a hydrogen bomb sublimised all water within the concrete in a moment. Water exploded extremely quickly into 1000-fold volume and totally pulverized the concrete. Even people and computers that were in the buildings disappeared turning into heat and light. That is why almost nothing of them was found in the ruins.

Burning radiation is absorbed in steel so quickly that steel heats up immediately over its melting point 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F) and above its boiling point around 3000 C (approx. 5430 °F). In the pictures down below, super hot groups of steel pillars and columns, torn from wall by pressure wave, are sublimized. They immediately turn into a vaporized form, binding heat as quickly as possible. Bursts upwards, even visible in the picture below, are not possible for a gravitational collapse or for cutting charges which are used horizontally.

This is also inadequate. A link would also be a good thing. I'd like to check out the original source material that this author used. A statement from someone is not scientific evidence.

What is "burning radiation"? Alpha? Gamma? It's not specified. I'm looking for something that specifically states that neutrons will do this, and how much is needed to vaporize a given quantity of steel. I would assume that since you are sure of this, that you have looked into this and have your justification....

Originally posted by cashlink

What do you think cause the pool of molten steel that was found weeks later at all the three WTC?

Why do you believe it was steel?

Was it tested and confirmed?

If not, then you have no basis to state this.

reply to post by jfj123


Ok all right, I understand you do not believe it was nuke that’s ok for me.
However, what do you think caused the molted pools of steel at the bottom of WTC?

Originally posted by jfj123
I'll tell you the same thing you told me.

So where is the link that you think supports those claims? I bet you don't know of any.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Explosive force = explosive force, no matter what the energy source is.

Possibly the dumbest statement I've seen on here. Your infering there is no difference between chemical explosion processes and nuclear.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Heat steel: Again, I'm asking for some proof and/or technical papers that state this.

Try Neutron Activation. Applies to matter in general.

[edit on 2008/8/31 by SteveR]

The worst of the pulse lasts for only a second, but any unprotected electrical equipment — and anything connected to electrical cables, which act as giant lightning rods or antennas — will be affected by the pulse. Older, vacuum tube (valve) based equipment is much less vulnerable to EMP

The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400–500 km (250 to 312 miles) over Kansas would affect all of the continental U.S. The signal from such an event extends to the visual horizon as seen from the burst point.

Originally posted by SteveR

Possibly the dumbest statement I've seen on here. Your infering there is no difference between chemical explosion processes and nuclear.

Try Neutron Activation. Applies to matter in general.

1- There's a difference in the process, of course. But all explosives can be standardized to equivalent TNT yield, which if what I'm talking about. Here's a question - when a nuke is given a yield of 5 kt of TNT, do you believe that 5 kt of TNT would give a different explosive yield?

2- thanks, I'll look into it.

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by jfj123

 

Ok all right, I understand you do not believe it was nuke that’s ok for me.
However, what do you think caused the molted pools of steel at the bottom of WTC?

Well I'd need to know how long after the collapse, it was found?
What type of metal it was?
Was it simply red hot or was it liquid?
What type of surrounding material was it found in?

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble
The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.

There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. *

A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains

A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel."
911research.wtc7.net...

In response to the numerous reports of molten metal under ground zero, defenders of the official version of 9/11 have tried to argue that it was not steel, but some other kind of metal with a lower melting point.

Well, here are what top experts who eyewitnessed the molten metal say:


The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC purportedly described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3)
A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December"
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel"
Hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires" (pay-per-view)
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them
georgewashington2.blogspot.com...

drjudywood.com:80...

drjudywood.com...






[edit on 8/31/2008 by cashlink]

[edit on 8/31/2008 by cashlink]

reply to post by cashlink


None of this backs your claims of "pools" of molten steel.

1- pools means a liquid state

2- the red hot steel pulled from the piles aren't liquid

3- any melted, then cooled "ingots" haven't been analyzed for their composition

4- the "meteorite" has both concrete and steel. If the steel was hot enough to turn liquid, they couldn't be mixed, and the cncrete wouldn't be in solid form, since one of your links says that concrete burns at 300C, well below the melting point of steel.

Epic Failure on your part.......



[edit on 31-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]

reply to post by Seymour Butz

You have not even had time to go to the link and read what I have presented you.
You always seem to have an answer for everything that is given by credible people.
Some people said they saw liquid steel running down the bottom of the WTC.
And you can not refute that!

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by Seymour Butz

 

You have not even had time to go to the link and read what I have presented you.
You always seem to have an answer for everything that is given by credible people.
Some people said they saw liquid steel running down the bottom of the WTC.
And you can not refute that!

Just curious but how did they know it was liquid steel and not another type of metal? Is there something specific that shows how they figured that out?

I'm also curious as to how the OP knows what generation of nuke the government currently has? What inside source as informed the op that we're discussing a 4th gen. nuke device ?

Originally posted by cashlink

Some people said they saw liquid steel running down the bottom of the WTC.
And you can not refute that!

Yes I can, as well as any nondelusional person that thinks logically.

The point is that this was never analyzed.

Therefore, it could have been aluminum, which has a much lower melting point than steel. And melts at temps well within the range found in the piles.

So as I said, you failed to prove your point, nor did you even come close to bringing evidence that would warrant any further investigation.

Originally posted by jfj123
I'm also curious as to how the OP knows what generation of nuke the government currently has? What inside source as informed the op that we're discussing a 4th gen. nuke device ?

Personally, i think it's a crock, given the dubious ability to "light" the fusion reactions the way that they espouse, but I'm going on the assumption that the NWO does in fact have sooper seekrit devices that meet these requirements. Cuz you know that this will crop up when it's challenged.

Rather, I'm trying to provide evidence that even these mythical sooper seekrit very efficent devices would still result in an explosive yield beyond all possibility of believability, since even an incredibly efficent device will produce explosive effects from the fusion reaction. I'm even assuming a 100% ability to "steer" the neutrons in the way they propose. Which I also find to be a crock.

So far the OP has not provided any links, unforunately, to any original source material that would back these technical aspects.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
do you believe that 5 kt of TNT would give a different explosive yield?

I believe it would give a different effect. If all devices acted the same with a given yield we would not have the whole field of demolitions.

For example. TNT would not pulverize many tons of concrete into dust particles measuring in the microns. The nuke on the other hand would superheat the water in the concrete causing a phreatic explosion.

A large device detonated at 400–500 km (250 to 312 miles) over Kansas would affect all of the continental U.S

The key to that EMP effect is a detonation at altitude. What about muffled in a large building?