PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> 911 WTC

Scientific Forums

LoFi version for PDAs

Help

Members

Calendar

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Resend Validation Email

PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> General Sci-Tech Discussions -> Other Sci-Tech Topics

Pages: (137) [1] 2 3 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

· Start new topic · Start new poll

911 WTC - Evidence of an Nuclear explosion?, Your advice & Input Required

LoFi version | Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

MMC

Posted: Jan 12 2006, 07:37 AM

Quote

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 1832
Joined: 19-November 05

Positive Feedback: 35.71%
Feedback Score: -12

A finnish military expert has provided an opinion that a small nuclear device was involved in the collapse of the WTC...the report can be found here, in both English and Finnish:

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm

Here are the noted observations, please follow the link to find a thermographic picture which accompanies the report:

QUOTE

Observations Suggesting the Use of Small Hydrogen Bombs
1) The concrete pulverized into fine dust, 70…300 micron particles (just this could take more energy than the total gravitational energy available). See Gehue plates 6 and 7

2) Very energetic – hot – dust after the explosions. (Demolition charges would produce white clouds of dust, which would not move much, and a gravity-driven collapse would produce much less and more coarse dust.)

3) Brown shades of color seen in the air – these are produced by nuclear reactions of a thermonuclear device. The reactions use (gamma radiation caused by free neutrons, N2, O2, H2O > nitrid acid, NO2, NO3). These clouds soon get their usual white color after some minutes as the heat and fast movement of the clouds cease becoming ordinary clouds with some water.

Note: many of the pictures taken regarding the WTC Towers and the clouds seem to have been developed too blue, killing shades of brown. (This may have been an attempt to suppress the evidence.) Also there was supposed to be 200 000+ gallons of water on the roof of each tower – this water was spilled into stairwells etc, but was later all converted into water vapour reducing the brown color.

4) Superheated steel objects, disintegrating into steel vapour. Molten ponds of steel were found in the elevator shafts. There were lots of burned cars in the parking areas of the towers. The fire department did not announce until 12/19/2001 that the fires under the WTC rubble have been distinguished (more than 3 months after the incident). For more, see (Gehue plate 8)

location F C name
A 1341 727 WTC7
B 1034 557 WTC7
C 1161 627 WTC1
D 963 517 WTC1
E 819 437 WTC3
F 801 427 WTC2
G 1377 747 WTC2
H 1017 547 WTC4

The thermal survey of the WTC 9/16/2001 (NASA /US Geological Survey). Despite of fire department having cooled the rubble, aluminium would still be melting in some sites 5 days after the incident.

5) Elevated values of tritium in this area, but not elsewhere in New York. The University of California found elevated values on 9/13/2001 and 9/21/2001 within bounds of the WTC. They found them harmless for health. In pure hydrogen bomb isotopes of hydrogen are fused (D + T > n + a + 17.6 MeV).

6) An EMP-type phenomenon blacked out cellular phones at the moment when the first (southern) tower started to 'fall down', at the exact moment when a small thermonuclear bomb was detonated. Even in electronic cameras and videos a strange afterglow was seen in the late phase of the 'collapse' of both of the towers. See Gehue plate 5

7) A wave of pressure was witnessed in the root of the tower at the moment when the so-called collapse was progressing just about two hundred meters and nothing had fallen down to earth. The blast wave turned over for example a photographer and a fireman close to the entrance, who was taking photos of the dust cloud. The burst of the dust cloud on the root of the tower was photographed as well. In the image at the left below is what probably was the explosion of WTC 6. The Customs building was deliberately exploded for some reason - it was not damaged because of the falling girders as they had not yet reached the roof of WTC 7 when the photo was taken. A couple of seconds later the clouds of the explosion were already partly above the roof of WTC 7, which was too energetical to be caused by usual blasting agents. This suggests it was the second hydrogen bomb in the WTC block. The first hydrogen bomb is discharging upwards (pulverized concrete) exactly in the picture, and the steel structures vaporized by the bomb are already falling down 100 meters (approx. 328 ft.) farther down. The mass of cloud, caused by vaporized steel, is seen in the center of the picture and even more clearly in the picture at the right.

8) In the cellar, out of all the 47 ultra strong steel pillars, the steel was melted completely at the length of more than 20 meters (approx. 65 ft). Even cars were melted and burned in the cellar. The pillars were far too thick for thermite, which some have suggested. An explosion of a thermonuclear bomb explains the phenomenon well.

9) Steel columns and pillars were ejected in the surroundings of the building. In the beginning of the so-called collapse, exists no such energy exists that could throw steel pillars outwards from 60 to 175 meters (approx. from 170 to 574 ft.) from trunk. Not even cutting charges can do that. Instead, the blast wave from a nuclear bomb is capable to do that.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier4.htm

Below are two photographs, the first the WTC, the second is the Storax Sedan 104 Kt shallow underground nuclear detonation.
If the pictures are missing, please follow this link to view them, they are about mid-way down the page:

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm

user posted image

The question are...

Is this plausable?

Where is the energy coming from directing matter skywards?

Send PM · Send email ·

gbs5009	Posted: Jan 12 2006, 08:11 AM Quote
Unregistered	I doubt it. There hasn't been any fallout detected.

skeptic	Posted: Jan 12 2006, 02:04 PM Quote
Unregistered	http://www.letsroll911.org/[/SIZE]

philip347	Posted: Jan 12 2006, 10:07 PM Quote
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 2069 Joined: 23-January 05 Positive Feedback: 37.31% Feedback Score: -132	I do not see a missile fired. If a missile were fired, there would be a genesis point, from the ventral part of the fuselage, if this were the case. The flash on the building wall, I think is the beginning of mass to energy conversion and might be the hydraulic fuel, igniting from compression?
	Send PM · Send email ·

MMC

Posted: Jan 13 2006, 12:08 AM

Quote

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 1832
Joined: 19-November 05

Positive Feedback: 35.71%
Feedback Score: -12

QUOTE

I doubt it. There hasn't been any fallout detected.

Firstly, a pure hydrogen bomb does not leave the fallout that a thermonuclear device would. So, fallout would not be expected, the following was detected, which is consistant with a small hydrogen bomb...

QUOTE

5) Elevated values of tritium in this area, but not elsewhere in New York. The University of California found elevated values on 9/13/2001 and 9/21/2001 within bounds of the WTC. They found them harmless for health. In pure hydrogen bomb isotopes of hydrogen are fused (D + T > n + a + 17.6 MeV).

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier4.htm

QUOTE

I do not see a missile fired. If a missile were fired, there would be a genesis point, from the ventral part of the fuselage, if this were the case.

The flash on the building wall, I think is the beginning of mass to energy conversion and might be the hydraulic fuel, igniting from compression?

No one is saying a missile, but rather, that a device was present.

Is no one able to offer an explanation to the energy forcing matter skywards?

It is 100% from an explosion, as recorded on siesmographs of the event, the only question is, what type?

Send PM · Send email ·

MMC	Posted: Jan 13 2006, 12:22 AM Quote
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 1832 Joined: 19-November 05 Positive Feedback: 35.71% Feedback Score: -12	If you look at this siesmograph of the 911 WTC collapse, you can see the spike consistant with the detonation.
	Send PM · Send email ·

Guest	Posted: Jan 13 2006, 12:30 AM Quote
Unregistered	MMC The nuts belong in the creation/evolution or the 9/11 Conspiracy forums. Please stop contaminating this serious forum and take you/r nuts to those forums. Thankyou.

MMC

Posted: Jan 13 2006, 12:36 AM

Quote

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 1832
Joined: 19-November 05

Positive Feedback: 35.71%
Feedback Score: -12

QUOTE

The nuts belong in the creation/evolution or the 9/11 Conspiracy forums. Please stop contaminating this serious forum and take you/r nuts to those forums. Thankyou.

What do you know, an anonymous poster wants us all to stop examing the 911 WTC collapse from a physics perspective.

Get lost.

Send PM · Send email ·

MMC	Posted: Jan 13 2006, 12:55 AM Quote
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 1832 Joined: 19-November 05 Positive Feedback: 35.71% Feedback Score: -12	The official explantion for the 911 WTC collapse cites that it was a "gravity collapse", however, the following photograph completely eliminates that viewpoint. A "gravity collapse" does not suddenly turn into a large scale explosion and project matter in all directions, nor does it generate a siesmic spike. The US administration would have us believe that the laws of physics were suspended for this incident. This is impossible and this photograph provides empirical evidence that the official explanation is a complete fabrication. The ONLY questions left are these, what types of bombs were used and how many?
	Send PM · Send email ·

board member here	Posted: Jan 13 2006, 01:01 AM Quote
Unregistered	If you had used a miniature hydrogen bomb, you would have had a miniature sun, involved inside of the WTC buildings. This would have lifted the entire section of the building upwards, instead of a downwards collapse. There could not have been I feel placed charges in those levels, as the plane, through the process of being spread around, would have scraped the cement from those vertical members.

MMC

Posted: Jan 13 2006, 01:12 AM

Quote

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 1832
Joined: 19-November 05

Positive Feedback: 35.71%
Feedback Score: -12

QUOTE

board member here

Another anonymous poster...

QUOTE

If you had used a miniature hydrogen bomb, you would have had a miniature sun, involved inside of the WTC buildings.

To some degree...although in reality, nowhere near it in terms of mass or power.

QUOTE

This would have lifted the entire section of the building upwards, instead of a downwards collapse.

As the Sorax explosion (see first post) demonstrates it would project matter upwards and outwards, which is consistant with the photograph of the WTC.

As for lifting the building, well, that all depends on where it was positioned and the number.

Low yield devices, are quite similar to conventional explosives in terms of damage, they just occupy less space.

QUOTE

There could not have been I feel placed charges in those levels, as the plane, through the process of being spread around, would have scraped the cement from those vertical members.

That's impossible...

The photograph is UNQUESTIONABLE, it takes energy to project matter upwards and outwards. The only way to achieve the effect caught in the above photograph is from an explosion.

It is not like Hollywood, there are no big flames, it is a pressure wave. That's what is caught on camera.

Send PM · Send email ·

halolover	Posted: Jan 13 2006, 01:56 AM Quote
Unregistered	hay it true that a hydrogen bomb does not leave fallout but there would have been more than that explosion. and there were radiation counters out there there wasa no ratiation besides normal levels.

adoucette

Posted: Jan 13 2006, 02:16 AM

Quote

Illegitimi non carborundum

Group: Members
Posts: 10830
Joined: 14-April 05

Positive Feedback: 76%
Feedback Score: 147

QUOTE (mmc)

There is no such thing as a "pure hydrogen bomb".

You need a trigger.

The only trigger we have is a Fission bomb.

They DO leave a radioactive foot print.

While there is the ability to build a "mini" nuke, via a dirty fission bomb, one can't build a "mini" hydrogen bomb.

Well, except in the pulp fiction novels.

Arthur

--------------------

"We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point; that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason. On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"

Thomas B. Macaulay

Send PM · Send email ·

MMC

Posted: Jan 13 2006, 02:30 AM

Quote

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 1832
Joined: 19-November 05

Positive Feedback: 35.71%
Feedback Score: -12

QUOTE

The only trigger we have is a Fission bomb.

No, that's not true...a plasma trigger of deuterium and lithium (or similar substances), would eject neutrons...

QUOTE

They DO leave a radioactive foot print.

With low yield devices, the footprint would be minimal and easily over-looked, or attributed to various sources. Given that the site was cleared without investigation, any radio-active footprint would also have been removed also.

Now read this lot:

QUOTE

Small quantities of acetone added to fuel may improve economy and engine performance, though this is only anecdotal and refuted by most automotive engineers.

Acetone has been used in the manufacture of TNT. During World War I a new process of producing acetone through bacterial fermentation was developed by Chaim Weizmann, to help the British war effort.

QUOTE

Source: American Association For The Advancement Of Science
Date: 2002-03-05

Fusion In A Flash?

Researchers Report Nuclear Emissions From Tiny, Super-Hot Collapsing Bubbles

The dramatic flashing implosion of tiny bubbles--in acetone containing deuterium atoms--produces tritium and nuclear emissions similar to emissions characteristic of nuclear fusion involving deuterium-deuterium reactions. This finding was reported in the 8 March issue of the peer-reviewed journal Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Shock wave simulations also indicate that temperatures inside the collapsing bubbles may reach up to 10 million degrees Kelvin, as hot as the center of the sun. Although the high temperatures and pressures within the bubbles would be sufficient to generate fusion, the overall results of the study only suggest, but do not confirm, nuclear fusion in the bubbles’ collapse.

Nuclear fusion joins together light atoms, such as hydrogen, in a reaction that creates a third heavier atom and converts some of the original atoms’ mass into energy. Nuclear fission, the type of reaction currently used in commercial power plants, splits heavy atoms like uranium and releases some of the excess energy stored as mass in the uranium atoms. Scientists have been eager to harness fusion as an energy source, because unlike fission, fusion uses readily available raw material as fuel and produces fewer radioactive waste products.

The experiments performed by the Science researchers suggest that nuclear fusion might occur in bubbles created by “acoustic cavitation,” a phenomenon studied for nearly a century. In acoustic cavitation, the pressure of a sound wave creates and collapses bubbles in a liquid. The first part of the wave is a tension wave, which stretches the liquid and pulls apart a space for bubbles to form when the liquid is bombarded by energetic particles like neutrons. A second compression wave follows close behind, squeezing and bursting the bubbles, which then emit a brilliant but extremely brief flash of light called sonoluminescence.

Sonoluminescence’s exact cause is still somewhat mysterious, but many researchers believe that the shock waves of the collapse generate high temperatures and pressures in the bubble’s gas, which releases a burst of energy. Scientists have learned to trap single bubbles within a sound wave, causing them to swell and shrink and emit light in a regular fashion.

Temperatures inside these bubbles can be as high as 5000-7000 degrees Kelvin, about as hot as the sun’s surface. But, recent experiments by a number of researchers suggest that bubble temperatures can reach even higher temperatures--closer to the heat needed for nuclear fusion--if the original bubbles are very small and allowed to grow rapidly before collapse.

Rusi P. Taleyarkhan of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and colleagues devised an experiment to produce these super-hot bubbles, trapping bubbles in deuterated acetone (acetone with its normal hydrogen atoms replaced by deuterium, a heavy hydrogen isotope that can undergo fusion reactions). The experiment’s entire apparatus is well within the bounds of “table-top physics,” about “the size of three coffee cups stacked one on top of the other,” says Taleyarkhan.

Using a pulse of neutrons to first “seed” the tiny bubbles, each no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence, the Science authors then used a sound wave to grow the bubbles rapidly just before their implosion. The process produced stable bubbles that could expand to nearly a millimeter in radius before collapsing, a key part of producing very high pressures and temperatures.

The researchers then searched for signs that fusion might be taking place in the implosions. Deuterium-deuterium fusion reactions create two telltale products: neutrons of a characteristic energy and tritium, another hydrogen isotope. Using very sensitive detectors, Taleyarkhan and colleagues detected higher levels of tritium in samples with extensive bubble implosion. The researchers also observed the emission of neutrons with energy close to 2.5 million electron volts, which is the characteristic neutron energy associated with deuterium-deuterium fusion.

As a part of an elaborate series of control experiments conducted throughout the research, the authors prepared identical experiments in non-deuterated (normal) acetone, and observed no neutron emission or tritium production in these experiments.

Currently, the level of neutron emissions with the characteristic fusion energy appears to be lower than would be expected from the tritium signals observed in the experiment. Further tests are needed to account for this discrepancy, and to verify the observed relations between the neutron emissions, tritium production, and bubble collapse.

If fusion is confirmed in further tests, these bubbles would still have a long way to go before they could be considered as a possible energy source with any commercial value, says Science co-author Richard T. Lahey Jr. of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. First of all, the bubble reaction would have to demonstrate net energy gain--that is, it should produce more energy than the energy needed to drive the reaction itself. Second, scientists would have to find a way to make the reaction perpetuate itself in a chain reaction, without constant input from a neutron source.

In the short term, the research may provide a more convenient way for scientists to produce and study nuclear fusion processes in the laboratory, says Fred D. Becchetti of the University of Michigan, in an accompanying Perspective article.

The other members of the research team include C.D. West, retired, formerly of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, J.S. Cho of Oak Ridge Associated Universities, R.I. Nigmatulin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ufa, Russia, and R.C. Block, retired, formerly of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. This research was supported in part by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...20305074203.htm

Fits together quite nicely, if you understand what you are looking at...

Send PM · Send email ·

MMC

Posted: Jan 13 2006, 02:58 AM

Quote

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 1832
Joined: 19-November 05

Positive Feedback: 35.71%
Feedback Score: -12

So, a neutron source, acetone and soundwaves can produce a nuclear fusion type scenario, or temperatures high enough to collapse a structure such as the WTC. Another effect is the production of tritium...

Now consider the observations again:

QUOTE

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier4.htm

It fits quite nicely...especially when the photographs provide empirical evidence of a large scale explosion...

user posted image

Send PM · Send email ·

« Next Oldest | Other Sci-Tech Topics | Next Newest »

Pages: (137) [1] 2 3 ... Last »