"Use of Small Hydrogen Bombs" - sure would explain some loose ends

[rman]

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/wtc/soldier0.htm
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/

Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11

The photographs attached in this non-profit distribution are for securing volatile, important evidence on 9/11 for discussion and education. Author hereby grants full permission to reproduce the drawing 'The Bombs in the WTC' and his writings. You are encouraged to mail, publish and mass produce these documents or your enhanced versions of them. Due to concerns for his personal safety, the author has chosen to remain anonymous.


The 9/11 Operation: A Summary
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier1.htm

The Bombs in the WTC
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier2.htm

The Development of Bomb Technology Related to the 9/11 Operation
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier3.htm

<snip>

A working solution is a nuclear missile that directs 96% of its yield into a thin, all penetrating heat+blast wave forward, tunneling hundreds of meters downwards into solid rock. This type of a hydrogen bomb was developed somewhere in the early 1990's. Nowadays, both the yield and the direction of the destructive force of a small tactical hydrogen bomb can be somewhat controlled. The amount of fusion-able materials control the yield (effect) and the shape of the charge as well as the initiation arrangements impress the direction of the explosion wave.


Observations Suggesting the Use of Small Hydrogen Bombs
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier4.htm

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)

<snip>

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.

<more>


View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center Collapsed
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm

<snip>
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 24-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).
<snip>


"Storax Sedan 104 Kt shallow underground"



<more>

=======

[Christophera]

1. Similar Rates Of Expansion-EXP & HYD. Bomb. Can't Slow Or Distribute HYD.

And because it can't be slowed, delayed and distributed, the character of our 10 second event would be TOTALLY different. Different differences than IF steel core columns were cut with HE.

[rman]

2. The core was melted, then gravity took over

That's a bit of a simplification but that's what it comes down to.


With or without a hydrogen bomb, the towers are as tall as they are, and take correspondingly as long to fall.
Shaped charges were used mainly on the lower 3/4 of the outer wall.

They could have vaporized most of the building in one blast, but that would have looked suspicious.

No other theory besides this one explains the extremely small size of the dust particles, the pyroclastic flow-like appearance of the dust clouds (it looks like most of the concrete in the floors was pulverized to microscopically small particles), shock waves ripping through the buildings, strong blast wave and dust at street level at the start of the collapse, trajectory and behavior of the debris.

Before i came across this theory i had several blanks in my understanding of the collapses. A shaped-charge mini nuke in the basement makes a lot of sense.


http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier2.htm

[hack89]

6. Explain the physics that allow you to focus an atomic

the energy from an atomic bomb to create a shaped charge. It is impossible.

[Christophera]

15. Yes, How Do You Focus A Nuclear Blast & Set 10,000 Shaped Charges

Hacks point is valid. Similar point to those I've made.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=65477&mesg_id=65520

Consider thate "cutting floors" that actually have evidence of being installed during construction (evacuations of floors before concrete was poured) will cut all for, or at least 3 sides of the interior box columns and perhaps 1 side of exterior box columns too.



The below could easily be a floor with the wrong delay used going off prematurely.



Imagine, the floors cut the interior box columns, then the core goes off pushing the box column out snapping the 4th side that didn't have explosives areound it (lower floors) leveraging the floor beams into shearing the exterior box columns off in their assembly panels.

When the core goes off the concrete is pushed through the steel framework and that is what we see expanding, concrete.

The Finnish officer did a good job trying to apply the concept except that the hydrogen bomb can't be focused and planting 10,000 shaped charges simply can't be done without being detected. He is showing the wrong core though. That is the uk core.



There are almost 48 hours on the weekend before 9-11 where the security cameras were off in a powerdown, that is barely enough time to set detonators.

[rman]

18. how to focus a nuclear blast is explained -

one may not believe it is possible, but that's another matter.

[Christophera]

29. No Explanation For Focusing Can Be Found At Your Links-Where Is It?

rman,

It is very important to substantiate the required performance of the explosive device you believe was used. The words "shaped" and "focus" do not appear on any of those pages in the correct context to provide explanation.


http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/wtc/soldier0.htm

[rman]

31. It's in the dozen or so pages behind the links i provided

Also i quoted in my OP.

Maybe it's not good enough for you?

The Development of Bomb Technology Related to the 9/11 Operation
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier3.htm

"The amount of fusion-able materials control the yield (effect) and the shape of the charge as well as the initiation arrangements impress the direction of the explosion wave."

[Christophera]

33. Quoted Snip Doesn't Explain How. Conventional Explosives Well Distributed

and placed can effect exactly what we see in the images. They have to be perfectly placed and distributed tho.

Here is how that can be done.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1152901


Below is what your OP quoted.

A working solution is a nuclear missile that directs 96% of its yield into a thin, all penetrating heat+blast wave forward, tunneling hundreds of meters downwards into solid rock. This type of a hydrogen bomb was developed somewhere in the early 1990's. Nowadays, both the yield and the direction of the destructive force of a small tactical hydrogen bomb can be somewhat controlled. The amount of fusion-able materials control the yield (effect) and the shape of the charge as well as the initiation arrangements impress the direction of the explosion wave.

[rman]

35. In essence it's the same principal as traditional shaped charge,

where the shape of the charge affects the direction of the shock wave. I find that at least very plausible without it going into details. I don't find it hard to imagine that the same applies to nuclear detonation.
I think in the end this leads back to the source of this theory and the arguments behind it; apparently you think the source is not credible.

If your position is that nukes can not be directional, i think there isn't much point in debating this point further between us.


At any rate, there's quite a bit that use of conventional explosives does not explain:

- extremely small size of the dust particles
- very large quantity of dust (it looks like most of the concrete in the floors, and office contents were pulverized into microscopically small particles)
- the pyroclastic flow-like appearance of the dust flows

- shock waves ripping through the buildings
- strong blast wave and dust at street level at start of collapse

- trajectory (thrown outward and upward) and behavior (dissolving in mid-air) of debris

- large pools of molten steel in basement, remaining molten for many days

- burned/scorched/(exploded?) vehicles in the vicinity of the WTC area

[dailykoff]

37. Wrong detail.

Way wrong. You're confusing the 14" hollow perimeter columns with the core columns, which are sometimes also referred to as "box" columns, but were built up with welded steel plates from much larger wide-flange I-beams.

Very imaginative, though. :)

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rman]

23. i should say: failing core as main mechanism of collapse

[hack89]

4. That would explain the thousands dying of radiation sickness..

thanks for the insight!:eyes:

[LARED]

5. Come'on hack89 don't you know

the BFEE has perfected the radiation free hydrogen bomb.

I often wonder if science is even taught any more.

[MercutioATC]

7. That was my thought...

WHERE do these nuts come from??

[dailykoff]

9. Who's keeping track?

The agency that lied to rescue workers about the breathing hazards at ground zero? Or the one that lied to Gulf War I soldiers about DU radiation poisoning, which now appears to have been widespread?

[MercutioATC]

16. Ummm, NYC hospitals, maybe?

Don't you think the medical community tracks illnesses?

That said, every radiation detection device in Manhattan would have alerted...

[dailykoff]

32. Who's tracking the hospitals?

Even if everybody keeps records of everything somebody still has to collect, compile, analyze, publish and publicize them before we can see the pattern.

[LARED]

41. Nice try

I'm sure hospitals in Manhattan get a few dozen radiation poisonings cases per day so the ones that would be seen on 9/11 would not have raised any eyebrows. :sarcasm:

Do you really think no news would have leaked if hospitals were treating patients for radiation poisoning? Really, you expect people to believe this.

[MercutioATC]

43. The AMA, maybe? Possibly the CDC?

There are dozens of groups that track diseases and illnesses.

[dailykoff]

44. So which ones are tracking 9/11 radiation poisoning

right now? I think we both know that no private or public agency in their right mind is going to touch 9/11 with a ten-foot pole unless they're under orders to manufacture another whitewash.

[MercutioATC]

48. Since there IS no "9/11 radiation poisoning", none.

If there were, it'd be tracked.

As far as a national or international medical association not tracking and publishing the radiation data if it DID exist in fear of government retaliation? Hogwash.

That aside, there are thousands of doctors, nurses, lab techs, etc. who would know if there was widespread radiation sickness in Manhattan...not to mention the tens of thousands who would be affected. You're planning on fear keeping all of THEM silent as well?

[dailykoff]

49. "1,700 Sue Over 9/11 Sickness"

Bravest, Finest Cite Work at WTC and Fresh Kills

By MICHELLE McPHEE
NY DAILY NEWS
May 24, 2004

In a dramatic sign of escalating health problems stemming from 9/11, more than 1,700 cops and firefighters have filed lawsuits against the city claiming they were sickened by work at Ground Zero or the Fresh Kills landfill.

(snip)

Dr. Kerry Kelly, chief medical officer for the FDNY, has been monitoring the health problems of firefighters since Sept. 11 and said while respiratory issues are the most prevalent problem, cancer is a major concern. "We've had so many different reports from the EPA we don't know what people were exposed to. The synergy of all those substances mixed together ... we never had an exposure such as this," Kelly said. "Our concern is, what will be the long-term consequence. Cancer tends to be something that develops after years - but it's very hard to say the cancers we are seeing weren't caused by what happened on 9/11."

(snip)

Uniformed Firefighters Association President Steven Cassidy said three Brooklyn firefighters have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer since working at Ground Zero. Another has leukemia. Hundreds more have retired with asthma and other respiratory issues, he said. "All these guys with cancer worked extensively at Ground Zero. How can anyone draw a conclusion that the cancer is not related to their work there?" Cassidy said.

(snip)

Barach, Williamson's lawyer, has six retired city cops and six city firefighters as clients, all of whom have developed cancer since 9/11. "I fear that a lot of guys who worked in the rescue effort were given a death sentence," Barach said. "A lot of them don't even know it yet."

link: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/196481p-169671c.html

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

Let me guess, thyroid cancer is caused by naturally occurring radiation? :eyes:

[MercutioATC]

51. Nobody said the illnesses were caused by background radiation...

They were caused by carcinogens and toxins in the dust after the collapse of the WTC buildings and during the cleanup.

http://www.wgelaw.com/fallout.shtml

http://www.socialistaction.org/news/200202/dust.html

...there are scores of sites that discuss this. There's no evidence of radiation fron an atomic device - the dust from the buildings contained the carcinogens.


It took me about 30 seconds to google this. You might want to try it sometime.

www.google.com

[dailykoff]

54. It usually takes a decade or two before they'll admit it. n/t

[LARED]

55. Who is they? (n/t)

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

26. IF that was an above-ground test of an atomic device,

you don't think those people suffered from radiation sickness? Read up on atomic weapons.

[MrSammo1]

39. I'm not saying they don't.....

would they tell us?

They won't show us the supposed videos of the PentagonMagicJet because of national security.

[hack89]

36. What are you trying to say? nt

[MrSammo1]

40. What's the government........

not trying to say?

[MercutioATC]

42. You're only making sense to yourself...

Why not just come out and say it?

[MrSammo1]

52. It's a waste of time talking to a

government shill.

I hope they pay you well?

[MercutioATC]

53. Quite well, but not for posting on a little internet forum...

Do you seriously believe they'd PAY people to come here and post?

:eyes:

[mirandapriestly]

8. Man, those photographs sure look like the same thing is happening

That's all I have to say.

[dailykoff]

10. Yes they do. Chilling, isn't it. n/t

[IChing]

11. Sorry, there are explosives that go to extreme temp without being nuclear

which can reach 100,000 degrees or so. ...This is off base science.

[dailykoff]

12. Probably.

This is an area I know very little about, but two points come to mind: 1) whatever it was, it was highly energetic, and apparently remained so for weeks, and 2) if they could have, they probably would have. Radiation poisoning is not exactly at the top of their worry list.

[IChing]

14. I am from a "nuclear" family

But I'm just a school teacher.

We are looking at years of half/life's of major background radiation, it's ridiculous

High grade explosives are enough to produce those high temperatures needed in heat signatures of the molten steel.
link on explosives here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives-compositions.htm

[rman]

19. Hydrogen (fusion) bomb involves no uranium or plutonium -

I'm not so sure a hydrogen bomb produces the same amount of radioactive radiation as a 'normal' (fission) nuke. Also note in this case it would be a mini hydrogen bomb, producing less radiation then a average size nuke.

[AZCat]

21. Fusion weapons use fission triggers.

"Hydrogen" bombs produce less radiation per kT, but since the bombs are usually bigger the fallout can be larger because of greater dispersment. Most of the radiation is from the fission trigger, but certain designs (like the layercake fission-fusion-fission) can consume that radiation. Their yields are usually pretty big, though - the Tsar Bomba was of such a design and had a yield of approximately 50 MT, although it was about a 97% yield (very clean for a nuke).

[rman]

22. not necessarily

"The thermonuclear bomb used was a 'pure' hydrogen bomb, so no uranium or plutonium at all. The basic nuclear reaction is Deuterium + Tritium > Alpha + n. The ignition of this is the fine part, either with a powerful beam array or antimatter (a very certain way to get the necessary effect of directed energy in order not to level the adjacent blocks of high-rise buildings, as well)."
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier2.htm

[LARED]

24. Is there actually evidence for

a pure fusion bomb?

[AZCat]

47. It is possible.

You just need to get the mixture (typically deuterium-tritium in a plasma state) up to a certain temperature (approximately 1 GK average temp). This is possible at several high-energy laboratories, including Sandia and Lawrence Livermore. Unfortunately the result of such an attempt would probably destroy the whole facility rendering the experiment worthless.

[LARED]

50. Thanks, I am aware of ongoing fusion research

but I was not aware technology has progressed to the point they have been able to slip a fusion reactor under the WTC then blow it up.

As some seen to think is a possibility.

[rman]

17. such as?

[AZCat]

13. Ahh, the good old Plowshare Program.

Sedan didn't offer much of interest (neither did the other three nuclear cratering experiments) but the Gasbuggy, Rulison and Rio Blanco tests (all gas stimulation tests) excited certain groups, although the rewards were judged not worthy of the price - natural gas was too available at the time to merit further investigation.

The Sedan crater still exists, though - it's pretty big (something like 1,280 feet in diameter and 320 feet deep at creation). For reference, the dust plume in the Sedan test was over two miles high (almost ten times the height of the WTC towers).




Edit: tense

[rman]

25. for reference: footage of normal controlled demolitions

www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

Normal controlled demolitions do not produce a huge vertical plume of dust/smoke over the demolition site. Nor do they produce enormous amounts of dust rising from the area around the demo site (wrt rising dust, the collapses of WTC1, 2 and 7 looked as though much of Manhattan was on fire).
I very much doubt that a natural collapse would have such an appearance.

[MercutioATC]

27. That still doesn't eliminate the impossibility of an atomic device.

You'll have to explain the lack of radiation.

[rman]

28. Lack of uranium and plutonium helps reduce radiation,

also the low yield of the bomb helps reduce radiation. As does the energy being directed upwards, as does most of the rubble being removed by now.

And if authorities can get away with denying there is/was a problem with air quality in Manhattan as a result of 9-11, then why would they not be able to get away with denying the presence of any radiation that might be there?

[Christophera]

30. Only Difference Is That The WTC Went From The Top Down

The only difference between the implosions at that link,

www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

Which had to happen because they were so tall. Doing so reduced collateral damage by eliminating toppling.

[rman]

34. Where on implosionworld do you see anything even remotely resembling

this:

~3 minutes after WTC 1 collapse
The main point being the extent to which the dust rises, secondary point is the huge amount of dust. Besides the rising dust there's now also a layer of dust up to several inches thick in the streets. I'll leave discussion about the size of the dust particles for another thread.

and this:

Immediately after WTC7 collapse
Enormous plume of dust rising over the location of WTC7.
Also notice the distinct cauliflower-like appearance of the dust flow on the left. With normal demolitions the visible structure of dust clouds is far less defined, not as thick, and doesn't travel nearly as far as this one. And this was WTC7; not an extraordinarily tall building.
Show me any picture or video of a normal demolition with such dust clouds.

Of course the rising of the dust is more clearly visible on video:
www.911eyewitness.com., http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/201205wtcexplosions.htm

What makes the dust particles rise in such volumes, and what makes the dust-flows so violently turbulent? The most plausible explanation is heat, lots of it. Much more then would be expected from a normal demolition.

Enough heat perhaps to do this:

cars parked near WTC 2


--
(reference: www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm)

[Christophera]

45. I Didn't Say Link Resembled WTC, I Said The Towers Went From Top Down

The explosions started very high up to begin with. Particulate went up with dust then fell, dust lingered. The thermal well created by the possible 14 tons plus of high explosives carrys the fine dust particles aloft. Optimum distribution of the high explosives used allowed more heat and less blast effect, then the thermite in the 1st floor and basement went off dropping the exterior steel.

[LARED]

38. I think DU management needs to provide a service

that allows members to vote for the stupidest most illogical thread of the week.

This one would surely qualify.

[Make7]

46. I don't recall this subject getting anywhere near the level of activity...

...in any of the old threads where it was brought up. For example:

   Observations pointing to use of mini Hydrogen Bomb

Drawn whatever conclusions you may from the contrast of past and present.

-Make7