Possible Fissionless Fusion Bomb?

The important point is not to know exactly what happened on 9/11. That something did happen, and that the official story does not match the physical evidence is enough to make it worthy a real investigation, an independent one at that.

However, I can't help but speculate. One image that gets me every time is thinking about how the floors, according to the official story, collapsed and pancaked. However, they were not 'pancakes,' but rather a fine dust. Something of incredible force brought down the Towers, excessive energy. There are those pools of hot, molten metal in the basements of the Towers that sustained intense heat days, weeks after the event. The popular thermite theory doesn't make sense really as thermite does not leave pools of molten metal that stay intensely hot for days. Prof. Judy Woods has a theory about an external source of energy coming in the form of a beam from above. Too far fetched for me.

A few months ago, I heard a podcast about this topic at www.beyondthegrassyknoll.com. The guest speaker hosted an interesting website on the topic at 911u.org... He has a section on that site that discusses surplus energy. 911u.org...

They were discussing the possibility of some technology not widely known to the public, perhaps a fissionless fusion bomb of some sort. As they pointed out, something with incredible force brought down the Towers. Fire or even thermite doesn't turn concrete to dust like that.

The website has a link to an article that appeared in Discover Magazine some time ago, about a high school student who achieved nuclear fission with a machine he put together in his garage.

discovermagazine.com...

If anybody wants to hear that podcast in full (about an hour), here it is:

beyondthegrassyknoll.com...

Originally posted by Hott_Nutz

1-There are those pools of hot, molten metal in the basements of the Towers that sustained intense heat days, weeks after the event. The popular thermite theory doesn't make sense really as thermite does not leave pools of molten metal that stay intensely hot for days.

2-Prof. Judy Woods has a theory about an external source of energy coming in the form of a beam from above. Too far fetched for me.

1- Quite right, thermite couldn't be responsible for that. You're gonna make a few thermite believers mad though, by injecting a dose of reality.

2- again, quite right.

But even nukes can't keep those temps up. They, like thermite, would start cooling as soon as the event is over. There are reports from old underground nuke tests that show that even though temps are hot enough to make glass, the temps go down immeadiately.

So, if none of these work, then the only way to explain the continued high temps is the burning materials. There's your answer.

Originally posted by Hott_Nutz
...The website has a link to an article that appeared in Discover Magazine some time ago, about a high school student who achieved nuclear fission with a machine he put together in his garage.

discovermagazine.com...
...

Just a correction, but the student achieved FUSION, not fission. You know, the thing labs are spending millions and millions to achieve, saying it's not possible yet with our technology?

Here's the kicker... he's not the first STUDENT to achieve fusion in his garage.

posted by Seymour Butz

So, if none of these work, then the only way to explain the continued high temps is the burning materials. There's your answer.

So you are claiming the heat from this speculative fissionless fusion bomb was incapable of igniting the buried debris? You need your buried burning debris to prop up your self-destructing 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY, but it cannot be ignited by a fusion bomb or thermite or thermate or super-thermate or pyrotechnics of any kind? Hmmmm. Kinda fussy aren't you?



Only an alleged gravity collapse can set off the burning underground debris which remained burning for weeks? Hmmmm. Wouldn't all that pulverized concrete from the upper floors smother any fire which might be burning up there?

Originally posted by SPreston


Only an alleged gravity collapse can set off the burning underground debris which remained burning for weeks?

Did I say that? No.

I said that any of the other proposed methods could only start the fires, but could not be responsible for the continued heat.

reply to post by Seymour Butz

Did I say that? No.

I said that any of the other proposed methods could only start the fires, but could not be responsible for the continued heat.

So what was the continued heat cause by? I am sure you have scientific evidences.
I mean you have all the answers, so let’s see what proof you can provide. In addition, don’t type that garbage that… No, you will just hand wave it, and ignore all the evidences, because that is a cop out!

Originally posted by cashlink


So what was the continued heat cause by?

Only a few floors burned before they fell!

All the other floor's combustible materials were available afterwards!

Do you have another explanation!

Don't hand wave it away!

Why am I using all these exclamation points! Oh yeah, cuz Cash prolly won't understand if I don't!

reply to post by Seymour Butz

Only a few floors burned before they fell!

All the other floor's combustible materials were available afterwards!

LOL, Ok, do you have any proof to support your conspiracies theory?
This is your “opinion” please show some proof. and site your sources, oh that’s right you cant!

Originally posted by cashlink

LOL, Ok, do you have any proof to support your conspiracies theory?

LOL!

What do you mean! Do you think that there wasn't any combustibles! What conspriacies theory! What are you talking about! Do you have any proof that more combustibles is a CT!!! Can you cite your sources for doubting there was any more material left to burn!!!!

I believe what is being brought up here is the 'Hirsch-Farnsworth Machine' method of inducing fusion electrically and this is not a bomb at all but rather a method used to produce neutrons for laboratory nuclear experiments. As far as I can tell the method has not yet been able to achieve 'break-even' performance IE produce more energy from fusion than the energy input (electrical) required to induce fusion within the chamber but the proponents of it have great hopes for it.

Basicly it works by producing a very high voltage potential 'well' within an evacuated container and introducing suitable material to be ionised and subsequently the ions are electrically accelerated together fast enough to overcome the 'coulomb barrier' allowing nuclei to be driven together achieving some fusion at the centre of the evacuated spherical chamber without the super high temperatures normally associated with fusion. The flux of neutrons is evidence of successful operation (nuclei being smashed together with neutrons thrown off as 'debris').

Some info on the history of it here and here

Fascinating reading if you're interested in this sort of experimentation and developments like the Tokomak etc.

However, it's a huge stretch to try associating this in any way with the WTC events.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- Quite right, thermite couldn't be responsible for that. You're gonna make a few thermite believers mad though, by injecting a dose of reality.
...
But even nukes can't keep those temps up. They, like thermite, would start cooling as soon as the event is over. There are reports from old underground nuke tests that show that even though temps are hot enough to make glass, the temps go down immediately.

So, if none of these work, then the only way to explain the continued high temps is the burning materials. There's your answer.

The question then is what burning substance would be able to sustain those incredible levels of heat? As I recall, satellites registered temps around 1200-C seven days after the attack. As the site that I cited suggests, this heat might have been caused by a malfunction in this new kind of bomb technology that could have been used to take down the buildings.

Thermite as the prime source of disintegrating the internal structures seems unlikely.




Just because we do not know the exact cause of this horrendous action does not negate that the facts do not even come close to supporting the official story.

posted by Hott_Nutz

As I recall, satellites registered temps around 1200-C seven days after the attack. As the site that I cited suggests, this heat might have been caused by a malfunction in this new kind of bomb technology that could have been used to take down the buildings.

No, not satellites; but NASA AVIRIS high altitude aircraft imaging from a De Havilland Twin Otter over lower Manhattan at mid-day at altitudes of 6,500 and 12,500 feet. Images taken 5 days after 9-11 on Sept 16 showing temperatures up to 1341 degrees F.



U.S. Geological Survey WTC AVIRIS Imaging

Incidentally hotspot A was under WTC 7 which was not hit by an aircraft and hotspot C below WTC 1 was also giving out a temperature reading of 1341 degrees F on September 16. Hotspot G below WTC 2 was giving out a temperature reading of 1020 degrees F on September 16.



[edit on 12/30/08 by SPreston]

reply to post by Hott_Nutz

-The important point is not to know exactly what happened on 9/11.

-I can't help but speculate.

I find it interesting that "official" speculation is dismissed out of hand, but any number of random theories are given credence.

What we do know is-

- airliners hit the Towers

- fires were started

- major structural damage occurred

- the towers collapsed


CTers are certain that the fires couldn't have gotten hot enough to weaken the steel, causing the resulting implosion. They're awfully short on the details of how a hydrogen bomb(or any other kind of controlled demolition) would produce the results witnessed, but with no other unintended effects(or evidence trail) to give it away to anyone that might investigate the incident. The only answer is that everyone that might say something, was "gotten to," or in on it.

Originally posted by BlueRaja

What we do know is-

- airliners hit the Towers

- fires were started

- major structural damage occurred

- the towers collapsed

Actually, we do NOT know this. We do know that something hit the Towers. Yes, a fire did start and the jet fuel mostly burned off in minutes. Paper and wood doesn't burn enough to do that much damage to a structure that was built specifically to withstand airplanes jamming into them. Hardened steel was used in the inner core of the building, which should have been still standing according to how the 'official' story reads. a Nova program, designed to support the official story showed a diagram of the collapsing floor theory and in the diagram the core was left standing. Why?

There was major structural damage to the building BEFORE any whatevers slammed into it. There were numerous reports of major blasts in the basements of the Towers. Rodriguez Watch that video on YouTube of a man who was in the building before the plane hit. This was presented on Fox News. You can look him up and he speaks more openly about the explosions in the buildings before the whatever hit it.

Yes, there was some structural damage to the building, but a fire and subsequent collapse would not account for how the concrete was dustified. First responders talked about how they didn't find anything in the rubble intact. Where are the squashed desks and bodies? Hundreds of bone fragments were discovered on top of the Deutsch Bank next door. Where are the floors stacked on top of one another? Perhaps this is another case of vaporization, just like the alleged jet that penetrated the Pentagon.

The question then is what burning substance would be able to sustain those incredible levels of heat? As I recall, satellites registered temps around 1200-C seven days after the attack. As the site that I cited suggests, this heat might have been caused by a malfunction in this new kind of bomb technology that could have been used to take down the buildings

Mine fires have been known to burn for years - mother comes from coal
country in Northern PA. Remember uncles talking about them and witnessing a burning mound of coal waste which burned for years. Had
signs warning people to roll up windows and drive fast to avoid fumes

There were plenty of combustibles including plastics which are made from
petroleum and burn with some 50-100% more heat energy per pound

Plasrics are almost everywhere including floors (carpeting is nylon),
cubicle dividers (urethane foam sound deadening), furniture - urethane
padding, etc

Used to work with guy from Centralia PA where underground fire forces
town to be abandoned from sinkholes and Carbon monoxide entering houses.

This was a world where no human could live, hotter than the planet Mercury, its atmosphere as poisonous as Saturn's. At the heart of the fire, temperatures easily exceeded 1,000 degrees. Lethal clouds of carbon monoxide and other gases swirled through the rock chambers.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Seymour Butz

LOL!

What do you mean! Do you think that there wasn't any combustibles! What conspriacies theory! What are you talking about! Do you have any proof that more combustibles is a CT!!! Can you cite your sources for doubting there was any more material left to burn!!!!

LOL You are JOKING RIGHT! Combustibles! Oh Please! I guess a can of hair spray and a bottle of nail polish blew up! What proof on that entire floor that was soooo combustible that it blew up the WTC and burn for months show by using sciences, and post your sources? (Oh that’s right you can’t!) You are only giving an OPINION! NOT Facts!