Date: 2013-11-11
Link: http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html
Bruecke Note: This article addresses the issue of what destructive force could have been employed to bring down the World Trade Center towers. The predominant belief within the 9/11 Truth movement appears to be that nuclear devices were ~not~ used, and that conventional chemical based explosives and incendiaries, including some form of thermite, were the primary destructive mechanisms.
But here, Mr. Bridges looks at the reports that substantiates those beliefs, finds them untrustworthy, and points out the deliberate disinformation that has steered our understanding. He documents some of the key aspects of the destruction that can't be explained (e.g., duration of under-rubble hot-spots, tritium measurements, vehicle damage, etc.) without the involvement of some other force.
Instructions: Because some sections are long and induce lots of scrolling, all section titles are hyperlinked to show or hide their content. The controls below show or hide the content of all sections.
Show All / Hide All
While this article provides a rational sequencing of the sections for the nuclear argument being made, it can also serve as a reference piece where sections are read out-of-sequence. For this reason, some seeming repetition does occur to give context to readers who skim, skip, and hop.
1. Introduction
Mark Twain once wrote:
Apologies in advance: this article itself might be serving up its own share of misinformation, so readers are encouraged to prudentially consume this with a healthy dose of distrust. Verify it, nugget by nugget. And because I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on the subject, please correct me where I've been misinformed.
Show All / Hide AllIt is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they've been fooled.This is one of many reasons that make discussing the details of September 11, 2001 so difficult: we've all been fooled by some aspect of it. To top this off, purposeful, crafty disinformation was created, was promoted by mainstream media, and was injected into the 9/11 Truth Movement (9/11TM) to dupe even the best of us idiots.
Apologies in advance: this article itself might be serving up its own share of misinformation, so readers are encouraged to prudentially consume this with a healthy dose of distrust. Verify it, nugget by nugget. And because I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on the subject, please correct me where I've been misinformed.
Nuclear weapons were used on 9/11
This article proves the nuclear 9/11 premise by reaching into the maw of disinformation sources and preserving the nuggets of truth. That such nugget-mining efforts haven't already been exerted is testament to the infiltration depths of disinformation efforts. The nuclear argument is cummulative and not completely destroyed should individual nuggets be proven inapplicable or wrong. More importantly, when not proven otherwise, nuggets of truth remain and must be addressed in any theory-du-jour.Executive Summary
A re-configuration of the neutron bomb ( or ERW: enhanced radiation weapon) was deployed on September 11, 2001. Such neutron devices (a) are a variant of fusion, (b) expel the lion's share of its nuclear yield as energetic neutrons, (c) can direct those neutrons and subsequently some of the blast and heat wave, and (d) may ~not~ leave significant levels of long-lasting, lingering alpha, beta, or gamma radiation. If not measured promptly (<72 hours), such radiation from the neutron devices dissipates quickly. The phrase is coined "neutron nuclear DEW" (directed energy weapon) to describe it. More than several were deployed per WTC tower.2. Intended Audience Disclaimer
This article is not aimed at those who believe without question the entirety of the official conspiracy theory (OCT) on September 11, 2001, as promoted by the government and media.
To the readers who fall into this category, you are encouraged to gain a rudimentary understanding of Newtonian physics and apply it to the many videos of the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC), as was done so deftly by Mr. David Chandler.
Simply put: over-engineered steel skyscrapers cannot pulverize themselves at near gravitational acceleration without energy being added from a controlled demolition. This alone calls the OCT into question.
This article assumes that the reader, armed with an understanding of high school physics, already believes that the many buildings at the WTC were demolished with controlled demolition (CD). However, due to steering of the 9/11 Truth Movement (9/11TM) by influential members -- many with PhD's --, the essential belief is that chemical explosives and incendiaries were the primary mechanisms of destruction. These include PETN, RDX, and nano-thermite among many others.
Their potential involvement is not questioned, because if anything, the WTC destruction wasn't just thorough; it had elements of over-kill, with back-up plans to the back-up plans, as could be expected by the perpetrators with the means, motive, and opportunity to pull off such a coordinated event involving four commercial aircraft, the destruction of seven buildings in the WTC complex, the annihilation of the Office of Naval Intelligence and their records pertaining to a $2.3 Trillion Pentagon investigation, the destruction of SEC records particularly for active investigations, the laundering of billions during the "cautious days" of a re-opened stock market, and USA PATRIOT ACT legislation waiting in the wings.
What is questioned is the ability of these chemical mechanisms to be the primary cause of destruction at the WTC.
When new information and analysis presented itself, it was reviewed for validity and for potential modification to previous beliefs. Two even earlier articles/discussions no longer represent entirely this author's beliefs, but were useful exercises in urging objectivity in others: On the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis: an open letter to Gage and Cole (2011-06-07) and The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research (2012-06-02)
Image URL links no longer point to those hosted on their owner's website (e.g., Dr. Wood's website). Copies of the images used in this article are now hosted on Blogspot, due to the faster response time and concern for their longevity on the web.
This article assumes that the reader, armed with an understanding of high school physics, already believes that the many buildings at the WTC were demolished with controlled demolition (CD). However, due to steering of the 9/11 Truth Movement (9/11TM) by influential members -- many with PhD's --, the essential belief is that chemical explosives and incendiaries were the primary mechanisms of destruction. These include PETN, RDX, and nano-thermite among many others.
Their potential involvement is not questioned, because if anything, the WTC destruction wasn't just thorough; it had elements of over-kill, with back-up plans to the back-up plans, as could be expected by the perpetrators with the means, motive, and opportunity to pull off such a coordinated event involving four commercial aircraft, the destruction of seven buildings in the WTC complex, the annihilation of the Office of Naval Intelligence and their records pertaining to a $2.3 Trillion Pentagon investigation, the destruction of SEC records particularly for active investigations, the laundering of billions during the "cautious days" of a re-opened stock market, and USA PATRIOT ACT legislation waiting in the wings.
What is questioned is the ability of these chemical mechanisms to be the primary cause of destruction at the WTC.
Evolving Thought
This article merges & extends content from two earlier articles: 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (2012-11-22) and 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2) (2012-12-21).When new information and analysis presented itself, it was reviewed for validity and for potential modification to previous beliefs. Two even earlier articles/discussions no longer represent entirely this author's beliefs, but were useful exercises in urging objectivity in others: On the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis: an open letter to Gage and Cole (2011-06-07) and The Judy Wood enigma: a discussion of the most controversial figure in 9/11 research (2012-06-02)
Fair-Use for the Purposes of Comment
All videos, images, and quotations contained within this article are reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.Image URL links no longer point to those hosted on their owner's website (e.g., Dr. Wood's website). Copies of the images used in this article are now hosted on Blogspot, due to the faster response time and concern for their longevity on the web.
3. Brief Detour into Nuclear Weapons
Let's take a brief detour into nuclear weapons, because 9/11 misconceptions are purposely created by mixing concepts of one with another to supposedly debunk that 9/11 was nuclear.
Nuclear weapons differ in how much heat, blast, light, pressure and radiation they produce. By altering the physical structure of the device and the proportion of its explosive components, different effects can be achieved.
The probability of nuclear fizzle also increases when devices are used in tandem, because the nuclear radioactive (neutron, alpha, beta, gamma) yield of one device can fractricide neighboring devices before they are detonated, thereby failing their objective. And even should the devices meet their design criteria, fission and fusion produce unacceptable levels of lingering radiation whose duration in cases would be measured at the detonation point in decades or centuries.
A neutron weapon is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon in which the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally not absorbed inside the weapon, but allowed to escape. A neutron weapon releases 80% of its energy in the prompt radiation -- high-energy neutrons and gamma rays that are lethal to living tissue -- while blast effects are kept to a very low level. Some neutrons do react with other material and produce radioisotopes.
The fission portion of the device is kept as small as possible to achieve the goal of raising the temperature so as to initiate a tritium-deuterium (D-T) reaction. The amount of tritium and deuterium is kept large. The fusion energy evolved in the D-T reaction keeps the temperature high for a longer duration and thus keeps the reaction going for relatively a longer time. In a traditional battlefield implementation, 14.6-MeV neutrons shoot out in all direction, but can be deflected to some extent. The ones that are directed toward the sky do not harm humans or cause property damage.
From Wikipeia's neutron bomb:
The battlefield application ignites the neutron bomb at some elevation in the atmosphere. Human life is destroyed by neutrons over a certain area under the bomb. As the distance becomes longer between the spot where the bomb is detonated and the ground, the neutron flux also reduces. The blast typically would be confined to a radius of no more than a couple of hundred meters but a massive wave of penetrating neutron radiation would knock out tank crews, infantry and other personnel.
Unlike thermonuclear fission weapons, the residual neutron radiation of fusion devices dissipates within hours.
The neutron flux can induce significant amounts of short-lived secondary radioactivity in the environment in the high flux region near the burst point. The alloys used in steel armor can develop radioactivity that is dangerous for 24-48 hours.
Nuclear weapons differ in how much heat, blast, light, pressure and radiation they produce. By altering the physical structure of the device and the proportion of its explosive components, different effects can be achieved.
Fission Nuclear Weapons
9/11 did not employ conventional thermonuclear weapons based on the fission process, [Neutron Weapons and the Credibility of NATO Defense May 4, 1978]in which isotopes of uranium or plutonium are compressed into a "critical mass or fissile core" and then split by heavy, sub-atomic particles called neutrons. The energized neutrons reproduce themselves in an explosive chain reaction. Each fission neutron reaction releases an average of three neutrons, yet these account for only a minimal proportion of the weapon's total energy output. By far the largest share is transmitted through the thermal heat and blast of recoiling fragments of radioactive uranium and plutonium atoms, which comprise most of the weapon's fall-out.Fission is an uncontrolled chain reaction and thus a fraction of fissile material is fissioned. Fission products are produced that, along with enormous amount of energy, disperse in the environment.
Fusion Nuclear Weapons
9/11 did not employ conventional thermonuclear based on the standard fusion process [Same Source],in which the isotopes of the lightest element, hydrogen, namely deuterium and tritium, are combined into a slightly heavier atoms of helium through a reaction that is "triggered" by the tremendous temperatures (between 10-100 million degrees) and pressures generated by a fission explosion. At the instant of detonation, fusion weapons release about 5% of their energy in the form of prompt radiation, and the rest is dispersed in the thermal pulse and blast effects.A standard thermonuclear device will destroy buildings in a vast shockwave of heat and pressure. In addition to fission products we also have neutron-induced radioisotopes that are also dispersed along with enormous amount of energy in the environment.
Tactical Fission and Fusion
Fission and fusion nuclear weapons of tactical yield are hard to design and implement, with the probability of "nuclear fizzle" increasing as the explosive yield decreases. Nuclear fizzle occurs when a nuclear device fails to meet its expected yield. As the debunkers readily point out, even the smallest known conventional fusion bombs would be too energetic for the tactical destruction observed on 9/11.The probability of nuclear fizzle also increases when devices are used in tandem, because the nuclear radioactive (neutron, alpha, beta, gamma) yield of one device can fractricide neighboring devices before they are detonated, thereby failing their objective. And even should the devices meet their design criteria, fission and fusion produce unacceptable levels of lingering radiation whose duration in cases would be measured at the detonation point in decades or centuries.
Neutron Bombs
9/11 did employ a neutron weapon, but not in the traditional sense.A neutron weapon is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon in which the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally not absorbed inside the weapon, but allowed to escape. A neutron weapon releases 80% of its energy in the prompt radiation -- high-energy neutrons and gamma rays that are lethal to living tissue -- while blast effects are kept to a very low level. Some neutrons do react with other material and produce radioisotopes.
The fission portion of the device is kept as small as possible to achieve the goal of raising the temperature so as to initiate a tritium-deuterium (D-T) reaction. The amount of tritium and deuterium is kept large. The fusion energy evolved in the D-T reaction keeps the temperature high for a longer duration and thus keeps the reaction going for relatively a longer time. In a traditional battlefield implementation, 14.6-MeV neutrons shoot out in all direction, but can be deflected to some extent. The ones that are directed toward the sky do not harm humans or cause property damage.
From Wikipeia's neutron bomb:
A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components. The weapon's X-ray mirrors and radiation case, made of uranium or lead in a standard bomb, are instead made of chromium or nickel so that the neutrons can escape. The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.Foreshadowing: Later sections document that chromium and nickel were measured in significant quantities by the USGS in the dust, and therefore correlate very well to such 9/11 neutron devices.
The "usual" nuclear weapon yield-expressed as kT TNT equivalent-is not a measure of a neutron weapon's destructive power. It refers only to the energy released (mostly heat and blast), and does not express the lethal effect of neutron radiation on living organisms. ... In a fission bomb, the radiation pulse energy is approximately 5% of the entire energy released; in the neutron bomb it would be closer to 50%. A neutron bomb releases a much greater number of neutrons than a fission bomb of the same explosive yield. Furthermore, these neutrons are of much higher energy (14 MeV) than those released during a fission reaction (1-2 MeV).
Traditional, Battlefield Neutron Weapons
9/11 did not employ a neutron weapon as intended for the battlefield.The battlefield application ignites the neutron bomb at some elevation in the atmosphere. Human life is destroyed by neutrons over a certain area under the bomb. As the distance becomes longer between the spot where the bomb is detonated and the ground, the neutron flux also reduces. The blast typically would be confined to a radius of no more than a couple of hundred meters but a massive wave of penetrating neutron radiation would knock out tank crews, infantry and other personnel.
Unlike thermonuclear fission weapons, the residual neutron radiation of fusion devices dissipates within hours.
The neutron flux can induce significant amounts of short-lived secondary radioactivity in the environment in the high flux region near the burst point. The alloys used in steel armor can develop radioactivity that is dangerous for 24-48 hours.
Enhanced Radiation Weapons
Nuclear Weapon DesignOfficially known as enhanced radiation weapons, ERWs are more accurately described as suppressed yield weapons. When the yield of a nuclear weapon is less than one kiloton, its lethal radius from blast, 700 m (2300 ft.), is less than that from its neutron radiation. However, the blast is more than potent enough to destroy most structures, which are less resistant to blast effects than even unprotected human beings. Blast pressures of upwards of 20 PSI are survivable, whereas most buildings will collapse with a pressure of only 5 PSI.
4. Extrapolating Historical Developments in Nuclear
Neutron nuclear DEW extrapolates from Davey Crocket (1960) and its small tactical size.
It extrapolates from Big Ivan (1961) that was directed upwards and had small and quickly dissipated amounts of lingering radiation.
It extrapolates from Project Excalibur and X-Ray Laser that were research projects of Star Wars in the 1980's. (VN: lets not forget, a large number of British scientists who worked on the star wars project were killed in a short period of time)
It extrapolates from a neutron bomb or enhanced radiation weapon (ERW), that is a type of thermonuclear weapon designed specifically to release a large portion of its energy as energetic neutron radiation (fast neutrons) rather than explosive energy.
According to Mr. Prager's two part eMagazine Part 1 [86MB] and Part 2 [56MB]:
It extrapolates from Big Ivan (1961) that was directed upwards and had small and quickly dissipated amounts of lingering radiation.
It extrapolates from Project Excalibur and X-Ray Laser that were research projects of Star Wars in the 1980's. (VN: lets not forget, a large number of British scientists who worked on the star wars project were killed in a short period of time)
It extrapolates from a neutron bomb or enhanced radiation weapon (ERW), that is a type of thermonuclear weapon designed specifically to release a large portion of its energy as energetic neutron radiation (fast neutrons) rather than explosive energy.
According to Mr. Prager's two part eMagazine Part 1 [86MB] and Part 2 [56MB]:
1. Big Ivan left little radiation (reducing radioactive output by 97% in 1961). Forty years of technological advances could have easily produced a bomb with very, very little and very, very short-lived radioactive elements.Note: Mr. Prager was using hyperbole in his statements about Big Ivan, which indeed produced alpha, beta, and gamma radiation as all nuclear devices do. His point was that the vast majority of the radiation was neutron radiation. Because the neutrons were allowed to escape rather than build up in the chain-reaction, the levels of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation were reduced and are not induce in a manner that would have made them lingering.
2. Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation which is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect. A Geiger Counter will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation.
3. Using 'Big Ivan' technology including advances made during 40 years of diligent study, it's not hard to imagine a micronuclear device the size of an apple. The demolition effect would then be scaled down to what we actually saw on 9/11. Two 1000+ foot structural steel towers destroyed with the majority of the elements turned to dust; micron sized "very small particles" that can only be formed by a fusion device, a fission device or a fusion/fission device.
RDS-220 [or Big Ivan (1961)] was the largest nuclear weapon ever constructed or detonated. This three stage weapon was actually a 100 megaton bomb design, but the uranium fusion stage tamper of the tertiary (and possibly the secondary) stage(s) was replaced by one(s) made of lead. This reduced the yield by 50% by eliminating the fast fissioning of the uranium tamper by the fusion neutrons, and eliminated 97% of the fallout (1.5 megatons of fission, instead of about 51.5 Mt), yet still proved the full yield design. The result was the "cleanest" weapon ever tested with 97% of the energy coming from fusion reactions.
In terms of physical destructiveness, much of its high yield was inefficiently radiated upwards into space.
Nukes to Construct Canals (1969)
From On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist":Also regarding the radiation issue, in this abstract of an article, a scientist, in 1969, published the following, "Nuclear device characteristics and the factors affecting radionuclide production and distribution are described along with some recent nuclear experiments conducted by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission for the purpose of providing technical data on cratering mechanisms and special emplacement techniques which could minimize the release of radioactivity to the atmosphere."
This shows, even back in 1969, that the govt experimented with using nukes to construct canals. It shows that they worked on having nukes with blast effect, and little or no radioactive elements created. The article's abstract hints at two methods for obviating atmospheric release of radioactivity. 1. Steering the device towards low radionuclide production and 2. "special emplacement techniques" which means place it where you won't get much or any radiation released into the air. As this was back in 1969, they likely have perfected very low (or no) radiation nukes. There should be better, more recent articles on this topic, but I didn't find any so far. Maybe I know why?! Could it be because they perfected this, and classified this, as they knew they would be using this on the "home front," such as on 9/11? Could small nukes to be used for "construction," have morphed into nukes used for "destruction?"
5. Nuclear Paradigm Shift
From decades of PR and hype of nuclear weapons, the common paradigm suggests that such always aim for high yields, lots of destruction, and lots of casualties. When "DEW" (directed energy weapon) is appended to the description, the assumption is that energy is being aimed at a target to achieve destruction and casualties. (Laser beams and active denial systems do precisely this.) Contradicting DEW, the assumption for neutron devices is that the neutrons radiate in all directions from the detonation point to achieve maximum casualties.
The necessary paradigm shift for neutron nuclear DEW is that energy is ~not~ being used efficiently nor to its maximum destructive potential. In fact, the DEW portion of the design has the purpose to throw away the highly energetic neutrons by aiming them (upwards) where they can do the least collateral damage, both to life forms and to tandem nuclear devices. Nuclear side-effects of heat wave, blast wave, EMP, and radiation are still present, but are reduced to tactical levels. Radiation is present, but mostly non-lingering. And for what did linger, tight security and nuclear hazmat efforts were in effect to handle.
In the case of 9/11, the devices' detonation sequence in the towers was top-down, but they were DEW devices that directed their neutron energy upwards. This had the added benefit of helping prevent fractricide of nukes lower in the tower.
Opponents have countered at times with: "Directing 'the neutrons upwards' by what mechanism?"
The difference between a fusion device (thermonuclear weapon) and a neutron bomb is the casing. The casing of the former contains the highly energetic neutrons, causing them to bounce around more inside and generating more and more chain-reactions in the core to generate a massive blast & heat wave. The casing of the latter allows the highly energetic neutrons to escape. Because of this, the blast & heat wave are significantly reduce (but still dangerous) and the highly energetic neutrons can penetrate structures and cause cell damage to life forms (and embrittlement in metals).
What results by combining the spherical casing from these two devices such that, say, most of the spherical casing was from a standard fusion device except for only a small cap (or even pin-hole) on top from a neutron casing, which then permits those highly energetic neutrons to escape? ANSWER: a neutron directed energy weapon that targets its energy through the circle of the cap on top. Consider it a shaped-nuclear charge. The neutrons would be directed in a cone shape. As the circle of the neutron cap is made smaller and smaller, the effective angle of the cone gets narrower and narrower.
Here is another quote from Wikipedia with emphasis added.
The necessary paradigm shift for neutron nuclear DEW is that energy is ~not~ being used efficiently nor to its maximum destructive potential. In fact, the DEW portion of the design has the purpose to throw away the highly energetic neutrons by aiming them (upwards) where they can do the least collateral damage, both to life forms and to tandem nuclear devices. Nuclear side-effects of heat wave, blast wave, EMP, and radiation are still present, but are reduced to tactical levels. Radiation is present, but mostly non-lingering. And for what did linger, tight security and nuclear hazmat efforts were in effect to handle.
In the case of 9/11, the devices' detonation sequence in the towers was top-down, but they were DEW devices that directed their neutron energy upwards. This had the added benefit of helping prevent fractricide of nukes lower in the tower.
Opponents have countered at times with: "Directing 'the neutrons upwards' by what mechanism?"
The difference between a fusion device (thermonuclear weapon) and a neutron bomb is the casing. The casing of the former contains the highly energetic neutrons, causing them to bounce around more inside and generating more and more chain-reactions in the core to generate a massive blast & heat wave. The casing of the latter allows the highly energetic neutrons to escape. Because of this, the blast & heat wave are significantly reduce (but still dangerous) and the highly energetic neutrons can penetrate structures and cause cell damage to life forms (and embrittlement in metals).
What results by combining the spherical casing from these two devices such that, say, most of the spherical casing was from a standard fusion device except for only a small cap (or even pin-hole) on top from a neutron casing, which then permits those highly energetic neutrons to escape? ANSWER: a neutron directed energy weapon that targets its energy through the circle of the cap on top. Consider it a shaped-nuclear charge. The neutrons would be directed in a cone shape. As the circle of the neutron cap is made smaller and smaller, the effective angle of the cone gets narrower and narrower.
Here is another quote from Wikipedia with emphasis added.
Neutrons are the only type of ionizing radiation that can make other objects, or material, radioactive. This process, called neutron activation, is the primary method used to produce radioactive sources for use in medical, academic, and industrial applications. Even comparatively low speed thermal neutrons, will cause neutron activation (in fact, they cause it more efficiently).
Neutrons do not ionize atoms in the same way that charged particles such as protons and electrons do (by the excitation of an electron), because neutrons have no charge. It is through their absorption by and the creation of unstable nuclei that they cause ionization. Such neutrons are "indirectly ionizing." Even neutrons without significant kinetic energy are indirectly ionizing, and are thus a significant radiation hazard.The significance of the bolded statement is that if the device is directing neutrons through, say, a pin-hole cap in the casing and is aimed upwards, the amount of building material that gets hit with ionizing radiation to become radioactive is vastly limited. Moreover, the 9/11 implementation had this material fall through the blast and heat waves of the devices. Yes, you'd end up with some radioactive material, but a manageable cleanup operation and not the thorough spherical dowsing of anything and everything at ground zero and the expected radiation signature of other full-fledged nuclear device.
6. The Erroneous Belief: 9/11 was not a Nuclear Event
Ask the average yeoman in the 9/11 Truth Movement (911TM) why 9/11 was supposedly ~not~ a nuclear event, their answer will undoubtedly reference the works of former BYU professor of (nuclear) physics, Dr. Steven Jones, such as: "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers".
A keystone piece of "evidence" leading to Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" conclusions was that only miniscule amounts of tritium were measured. The source he sites is "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams.
This is not to say that "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" is garbage per se, but it can be thought of as being a wormy apple out of which Dr. Jones tries to make lemonade. The worms are visible in the study's "limited scoping" that run very much parallel with the "limited scoping" of the NIST reports on the WTC tower destructions
A keystone piece of "evidence" leading to Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" conclusions was that only miniscule amounts of tritium were measured. The source he sites is "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams.
Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164±0.074 nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure...For the sake of discussion, let's accept these measurements as being truthful. Being truthful in what is revealed is different than being complete. Indeed, what astute researchers will discover is that Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" conclusions are based on incomplete data. "Garbage-in, garbage-out" goes the computer expression.
This is not to say that "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" is garbage per se, but it can be thought of as being a wormy apple out of which Dr. Jones tries to make lemonade. The worms are visible in the study's "limited scoping" that run very much parallel with the "limited scoping" of the NIST reports on the WTC tower destructions
7. Scope Limits
Let's play a game. The bolded phrase will be a 9/11 report, and the italicized paragraph will be known issues with that report. Play along, and in your mind add reports/issues not already mentioned.
9/11 Commission Report: Didn't mention WTC-7. Saudi Arabia redacted from report. Senator Max Cleland resigned from the commission over White House stonewalling and lack of cooperation, calling the investigation "compromised."
The Commission's Staff Director, Philip Zelikow, had conflicts of interest. Senator's Thomas Keen and Lee Hamilton from the 9/11 Commission have since said it wasn't the full and complete accounting of 9/11; they were frustrated with repeated misstatements from the Pentagon and Federal Aviation Administration. For political reasons, the publication of the report was delayed. Refer to Criticism of the 9/11 Commission.
NIST Report on WTC-1/2: Pre-concluded the aircraft impacts with jet fuel & office furnishing fires combined with gravity was the reason for the sudden transition into their destruction. Out-of-scope was considering any type of controlled demolition or other mechanisms of destruction. Was scope-limited to possible causes for the "initiation of the collapse," where analysis stopped. It did not mention any of the anomalies present in the destruction process after "collapse initiation," such as the glaring energy sink of structure and content pulverization at free-fall speeds. For political reasons, the publication of the report was delayed.
NIST Report on WTC-7: The draft version did not note the observable free-fall. The final version broke the observable portion of the collapse into three stages, acknowledged that stage 2 happened at a rate indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration (e.g., free-fall), but then in its conclusion it averaged together the three stages so that it could state truthfully that combined stages fell at speeds slower than free-fall. The computer model was never made public, and its simulation -- besides over-driving parameters -- did not resemble what was observed. For political reasons, the publication of the report was delayed.
EPA: Issued false proclamations into the "healthiness" of the NYC air regarding all of the pollutants released in the WTC destruction. Downplayed the toxicity of the dust.
The above represent data points in the trend line of "politics outweighing science" in terms of how government reports were manipulated. Government reports related to 9/11 cannot be trusted at face value.
The "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" demonstrates similar "limited scoping".
When the scope is limited to how tritium RL devices could potentially explain the 9/11 tritium measurements, the authors of the study did an admirable job. Kudos. However, because the authors weren't looking at nuclear weapons as being the destruction or tritium source, (a) they had no requirement or need to measure tritium directly at the lingering hot-spots or other critical places in a timely or more systematic fashion, and (b) nuclear weapons were beyond the scope of their explanation.
9/11 Commission Report: Didn't mention WTC-7. Saudi Arabia redacted from report. Senator Max Cleland resigned from the commission over White House stonewalling and lack of cooperation, calling the investigation "compromised."
The Commission's Staff Director, Philip Zelikow, had conflicts of interest. Senator's Thomas Keen and Lee Hamilton from the 9/11 Commission have since said it wasn't the full and complete accounting of 9/11; they were frustrated with repeated misstatements from the Pentagon and Federal Aviation Administration. For political reasons, the publication of the report was delayed. Refer to Criticism of the 9/11 Commission.
NIST Report on WTC-1/2: Pre-concluded the aircraft impacts with jet fuel & office furnishing fires combined with gravity was the reason for the sudden transition into their destruction. Out-of-scope was considering any type of controlled demolition or other mechanisms of destruction. Was scope-limited to possible causes for the "initiation of the collapse," where analysis stopped. It did not mention any of the anomalies present in the destruction process after "collapse initiation," such as the glaring energy sink of structure and content pulverization at free-fall speeds. For political reasons, the publication of the report was delayed.
NIST Report on WTC-7: The draft version did not note the observable free-fall. The final version broke the observable portion of the collapse into three stages, acknowledged that stage 2 happened at a rate indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration (e.g., free-fall), but then in its conclusion it averaged together the three stages so that it could state truthfully that combined stages fell at speeds slower than free-fall. The computer model was never made public, and its simulation -- besides over-driving parameters -- did not resemble what was observed. For political reasons, the publication of the report was delayed.
EPA: Issued false proclamations into the "healthiness" of the NYC air regarding all of the pollutants released in the WTC destruction. Downplayed the toxicity of the dust.
The above represent data points in the trend line of "politics outweighing science" in terms of how government reports were manipulated. Government reports related to 9/11 cannot be trusted at face value.
The "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" demonstrates similar "limited scoping".
"We became interested in the subject of tritium at WTC because of the possibility that tritium RL devices could have been present and destroyed at WTC."In fact, just a few sentences away from the passage that Dr. Jones quotes from this study's abstract (also given above) relating to measured tritium is this:
"Tritium radio luminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that the two Boeing 767 aircraft that hit the Twin Towers contained a combined 34 Ci of tritium at the time of impact in their emergency exit signs. There is also evidence that many weapons from law enforcement were present and destroyed at WTC. Such weaponry contains by design tritium sights."Scientific sleight of hand. Out-of-scope was considering tritium coming from a destructive mechanism.
When the scope is limited to how tritium RL devices could potentially explain the 9/11 tritium measurements, the authors of the study did an admirable job. Kudos. However, because the authors weren't looking at nuclear weapons as being the destruction or tritium source, (a) they had no requirement or need to measure tritium directly at the lingering hot-spots or other critical places in a timely or more systematic fashion, and (b) nuclear weapons were beyond the scope of their explanation.
Foreshadowing a Report's Reliability
Tritium Report: Was scope-limited into attributing tritium to presumed building content. Out-of-scope was considering tritium coming from a destructive mechanism. Re-defined "trace or background levels" in cases to be 55 times greater than previously. Dates for samples (9/13, 9/21), aside from being delayed, allow for tritium dissipation (from rain and firefighting efforts) and imply that tritium levels from 9/21 would be the same as from 9/11. They stopped taking additional samples when their testing of them revealed tritium levels well below the EPA threshold of what constitutes a health risk.8. No Further Samples Needed?
Allow me to call attention in the follow passage to (a) the time delay in which some measurements were taken, (b) the limited number of samples, and (c) the assumption from those samples that no further samples were needed.
Moreover, tritium is diluted by water. In fact, we know from the Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan' paper, "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials," millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile along with several rainfall events, some heavy.
It makes perfect sense that tritium from consumer products (e.g., exit signs, weapons sights) would leach into the water as HTO (tritiated or heavy water), which is how tritium primarily occurs in the environment. However, readers must make assumptions (a) that such consumer products existed in sufficient quantity within the WTC, (b) that the diluting HTO pathways to the scant few measuring locations were as they were so neatly story-boarded, and (c) that the measurements are complete and accurate.
Regarding this last assumption, while the EPA limit for tritium in drinking water is 20 (nCi/L), the normal high background/standard level for tritium prior to 9/11 was 0.065 (nCi/L). Therefore, sample 1 [0.164 (nCi/L)] from the WTC storm sewer was 2.5 times greater than expected, while sample 37 [<0.21 (nCi/L)] from the grass in Brooklyn & Brooklyn Heights (2001-10-27) was 3.2 times greater than expected. Let's not forget the split water sample (2001-9-21) collected from the basement of WTC Building 6 that contained 2.83 and 3.53 (nCi/L), which are 43 and 54 times the expected levels, respectively.
Sample 1, measuring 0.164±0.74 nCi/L, is from the WTC sewer, collected three days after the attack, and is just above the detection limit. Samples 6 and 7 of about 3 nCi/L are split samples from WTC 6, basement B5, collected 10 days after the attack. Thus, tritium was detected in these samples from ground zero, but the concentrations are very low. In fact, 3 nCi/L is about 7 times less than the EPA limit in drinking water of 20 nCi/L (17). No health implications are known or expected at such low concentrations (13). As a consequence, no additional ground-zero samples were judged to be necessary.The testing decisions were probably valid for the limited scope of attributing the tritium to RL devices, but they cause problems when this study is re-purposed by Dr. Jones to bolster no-nuke conclusions. Timely and systematic measurements for debunking nuclear causes should have included samples from areas closer to hot-spots.
Moreover, tritium is diluted by water. In fact, we know from the Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan' paper, "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials," millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile along with several rainfall events, some heavy.
It makes perfect sense that tritium from consumer products (e.g., exit signs, weapons sights) would leach into the water as HTO (tritiated or heavy water), which is how tritium primarily occurs in the environment. However, readers must make assumptions (a) that such consumer products existed in sufficient quantity within the WTC, (b) that the diluting HTO pathways to the scant few measuring locations were as they were so neatly story-boarded, and (c) that the measurements are complete and accurate.
Regarding this last assumption, while the EPA limit for tritium in drinking water is 20 (nCi/L), the normal high background/standard level for tritium prior to 9/11 was 0.065 (nCi/L). Therefore, sample 1 [0.164 (nCi/L)] from the WTC storm sewer was 2.5 times greater than expected, while sample 37 [<0.21 (nCi/L)] from the grass in Brooklyn & Brooklyn Heights (2001-10-27) was 3.2 times greater than expected. Let's not forget the split water sample (2001-9-21) collected from the basement of WTC Building 6 that contained 2.83 and 3.53 (nCi/L), which are 43 and 54 times the expected levels, respectively.
9. Transported with the Fire Plume
Indeed, the grass in Brooklyn & Brooklyn Heights (2001-10-27) had tritium measurements 3.2 times greater than expected.
There was also a possibility that some HTO would have been transported with the fire plume during the first several days after the attack and deposited downwind.A tritium by-product is not be just HTO but also HT, which is similar to hydrogen gas. Ignoring for a moment the assumption from the passage that the tritium source was consumer products being destroyed by the fire plume at ground zero, neutron nuclear devices could be the source of the fire plume plus HTO as well as HT gas, which would not be measured for a limited scope that assumed only consumer products as a tritium source.
Several sources of tritium were considered and analyzed, as consistent with the experimental data: i) EXIT signs in the buildings, ii) emergency signs on the airplanes, iii) fire and emergency equipment, iv) weaponry, and v) timepieces.
10. Faults in the Conclusion
Here are some interesting aspects from the study's conclusions highlighted:
As the conclusion progresses, it buries the fact that its mathematical modeling of the aircraft situation yielded an HTO deposition fraction that was too high in comparison with historical incidents involving fire and tritium, yet was still too small to account for the tritium measurements.
To fill the gap, they turn to the supposition that tritium RL sights on weapons could account for this, whereby their modeling suggests a minimum of 120 so-equipped weapons destroyed with leaking tritium. Alas, this number is not golden by itself, because many weapons were recovered with only minor damage.
The study mentions "evidence that weapons belonging to federal and law-enforcement agencies were present and destroyed at the WTC," but does not provide an accurate reporting of how many total weapons needed to be accounted for, of what weapons were found, of their state of damage, or of where they were stored before the destruction.
The extent that measured tritium came from weapons (and watches) becomes a big unsubstantiated assumption, just like the assumptions into the nature of the aircraft.
The conclusion is a bit forced but perfectly in line with the limited scope of the study: "This indicates that the weapons/watches are consistent with the missing source, which would have complemented the airplane source."
The authors succeeded in conveying the message that -- whatever the true source -- the lingering tritium was at benign levels with respect to human health, if indeed reported measurements can be trusted and despite the limited number of samples chosen for the limited scope study.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/tritium.htm
34 Ci of tritium were released from the emergency tritium RL signs onboard the two Boeing 767s, on impact with the Twin Towers at the WTC. The measurements and modeling are consistent with a prompt creation of HTO in the jet-fuel explosion and fire, deposition of a small fraction of HTO at ground zero, and water-flow controlled removal from the site. The modeling implies that the contribution from the aircraft alone would yield the HTO deposition fraction of 2.5%.
This value is too high by a comparison with other incidents involving fire and tritium. Therefore, the source term from the airplanes alone is too small to explain the measured concentrations, and another missing source is needed. ... The exact activity of tritium from the weapons was not determined.
The data and modeling are consistent with the tritium source from the weapon sights (plus possibly tritium watches) in the debris, from which tritium was slowly released in the lingering fires, followed by an oxidation and removal with the water flow. Our modeling suggests that such a scenario would require a minimum of 120 equipped weapons destroyed and a quantitative capturing of tritium, which is too high, since many weapons were found with only minor damage and tritium sights are shielded in a metal.
Therefore, such a mechanism alone is not sufficient to account for the measured HTO concentrations. This indicates that the weapons/watches are consistent with the missing source, which would have complemented the airplane source.I will re-phrase this conclusion, but beforehand, readers should note that the speed and precision of both aircraft as well as the damage inflicted that was caught on video suggest from physics that they were not commercial aircraft. Therefore, when this study concludes with bold statements about the amount of tritium attributed to "emergency tritium RL signs" in 767's, it is starting from weak assumptions about the nature of the aircraft and what they would contain. (Pilot-less aircraft being used as missiles don't need cockpits, seats, or exit signs, among other things.)
As the conclusion progresses, it buries the fact that its mathematical modeling of the aircraft situation yielded an HTO deposition fraction that was too high in comparison with historical incidents involving fire and tritium, yet was still too small to account for the tritium measurements.
To fill the gap, they turn to the supposition that tritium RL sights on weapons could account for this, whereby their modeling suggests a minimum of 120 so-equipped weapons destroyed with leaking tritium. Alas, this number is not golden by itself, because many weapons were recovered with only minor damage.
The study mentions "evidence that weapons belonging to federal and law-enforcement agencies were present and destroyed at the WTC," but does not provide an accurate reporting of how many total weapons needed to be accounted for, of what weapons were found, of their state of damage, or of where they were stored before the destruction.
The extent that measured tritium came from weapons (and watches) becomes a big unsubstantiated assumption, just like the assumptions into the nature of the aircraft.
The conclusion is a bit forced but perfectly in line with the limited scope of the study: "This indicates that the weapons/watches are consistent with the missing source, which would have complemented the airplane source."
The authors succeeded in conveying the message that -- whatever the true source -- the lingering tritium was at benign levels with respect to human health, if indeed reported measurements can be trusted and despite the limited number of samples chosen for the limited scope study.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/tritium.htm
The radioactive decay product of tritium is a low energy beta that cannot penetrate the outer dead layer of human skin. Therefore, the main hazard associated with tritium is internal exposure from inhalation or ingestion. In addition, due to the relatively long half-life and short biological half-life, an intake of tritium must be in large amounts to pose a significant health risk.
11. Miniscule Tritium
Public over-reaction and panic might be speculative reasons for the skewing of the message away from "measured tritium is an oddity to be questioned" and to "measured tritium was miniscule and not a danger to public health in such quantities." Debunkers of 9/11 nukes explain away WTC tritium as insignificant, Becquerels, a nano-curie, a billionth of a curie, and with negligent health impacts.
"Minuscule" does not mean "none." The EPA levels for determining what could be a health risk are in fact also "astronomically minuscule". Although the measured levels of tritium were below that EPA benchmark, they were also significantly above what was expected.
For the goals of the scope-limited tritium report, framing the tritium discussion around "minimal public health impacts" does not have to be false. But with regards to the significance of even a miniscule amount being 55 times larger than expected, it does not have to be the complete story on 9/11 tritium, either.
The closer to the time and location of ignition that measurements would have been taken, the better, because tritiated water gets diluted through the actions of firemen and heavy rains, while signature alpha, beta, and gamma radiation will be greatly dissipated within 48-72 hours.
"Minuscule" does not mean "none." The EPA levels for determining what could be a health risk are in fact also "astronomically minuscule". Although the measured levels of tritium were below that EPA benchmark, they were also significantly above what was expected.
For the goals of the scope-limited tritium report, framing the tritium discussion around "minimal public health impacts" does not have to be false. But with regards to the significance of even a miniscule amount being 55 times larger than expected, it does not have to be the complete story on 9/11 tritium, either.
The closer to the time and location of ignition that measurements would have been taken, the better, because tritiated water gets diluted through the actions of firemen and heavy rains, while signature alpha, beta, and gamma radiation will be greatly dissipated within 48-72 hours.
12. No warranty, liability, or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information...
Before we end a review of the study, let's highlight its wonderful disclaimer:
Here is an assessment of that report, called The Final Word on The Tritium , by the Anonymous Physicist.
This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the University of California nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. ... This work was performed under the auspices of the United States Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.
Here is an assessment of that report, called The Final Word on The Tritium , by the Anonymous Physicist.
"Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, et al. It was published at the 223rd American Chemical Society National Meeting, Orlando, FL, April 7-11, 2002. The article states that "This work was performed under the auspices of the United States Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48." (Note that this is the same lab that allegedly can create "super nano-composite thermite" that yields "unextinguishable fires," and thus new laws of chemistry and physics as well as the first equivalent perpetual motion mechanism. [If only.] It's also the same lab that is remasterminding Kennedy Assassination audio tapes. ...)
It should be noted that this paper contains several bogus and ludicrous attempts to account for the tritium at the WTC on 9/13. Mostly they allege that the tritium came from exit signs on the planes that "crashed into the towers." The paper also alleges that tritium was in the sightings on the guns of police officers killed that day.
...
The regime can and does refuse to release anything damning. So why did they release any data showing tritium at all, when they could have kept this under wraps, as I am sure FEMA is doing with WTC radiation readings? One possible answer is that it would provide a ruse for others to later claim the mythical 4th generation pure fusion bomb was used -- thus obviating what was there in NYC for 6 months -- the China Syndrome.
13. Dr. Steven Jones Spins It Further
Now let us return to Dr. Jones' report, "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers".
As proven above, Dr. Jones based his "no nukes" paper on a deeply flawed government report that did spotty measurements of tritium at Ground Zero. The government study notes that they were "unable" to test at numerous places, especially deep underground where the high temperatures and molten steel were observed. Should have been a red flag.
Dr. Jones uses the incomplete tritium numbers from "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" and then frames the discussion as a large thermonuclear (fusion) bomb, and writes:
As proven above, Dr. Jones based his "no nukes" paper on a deeply flawed government report that did spotty measurements of tritium at Ground Zero. The government study notes that they were "unable" to test at numerous places, especially deep underground where the high temperatures and molten steel were observed. Should have been a red flag.
Dr. Jones uses the incomplete tritium numbers from "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" and then frames the discussion as a large thermonuclear (fusion) bomb, and writes:
Many millions of curies of tritium are present in even a small thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb. (Note that tritium can be generated during the blast from the reaction of neutrons on lithium deuteride.) Yet the observed tritium levels at GZ were in the billionth of a curie range.Assuming we can trust the measurements given in that report [a big assumption], it re-defines "trace" or "background" levels of tritium to be 55 times greater than it was prior to 9/11 in order to downplay any adverse health effects. Dr. Jones in his paper accepts this report unchallenged, re-iterates "trace" as the re-defined level, supports the contention of its negligent health effects, and then introduces a blatant logic error.
14. Logic Error and Blatant Omission
Dr. Jones' logic error is best summarized as follows:
The blatant omission is neutron bombs.
Other than airplane exit signs, police gun sights, and time pieces from the scope-limited tritium report, Dr. Jones does not speculate much into the radiation signature D (tritium), which is a signature of a fusion device. Dr. Jones at various times talks about using his Geiger Counter on dust samples that didn't measure any radiation. Of course not. (a) If there was significant radioactivity released, some such elements have short lives both in terms of time and distance. (b) A Geiger Counter is intended for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation that gives off neutron radiation that requires sophisticated equipment to measure.
Dr. Jones then goes on to challenge:
In other words, large releases of tritium probably did happen on 2001-09-11. Any conclusions that imply otherwise were based on measurements that were not taken systematically in a timely fashion and happened after much dilution in water (or dissipation in HT gas).
While I don't consider this The Final Word on The Tritium , such insight from the Anonymous Physicist is useful to aide our understanding. He does not speculate into novel applications and goals of a neutron bomb, or fission-trigger-fusion neutron DEW.
"Nuclear weapons of type X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures of A, B, and C. Radiation signature D was measured. Thus, the cause of the WTC destruction was not nuclear weapons of X, Y, or Z nor any other nuclear device."In other words, he frames the discussion around certain types of nuclear weapons and legitimately states that the radiation signature did not match those. But rather than taking just those types off of the table, he takes all nuclear devices out of consideration.
The blatant omission is neutron bombs.
Other than airplane exit signs, police gun sights, and time pieces from the scope-limited tritium report, Dr. Jones does not speculate much into the radiation signature D (tritium), which is a signature of a fusion device. Dr. Jones at various times talks about using his Geiger Counter on dust samples that didn't measure any radiation. Of course not. (a) If there was significant radioactivity released, some such elements have short lives both in terms of time and distance. (b) A Geiger Counter is intended for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation that gives off neutron radiation that requires sophisticated equipment to measure.
Dr. Jones then goes on to challenge:
Can proponents of the WTC-mini-nuke hypothesis explain how large releases of tritium did NOT happen on 9/11/2001?This question is malframed in many ways: the nature of the device, how the energy and radiation were directed (e.g., upwards), and that large releases of tritium supposedly did not happen.
In other words, large releases of tritium probably did happen on 2001-09-11. Any conclusions that imply otherwise were based on measurements that were not taken systematically in a timely fashion and happened after much dilution in water (or dissipation in HT gas).
While I don't consider this The Final Word on The Tritium , such insight from the Anonymous Physicist is useful to aide our understanding. He does not speculate into novel applications and goals of a neutron bomb, or fission-trigger-fusion neutron DEW.
The China Syndrome of great heat GENERATION from the remnants of the many fission bombs, as each used only about 1-6% of its fissile material. That is, pure fusion does not allow for the China Syndrome as any remnants of pure fusion components (such as deuterium or tritium) do not allow for this-- only Uranium or Plutonium fissioning can.
Note that a fission-triggered fusion bomb could still allow for the China Syndrome. Only the pure fusion scenario does not. So it is curious that the Finn immediately went with pure fusion, and not with the possibility of fission-triggered fusion. And the Finn based this on the tritium finding, and either did not know about, or chose to ignore, all the evidence of massive heat generation at the WTC for 6 months, and also the following matter.
Now most fission reactions of Uranium or Plutonium are binary -- they yield TWO large "daughter elements" (e.g., Barium and Krypton, or Strontium and Xenon), plus 2-3 neutrons, plus energy in the form of gamma rays. But since 1959, it has been publicly known, via this article, that ternary fission yields TRITIUM, along with its THREE daughter elements, plus the excess neutrons, and energy. And thus with the numerous fission bombs that were detonated, and with the additional possible factors of redundancy and fratriciding that my articles have detailed, we can arrive at perhaps the most likely source of tritium in the rubble-- the fission nukes themselves.
I have seen estimates for the percentage of tritium production from ternary fission ranging from 1% down to .005%. (There is the possibility of deliberate disinformation, in some matters of nuclear physics, so one cannot often trust public nuclear physics discussions.) Because of this, and not knowing what element(s) were fissioned, nor how much of each, it is impossible to know just how much tritium could have been produced by ternary fission in the numerous micro-nukes used to destroy the WTC. But it appears to be more than would occur from non-existent planes, or gun sightings; and the proven heat generation of the China Syndrome Aftermath belies the use of a mythical 4th generation pure fusion device.
The most likely type of nuclear bombs used, was the type that could be made the smallest, and was the simplest, and most proven/dependable (compared to the others). This was the "good old" pure fission form of nuclear bombs. As I have shown, they're even backpackable. And in the final analysis -- given ternary fission -- there never was any basis for claiming that the nuke(s) used at the WTC had to be 4th generation pure fusion, nor even that there was any fusion at all at the WTC. ...
So any tritium found on 9/13/01 at the WTC, was most likely from ternary fission, not fusion. But if you want one more, perhaps crucial, plausibility argument, here it is. Fusion bombs have a history of having a yield larger than expected. And the perps strenuously wanted NOT to blow through the building in an obvious nuclear manner.
A nuke having a yield larger than needed could not be risked. This would have been visible to thousands, perhaps millions; and such knowledge would have been difficult to contain. (Whereas radiation findings were controlled by FEMA, and the Gestapo regime need only scream "national security" to prevent release of such data-- including the tritium paper, if it had wanted to.)
I have emphasized the need not to blow through the building in an obvious nuclear way, since my very first article herein. This is one reason why some conventional explosives may have been used during the destruction scenario, as I have also written.
What the nukes were mainly for, in my estimation, was to vaporize INSTANTLY, and definitively, the necessary core structure for the TOWERS' ENSUING RAPID, APPROXIMATE, FREEFALL RATE OF COLLAPSE!
The PTB (powers that be) apparently intended to later push the impossible "gravitational pancaking" ruse, even though it violates numerous laws of Physics, and we can see the outer structure being exploded outward, by the overpressure within. (You can compare what happens during an actual gravitational collapse by seeing this.) The PTB clearly wanted to shove a physically impossible, evidence-opposing destruction "mechanism" down the throats of the masses. They know what it does to many peoples' psyches.
It induces denial, fear, schizoid behavior, and hopelessness -- all good for the coming endless wars, and destruction of the American Constitution. Putting out a physically impossible and evidence-opposing "mechanism" for WTC destruction jibes with other events perpetrated by the American regime. ... As I have written, the WTC bogus scenario entails "pristine pancaking"-- violating Newton's Laws of Motion. ... The PTB want to put out these impossible "mechanisms" to dumb down, shock, or paralyze the people.
Most people go into denial, and do not want to think about it, because their subconciousnesses know what is really involved. Those who can think and see, and have combatted the denial, are then further confounded with other limited hangouts put out by the Gestapo Regime's hidden intel agents posing as "leaders" of the "truth movement." These WTC hangouts included the evidence-free inanity of DEW, and the "thermite burns forever" impossibility. Both are easily demonstrated to be physically impossible to have caused the WTC destruction, and the CSA.
All the regime's hidden assets earlier inserted at the top of the "alternative" or conspiracy internet media, were then instructed to push these hangouts and avoid mention of the nuking and the China Syndrome Aftermath.
Returning now to the fission vs. fusion issue. Blowing through the outer structure of the building with unnecessary fusion -- either as the hypothetical pure fusion, or as a fission-fusion bomb -- could not be risked, when pure fission micro-nukes were readily available. Fission nukes have a more "guaranteed" upper bound on their yields, and are more dependable as well, compared to either the alleged pure fusion or the fission-fusion bomb. In the final analysis, the release of the tritium data may have been a clever Intel Op to try to hide the China Syndrome Aftermath, and its nuclear fission cause. If there was tritium at the WTC, its most likely source was ternary fission.
15. "No Radiation"? Really?
Debunkers of 9/11 nuclear mechanisms raised the gauntlet: "No Radiation = No Nukes." Although the measurement of tritium and its very definition dispenses with the left-hand side of the equation, let us set aside this fact for the sake of discussion. The challenge continued that 9/11 nuclear mechanisms wouldn't be considered without proof of "measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero", even though the opposite cannot be proven, namely of "~no~ measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero." Where are the reports that measure systematically, thoroughly, and timely all forms of radiation at or below background levels?
The Paul Lioy et al Report on the characterization of the Dust/Smoke seems to deliver the no radiation premise. Among its flaws:
It is significant when they write: "Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level." For the gravity-driven-pile-drivers that the government attributes to the WTC tower destruction, nothing elevated to twice background level should have existed at all.
Likewise, chemical explosives and incendiaries are not known for releasing radiation, so even "slightly elevated beta activity" should not be left around as a signature if they were the only cause of destruction. Also, neither gravity pile drivers nor chemical mechanisms should have elevated the levels of tritium.
Given Jeff Prager's work and the trend lines in many other government reports, rational thinkers have no basis for trusting this Lioy report at face value.
If we give any credit to who the perpetrators likely were (Kevin Ryan's book), of course there would be no ~public~ record of radiation. Look at how those same players shut down NYC fire investigators. Look how they got the EPA and NIST to lie. Look at how media toed the line and beat the drums of war.
Radiation comes in different types whose longevity and measurability depends on many factors including design of nuclear device, implementation, and distance from source.
From On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist", that also critiques Dr. Jones:
From Did NYC Residents' Geiger Counters Prove the Case? And then did NYC Criminalize Geiger Counters?
The Paul Lioy et al Report on the characterization of the Dust/Smoke seems to deliver the no radiation premise. Among its flaws:
- Limited its analysis to three (3) "representative" dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets).The Lioy report states:
- Samples were only collected at "weather-protected" locations East of the WTC; nothing from North, South, or West. The dominant wind direction in summer months including September is to the North.
- Samples collected on 9/16 and 9/17, which is enough delay to allow for dissipation of certain radiation traces.
- Whereas it lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, it does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). The Lioy report only mentions "Uranium" twice: once in the methodology section and once in table 2 indicating metals found. Its discussion of results ignores most of the elements found in table 2. It doesn't explain their presence in the dust.
We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.Were any games played in the form of re-defining "background levels" as was done in the Tritium Report? Neither the actual measurement nor what technical definition of "background level" were provided in the report.
It is significant when they write: "Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level." For the gravity-driven-pile-drivers that the government attributes to the WTC tower destruction, nothing elevated to twice background level should have existed at all.
Likewise, chemical explosives and incendiaries are not known for releasing radiation, so even "slightly elevated beta activity" should not be left around as a signature if they were the only cause of destruction. Also, neither gravity pile drivers nor chemical mechanisms should have elevated the levels of tritium.
Given Jeff Prager's work and the trend lines in many other government reports, rational thinkers have no basis for trusting this Lioy report at face value.
If we give any credit to who the perpetrators likely were (Kevin Ryan's book), of course there would be no ~public~ record of radiation. Look at how those same players shut down NYC fire investigators. Look how they got the EPA and NIST to lie. Look at how media toed the line and beat the drums of war.
Radiation comes in different types whose longevity and measurability depends on many factors including design of nuclear device, implementation, and distance from source.
From On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist", that also critiques Dr. Jones:
For completeness, I note that if there was significant radioactivity released, some such elements have short lives both in terms of time and distance. Few, if any "citizens" right there had Geiger counters, most of which have serious limitations. These nukes went off basically inside steel boxes.
The government's own study found significant levels of tritium (a signature of a fusion device, and according to Tahil, if he is honest, even end-products of fission were found). But the govt study notes that they were "unable" to test at numerous places - but especially deep underground, which was where the high temperatures and molten steel were observed!
Of course, there is the possibility (since this is the govt), that they did test at these places, and discarded anything that would have proved the case for mini-nukes. With other government "investigations," whistle-blowers have revealed that often there is much evidence, but it is eliminated.The preponderance of other evidence, such as that collected in Dr. Wood's work or First Responder Health, ought to hold sway on the question of radiation.
From Did NYC Residents' Geiger Counters Prove the Case? And then did NYC Criminalize Geiger Counters?
Data on radiation taken at the WTC-with the exception of elevated tritium levels (which does arise from fission bombs) has been tightly controlled by FEMA. Few responders had access to the deep underground regions that likely had the highest radiation readings.
But then I have also detailed some strange happenings in NYC concerning a proposed law to ban private NYC residents from owning Geiger Counters. Owning a Geiger Counter was to become a misdemeanor.
...
The alleged reason for this proposed foul legislation is that they claim many NYC residents had Geiger Counters that gave [allegedly] false positive readings! And then that local or more likely co-conspiring federal agencies (such as FEMA) spent a lot of money tracking things down and concluding the readings were false. [Naturally.] I note that calibrating Geiger Counters properly is not a difficult thing for the manufacturers of these devises to do.
The legislation before the City Council was said to have been requested by Mayor Bloomberg, and done in conjunction with the Dept. of Homeland Security. (AKA the Gestapo.) Some researchers have detailed that the City Councilmen spearheading the effort are members of the CFR.
...
The City leaders were saying that the police were spending too much time and money on all the residents who claimed either Geiger counters or toxin detectors had yielded positive results. As the NYPD is not likely to have been set up to do such detection, I am sure they would have called in federal agencies, such as the EPA and FEMA.
The EPA, you can recall lied to the people and said there was nothing toxic released from WTC destruction in the days and weeks after 9/11/01. While the EPA, FEMA, DHS, etc. will never release any true radiation readings, they may have taken at the WTC or nearby later on, some NYC residents know the awful truth.
16. No Testing of the Dust Later for Other Explosives
Limited scopes, delays in gathering samples, small sample sizes, pre-mature stopping of sample taking, and missing analysis (that would have found signature correlations) are among the issues marring agency reports about 9/11. Leaders in the 9/11TM can be faulted for accepting some of these reports (e.g., the tritium report, the Lioy Repot) unquestioned and without reservations when coming to dismissive conclusions. They can also be faulted for not testing themselves.
Mr. Scott Creighton tried numerous times to get the Dr. Steven Jones to test his independently acquired WTC dust samples for standard industry explosive residues. Evidently, the decision was deferred by Dr. Jones to Mr. Gregg Roberts who gave a reason that if the results turn out negative [e.g., no residue of standard industry explosives], the opposition would have a PR field day in promoting "gravity driven pile-drivers" as the sole cause. Allegedly the fear was that any such residue might have reached its "expire by date" in terms of tests being able to detect it reliably after so long, so a negative result could have been in the cards.
Some Straight Forward Questions For Steven Jones on the Subject of his Research By Scott Creighton 2009-04-07.
Mr. Scott Creighton tried numerous times to get the Dr. Steven Jones to test his independently acquired WTC dust samples for standard industry explosive residues. Evidently, the decision was deferred by Dr. Jones to Mr. Gregg Roberts who gave a reason that if the results turn out negative [e.g., no residue of standard industry explosives], the opposition would have a PR field day in promoting "gravity driven pile-drivers" as the sole cause. Allegedly the fear was that any such residue might have reached its "expire by date" in terms of tests being able to detect it reliably after so long, so a negative result could have been in the cards.
Some Straight Forward Questions For Steven Jones on the Subject of his Research By Scott Creighton 2009-04-07.
Thermite and thermate would not be classified as a "high explosive" but rather a low-explosive. They are incendiary materials because though they burn at a relatively low rate of speed, the release a lot of energy when doing so.9/11 Truth Red Herring: Neoliberal BYU Has Financed, Staffed, and Peer-Reviewed Prof. Jones' Flawed Thermite Distraction Since Day One By Scott Creighton 2010-05-26
That is why you keep seeing energy comparisons being made by Jones in his new paper - but that energy he mentions translates mainly to heat output, not to the potential of creating a shock wave. It's that shock wave that produces the "explosive" effect that could pulverize concrete floors or shoot multi-ton steel beams across 300 feet of lower New York City. And it is the detonation velocity that creates the shock wave.
...
At long last, after being told that they were really more interested in pushing for political or legal action, Greg Roberts told me something quite amazing in one of his last emails to me.
"However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it. Thus, the potential costs of doing what you're proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered." RobertsThe idea that you wouldn't run a scientific test that is standard investigative procedure when an explosive is suspected, for any reason, let alone for "potential P.R." consequences… was astounding to me.
...
Here we are, looking for some deep-secret governmental agency capable of producing some mystery explosive, that may or may not have even had the detonation velocity capable of destroying the concrete floors in the first place, while everyone makes a point to cover their asses in the case of a future investigation by clearly stating they never LOOKED for standard to the industry explosive residues in the WTC dust samples.
And now we can include the 911 Truth Movement in that long list of organizations who refuse to look for the most logical tell-tale evidence one would expect in an explosives investigation.
Steven Jones is a physicist who has done work for the Idaho National Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy (Division of Advanced Energy Projects), and U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute. Not to mention the fact that Steven Jones was a professor at BYU.
In several email attempts to get Jones to agree to run tests for residues of high explosives (PETN, RDX, TNT) in the dust in his possession, this highly decorated and experienced educator attempted to tell me there was no way to test for such residues and then he tried to tell me he didn't know how to test for the residues and would not have access to the equipment to do so.
For Steven Jones to make the claim that NIST is "getting away with" not testing for explosive residue in the Ground Zero dust is one of the most hypocritical statements I have ever heard. Jones and Harrit and Roberts all make the claim in their "peer-reviewed paper" that they did NOT test for these finger prints of high explosives and that someone else should.
...
We can all understand why NIST doesn't run the tests; because they are a branch of the Department of Commerce and they essentially worked for the people who carried out 911. But Jones. Harrit, and Roberts are SUPPOSED to be a different story. They are SUPPOSED to be an unofficial investigation into the demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
Why would Jones, Harrit, Roberts, et al deliberately chose to not run these tests? And who exactly is "getting away" with not running them? NIST is condemned for it, Jones is given a pass.
17. Positive or Negative
Either the dust would come back positive or negative for explosive residue.
If it came back positive, this would have been the banner behind which the 9/11TM frog-marches the nation's leaders to court.
As proposed by Mr. Gregg Roberts, if it came back negative, a weak PR campaign would try to spin it: "See? There really was no explosives. It really was a pile driver and gravity! Move along, folks! Nothing to see here."
However, the worse situation is that science-literate thinkers within the 9/11TM can & do know it wasn't gravity alone, so they would continue looking for an energy and destruction source.
Dr. Wood & the Anonymous Physicist begin to appear not so crazy; and the pesky radiation evidence & cover-up creeps back into the forefront.
If it came back positive, this would have been the banner behind which the 9/11TM frog-marches the nation's leaders to court.
As proposed by Mr. Gregg Roberts, if it came back negative, a weak PR campaign would try to spin it: "See? There really was no explosives. It really was a pile driver and gravity! Move along, folks! Nothing to see here."
However, the worse situation is that science-literate thinkers within the 9/11TM can & do know it wasn't gravity alone, so they would continue looking for an energy and destruction source.
Dr. Wood & the Anonymous Physicist begin to appear not so crazy; and the pesky radiation evidence & cover-up creeps back into the forefront.
18. Under-Rubble Hot-Spots and Nano-Thermite
From the Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan' paper, "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials":
NT has two problems in accounting for the WTC destruction. (1) NT by itself does not have the brisance to account for the observed pulverization and speed of the towers' decimation. So Dr. Jones speculates how something more energetic was in the mix. Thereby he exasperates the second problem, which is (2) the amount of unspent thermitic materials (possibly combined with other energetic chemical materials) leftover in the pile and that would be required to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
High School math & chemistry easily calculate the quantities to be massive, with amounts increasing as a function of the materials' brisance. Try it yourself. Detonation velocities of high explosives range from 3,300 feet per second (f/s) to 29,900 f/s. RDX has a burn-rate of ~31,000 f/s, while nano-thermite has a burn-rate of ~1,100 f/s. NT is on the slow end, so for sake of discussion, let's assume it was mixed with something to get to at least 3,300 fps. Hot-spots were several and burned for many weeks. Simplify by considering only one hot-spot that only burned 4 weeks = 28 days = 1,411,200 seconds. As but one configuration and so it doesn't burn-up all at once, consider this explosive/incendiary material packed into an imaginary garden hose whose diameter we can ignore for the moment. To sustain such a hot-spot, the fuse-like hose would need to be approximately 4,656,960,000 feet or 882,000 miles long. [Pure NT at 1,000 f/s implies 226,000 miles, while RDX at 31,000 f/s implies 7,510,000 miles.] "Salting" of the material in the pile reduces this number, while mixing with faster burning materials to achieve the needed brisance for pulverization increases this number.
Red flags should be going up at this point, because those triple zeros to the left of the decimal point are significant. If we grossly simplified it down to "n" thousand miles and a hose diameter of a mere 1/8", the volume of material required is still massive! The answers are not trivial and represent significant logistics hurdles, if the search for 9/11 destructive sources are stopped at RDX/NT. Worse, this represents material that was unspent and left-over from its original task of pulverizing the towers. "That dog don't hunt" for Occam Razor. These basic calculations ought to be chalked up as another of Dr. Jones' et al omissions.
Using conservative (low-ball) estimates, Dr. Niels Harrit wrote:
On a similar vein as NT is PETN. Scott Creighton wrote:
Despite the above red flags, supporters of NT still come back with:
The purpose of this exercise is to show how ridiculous the belief that "nano-thermites could explain the hot spots."
Supporters of NT charge on:
The omission is that NT used in any combination with conventional explosives cannot explain the energy or fuel source that maintained the under-rubble hot-spots between those spikes.
"Something maintained those hot-spots (not just nano-thermite.)"~Dr. Steven Jones, September 2012
... Yet still no research or even speculation into what that something was.
This article suggests that unspent but fizzling remains of neutron nukes can more easily explain the under-rubble hot-spots, much Fukushima.
For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero (GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts.In the dust samples collected by nearby NYC resident and given to Dr. Steven Jones, he allegedly discovers energetic particles of nano-thermite (NT). NT reacts with steel from which it obtains its oxygen to burn, leaving iron spheres as a by-product.
- Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC buildings.
- Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile.
- Several rainfall events occurred at GZ, some heavy; and
- A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles
NT has two problems in accounting for the WTC destruction. (1) NT by itself does not have the brisance to account for the observed pulverization and speed of the towers' decimation. So Dr. Jones speculates how something more energetic was in the mix. Thereby he exasperates the second problem, which is (2) the amount of unspent thermitic materials (possibly combined with other energetic chemical materials) leftover in the pile and that would be required to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
High School math & chemistry easily calculate the quantities to be massive, with amounts increasing as a function of the materials' brisance. Try it yourself. Detonation velocities of high explosives range from 3,300 feet per second (f/s) to 29,900 f/s. RDX has a burn-rate of ~31,000 f/s, while nano-thermite has a burn-rate of ~1,100 f/s. NT is on the slow end, so for sake of discussion, let's assume it was mixed with something to get to at least 3,300 fps. Hot-spots were several and burned for many weeks. Simplify by considering only one hot-spot that only burned 4 weeks = 28 days = 1,411,200 seconds. As but one configuration and so it doesn't burn-up all at once, consider this explosive/incendiary material packed into an imaginary garden hose whose diameter we can ignore for the moment. To sustain such a hot-spot, the fuse-like hose would need to be approximately 4,656,960,000 feet or 882,000 miles long. [Pure NT at 1,000 f/s implies 226,000 miles, while RDX at 31,000 f/s implies 7,510,000 miles.] "Salting" of the material in the pile reduces this number, while mixing with faster burning materials to achieve the needed brisance for pulverization increases this number.
Red flags should be going up at this point, because those triple zeros to the left of the decimal point are significant. If we grossly simplified it down to "n" thousand miles and a hose diameter of a mere 1/8", the volume of material required is still massive! The answers are not trivial and represent significant logistics hurdles, if the search for 9/11 destructive sources are stopped at RDX/NT. Worse, this represents material that was unspent and left-over from its original task of pulverizing the towers. "That dog don't hunt" for Occam Razor. These basic calculations ought to be chalked up as another of Dr. Jones' et al omissions.
Using conservative (low-ball) estimates, Dr. Niels Harrit wrote:
The RJ Lee group found a whopping 5.87% content of iron-rich spheres in the dust (see Table 3, p.28 in the 2003 report). In the same table a 0.04% is reported as the expected value in normal building dust. So 5.83% of the finding must be considered abnormal.In another work, Dr. Harrit wrote:
There were produced at least 0.0583 x 200000 = 11,660 tonnes = 11.6 kilo-tons of iron-rich spheres per tower.Then keeping with assumption of nano-thermite scenario, he continues:
If we assume, that ALL the thermitic material should react to form iron spheres (please notice, that this is another highly conservative condition), RJ Lee Groups observation implies that:Yikes, that is a lot! And this is before you add the unspent tonnage required to account for many weeks of under-rubble hot-spots (with six spikes). Seems rather obscene.
(10000 x 1000 x 1000)/70 = 143,000,000 kg = 143,000 metric tons of thermitic material was present in WTC2 prior to collapse. Of course, it is five times less [28k metric tons], if the iron oxide content is 50%. Still, it's a lot.
On a similar vein as NT is PETN. Scott Creighton wrote:
PETN also burns hotter than most of the others and judging from the amount of melting and vaporization of various metals and other materials, PETN may be the most likely H.E. used. ... I believe they made a mistake and used too much det cord resulting in the build up of way too much heat as a result. That heat created evidence that can be used to expose what they did.The "way too much heat" can be attributed to nuclear devices as well. More importantly, it wasn't the heat per se that exposes the primary mechanisms of what they did, but the duration (& heat) of under-rubble hot-spots.
Despite the above red flags, supporters of NT still come back with:
Can the nano-thermites explain the hot spots? Yes. Since these products are capable of melting both concrete and steel, and supply their own oxygen source, I think nano-thermites can explain the hot spots.What the above fails to note is that thermite under-the-rubble would obtain its oxygen from the reaction with steel and leaves iron as a by-product. Calculate the amount of steel that would be converted to iron by (simplification) a single WTC hot-spot that burned for four weeks. We would have expected to find in the rubble many large "blobs" of the iron by-product resulting from the reaction.
The purpose of this exercise is to show how ridiculous the belief that "nano-thermites could explain the hot spots."
Supporters of NT charge on:
It is when an explosive material is 'salted' throughout a salad of other material and items that the efficiency is lessened. ... [T]he mix scenario is not "burn-rate" which is only correct in a continuous "burn scenario." [It was a] wandering smolder throughout, not a continuous burn.No problems with the salted mixed salad scenario. In fact, Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan' paper, "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials," they make a good case that such explosive material could account for six or so spikes in the release of dangerous gases.
The omission is that NT used in any combination with conventional explosives cannot explain the energy or fuel source that maintained the under-rubble hot-spots between those spikes.
"Something maintained those hot-spots (not just nano-thermite.)"~Dr. Steven Jones, September 2012
... Yet still no research or even speculation into what that something was.
This article suggests that unspent but fizzling remains of neutron nukes can more easily explain the under-rubble hot-spots, much Fukushima.
19. High Temperatures during the Destruction
Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction by Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe.
Nuclear fusion peaks at about 800 million Kelvin (~799,999,726 C or ~143,9999,540 F), or only about 261,000 times hotter than RDX, making it a more likely candidate for heating steel beams quickly to a bendable state. Nuclear fizzle occurs when a nuclear device fails to meet its expected yield. For practical purposes, a nuclear fizzle can still have considerable explosive yield and high temperatures when compared to conventional weapons.
So when we consider the distance between the point of detonation and the horseshoe's bend (or the arches) in later sections, "aluminothermic explosives" would require the bent beams to be physically closer than a nuclear device, with the trade-off that the closer the beam was, the more likely "aluminothermic explosives" would cut or blow apart the beam or leave artifacts of the explosion on the beam BEFORE it could weaken the steel with heat to allow bending. The bending of both the horseshoe and the arches is indicative of a very large heat source probably many times the heat that "aluminothermic explosives" could generate.
From On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist", that also critiques Dr. Jones:
The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents along with other species in the WTC dust required extremely high temperatures. ... The temperatures required for the molten sphere-formation and evaporation of materials as observed in the WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures associated with the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings.A proponent of chemical-based explosives and incendiaries wrote:
...
The temperatures required to melt iron (1,538 °C) and molybdenum (2,623 °C), and to vaporize lead (1,740 °C) and aluminosilicates (~2,760°C), are completely out of reach of the fires in the WTC buildings (maximum 1,100 °C).
...
The formation of numerous metal-rich spherules is also remarkable, for it implies formation of high-temperature droplets of the molten metals, dispersed in the air where they cool to form spherules.
We observe spherules with high iron and aluminum contents, a chemical signature which is not consistent with formation from melted steel.
...
The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings.
RDX has a temperature close to that of the surface of the sun, and brisance enough to blast this beam out of shape.Pure RDX has a final flame temperature for absorption at 3062 K (~2788 C or ~5051 F). The sun has a surface temperature of 5778 k (~5504 C or ~9940 F). While RDX burns hot, it does not have a temperature close to the sun.
Nuclear fusion peaks at about 800 million Kelvin (~799,999,726 C or ~143,9999,540 F), or only about 261,000 times hotter than RDX, making it a more likely candidate for heating steel beams quickly to a bendable state. Nuclear fizzle occurs when a nuclear device fails to meet its expected yield. For practical purposes, a nuclear fizzle can still have considerable explosive yield and high temperatures when compared to conventional weapons.
So when we consider the distance between the point of detonation and the horseshoe's bend (or the arches) in later sections, "aluminothermic explosives" would require the bent beams to be physically closer than a nuclear device, with the trade-off that the closer the beam was, the more likely "aluminothermic explosives" would cut or blow apart the beam or leave artifacts of the explosion on the beam BEFORE it could weaken the steel with heat to allow bending. The bending of both the horseshoe and the arches is indicative of a very large heat source probably many times the heat that "aluminothermic explosives" could generate.
From On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist", that also critiques Dr. Jones:
When [Dr. Steven Jones] mentions the high temperatures and molten steel, at the WTC, he bogusly writes about this as if this occurred only during the demolition or just shortly thereafter. He ignores (as he must) the fact that flowing molten steel, and extremely high temperatures were found days, weeks and months after 9/11. Does anyone believe his beloved, bogus thermite was still generating massive heat days, weeks and months later? Any heat generated by thermite would have been gone minutes or hours after the event.
20. Pulverization of Content and Structure
A "book-length" posting (2013-04-13) suggested that pulverization of content and structure were exaggerated by dismissing the actual characterization of the dust, which is given in the Lioy report as:
First, they do ~not~ state that there was ~no~ fine (<2.5-μm diameter) or coarse (2.5-10-μm diameter) particles generated in the WTC destruction, because indeed there was and indeed this still represents a massive energy sink even if the greatest abundance of dust particles were supercoarse (>10-μm diameter). It takes much energy to make even the unregulated supercoarse dust particles.
Second, they make no effort to describe "mini-nuke" correctly for the observed outcomes. They allow the imagination of the readers, formed by many years of nuclear weapons PR hype, to fill in the blanks.
[T]he particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-μm diameter) particles, not the fine (<2.5-μm diameter) or coarse (2.5-10-μm diameter)... Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a "star-wars" beam destroying the Towers).This is a straw man created by splitting hairs with regards to the amount of these μm particles and by framing it as "near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke)".
First, they do ~not~ state that there was ~no~ fine (<2.5-μm diameter) or coarse (2.5-10-μm diameter) particles generated in the WTC destruction, because indeed there was and indeed this still represents a massive energy sink even if the greatest abundance of dust particles were supercoarse (>10-μm diameter). It takes much energy to make even the unregulated supercoarse dust particles.
Second, they make no effort to describe "mini-nuke" correctly for the observed outcomes. They allow the imagination of the readers, formed by many years of nuclear weapons PR hype, to fill in the blanks.
21. What the Dust Reveals
Mr. Jeff Prager reviewed the data from the dozens of dust samples collected by the USGS in his Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]. These samples were collected more rigorously and systematically than those of Dr. Jones or the Lioy et al report. The USGS samples had Thorium, Lanthanum, and Yttrium, which Lioy et al do not tabulate. As was mentioned, the Lioy study lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, but does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). It ignores them and doesn't explain their presence. [Neither USGS data nor the Lioy et al report found the NT flakes that Dr. Jones did.]
From Mr. Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]:
A "book-length" posting on 2013-04-13 tried to dress down these issues with the assertion that the elements are "all ubiquitous in the environment generally."
From Wikipedia on Yttrium, (VN: Don't forget, Israel did 9-11 and they now control the editing of Wikipedia)
Of course, the real issue isn't that a whole laundry list of inorganic elements and metals (or industrial pollutants) were measured in the dust. The issue is what were found in CORRELATED QUANTITIES: "So-many parts element A for every one part element B." When the natural environment does not produce them in such correlated quantities, then the conclusion is that (a) something unnatural (or man-made) brought them together as such and (b) their combination had something to do with the destruction. Worse, the correlations take on a recipe, one used for nuclear devices.
On Sunday, 2013-09-30, Dr. Jones wrote a response to some of Jeff Prager's critique. It gathered only six comments on 911blogger, maybe because those who supported a nuclear 9/11 were purged or never permitted to post. I addressed Dr. Jones' posting on 2012-10-04. Here's the crux of Dr. Jones' posting:
From Mr. Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]:
Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.The following is based on Mr. Prager's conclusion from Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB], but is modified for this venue.
Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more "tell tale" signature of a nuclear detonation.
Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.
The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance.
The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. The USGS report shows that these quantities vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission.
The USGS report shows Barium and Strontium present and in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400ppm to over 3000ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships.
The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship and to other radionuclide daughter products.
The dust samples provide an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device. Nuclear weapon scientists, such as Dr. Jones, should have seized this data to analyze it and determine exactly what type of device produced it.
A "book-length" posting on 2013-04-13 tried to dress down these issues with the assertion that the elements are "all ubiquitous in the environment generally."
From Wikipedia on Yttrium, (VN: Don't forget, Israel did 9-11 and they now control the editing of Wikipedia)
Yttrium can be found in edible plants in concentrations between 20 ppm and 100 ppm (fresh weight), with cabbage having the largest amount. With up to 700 ppm, the seeds of woody plants have the highest known concentrations. ... The most important use of yttrium is in making phosphors, such as the red ones used in television set cathode ray tube (CRT) displays and in LEDs. Other uses include the production of electrodes, electrolytes, electronic filters, lasers and superconductors; various medical applications; and as traces in various materials to enhance their properties.From Wikipedia on Strontium.
The primary use for strontium compounds is in glass for colour television cathode ray tubes to prevent X-ray emission.The framing of the discussion was: "Element A and element B are a natural part of the environment, so it should be no surprise when they are measured there." Quite possibly Yttrium and Strontium were built up too much in significance in Mr. Prager's analysis, but the presence of Uranium wasn't. Even though Uranium is found in nature and the environment (e.g., Uranium mines), why was it found in the WTC dust among other elements?
Of course, the real issue isn't that a whole laundry list of inorganic elements and metals (or industrial pollutants) were measured in the dust. The issue is what were found in CORRELATED QUANTITIES: "So-many parts element A for every one part element B." When the natural environment does not produce them in such correlated quantities, then the conclusion is that (a) something unnatural (or man-made) brought them together as such and (b) their combination had something to do with the destruction. Worse, the correlations take on a recipe, one used for nuclear devices.
On Sunday, 2013-09-30, Dr. Jones wrote a response to some of Jeff Prager's critique. It gathered only six comments on 911blogger, maybe because those who supported a nuclear 9/11 were purged or never permitted to post. I addressed Dr. Jones' posting on 2012-10-04. Here's the crux of Dr. Jones' posting:
I sincerely wish more people would read the peer-reviewed papers I and colleagues have published, as a way of sorting out that which is based on hard evidence and that which is not. Here is the mini-nukes paper.Wish granted: the weaknesses of that paper -- written in 2006, peer-reviewed, and then published in January 2007 -- are discussed (anew) in this article. A major omission was no mention of neutron devices. Despite giving the scientific method lip-service, Dr. Jones accepted without question the stilted reports on tritium, had no tabulated or detailed report to back up the claim of no radiation (of other types), and failed to analyze and correlate the elements found by the USGS in their dust samples. Most of Dr. Jones' posting was scientific sleights of hand, appealing to his own authority, and framing nukes with respect to type, size, and placement.
22. Dr. Wood's Collected Evidence
Let us now introduce the work of Dr. Wood. It is the evidence and not necessarily her analysis that is important.
Disclaimer: Areas of disinformation in Dr. Wood's work probably include her downplaying of hot-spots, the Hutchison Effect, and free-energy from space. Rather blatantly, she doesn't consider nuclear forms of energy to power her DEW devices. Other than this, it has many nuggets of truth for thinking individuals to contemplate.
A re-occurring theme on 9/11 websites are the "don't land here" semaphore flags with regards to Dr. Wood's work. Most participants have gained their opinions second- and third-hand, sometimes through the work of Dr. Jones and his colleague Dr. Jenkins. Agreed that some of the criticism is warranted, but some is deliberately framed wrong. But more importantly, they do not address everything.
- [2012-02-16] "Dr. Wood's website has not been thoroughly debunked. ... In order for it to be thoroughly debunked, the debunker would have to go through image-by-image and state what is wrong with each and her questions. This, nobody has done."
- [2012-02-17] "Although the above applies to the website, some themes from her website are re-purposed in her book. So, if nobody or nothing old has debunked her website image-by-image, then that same nothingness is incapable of addressing the overlap that is in her book. "
A participant on Truth & Shadows wrote:
The popular paradigm when thinking about DEW is that a beam of destructive energy is aimed at a target. The paradigm shift with neutron nuclear DEW is that (a) the beam of energy is neutrons and would be wimpy with respect to Hollywood explosions, (b) the beam's primary purpose is to get the neutrons out of the way without causing collateral damage to life forms, and (c) the energy of the nuclear reaction is not used efficiently but instead rather wastefully.
The evidence of 9/11 nuclear hijinks is on display in those (web/book) pages, from the horseshoe and arch beams right on down to the anomalous vehicle damage along West Broadway and in the parking lot across the intersection.
"If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don't know what happened, keep listening to the evidence until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you." ~Dr. Judy WoodI don't champion her theories 100%, mostly because (as will be demonstrated by her dirt work) she stops abruptly short of appropriate nuclear conclusions. The anonymous physicists used to decry Dr. Wood as being a disinfo agent for gathering together of all the evidence of 9/11 being nuclear and camping them under "kookie" umbrellas (ala Hutchison, Tesla energy from space, etc.)
Disclaimer: Areas of disinformation in Dr. Wood's work probably include her downplaying of hot-spots, the Hutchison Effect, and free-energy from space. Rather blatantly, she doesn't consider nuclear forms of energy to power her DEW devices. Other than this, it has many nuggets of truth for thinking individuals to contemplate.
A re-occurring theme on 9/11 websites are the "don't land here" semaphore flags with regards to Dr. Wood's work. Most participants have gained their opinions second- and third-hand, sometimes through the work of Dr. Jones and his colleague Dr. Jenkins. Agreed that some of the criticism is warranted, but some is deliberately framed wrong. But more importantly, they do not address everything.
- [2012-02-16] "Dr. Wood's website has not been thoroughly debunked. ... In order for it to be thoroughly debunked, the debunker would have to go through image-by-image and state what is wrong with each and her questions. This, nobody has done."
- [2012-02-17] "Although the above applies to the website, some themes from her website are re-purposed in her book. So, if nobody or nothing old has debunked her website image-by-image, then that same nothingness is incapable of addressing the overlap that is in her book. "
A participant on Truth & Shadows wrote:
Another major problem with [Dr. Judy Wood's] theory is that a DEW powerful enough to destroy the WTC towers would require a massive energy source. Think on the order of enough power to light up New York state. There is a video out there somewhere I will try to find that shows a powerful laser melting through a 12 foot thick bank vault door in 2 seconds flat. Only problem was it required an entire solar power plant with thousands of panels operating at maximum to power the laser.It is very much correct that DEW would require a massive energy source. This is why earlier modifications to Dr. Wood's "hinting" were along the lines "nuclear-powered spire-based DEW". A small nuclear reactor akin to what the US Navy uses seemed easier to come by than trying to get "free-energy from Hurricane Erin" or some Teslian in space. It would have accounted for the radiation was measured at ground zero among many other things.
The popular paradigm when thinking about DEW is that a beam of destructive energy is aimed at a target. The paradigm shift with neutron nuclear DEW is that (a) the beam of energy is neutrons and would be wimpy with respect to Hollywood explosions, (b) the beam's primary purpose is to get the neutrons out of the way without causing collateral damage to life forms, and (c) the energy of the nuclear reaction is not used efficiently but instead rather wastefully.
The evidence of 9/11 nuclear hijinks is on display in those (web/book) pages, from the horseshoe and arch beams right on down to the anomalous vehicle damage along West Broadway and in the parking lot across the intersection.
23. Horseshoe Beams
Changing the focus from the emitted cloud to the internal destructive machinations, here is a picture of a core column that was bent into a horseshoe.
Horseshoe
In order to create the horse-shoe, the physical space needs to be available for one end of the beam to be bent to "kiss" the other end, after of course something heated its mid-section to be bent. That physical space would not have been available once the pile had come crashing down and was sitting smoldering.
When heating a localized area of a large piece of metal, the caveat is that metal can be great conductors of heat.
The ramifications are that more intense heat (and/or time) are required to get a localized area of a large piece of metal heated to the point where it can be easily bent. Given that time was in very short supply during the towers' decimation when this "lucky horseshoe" would have been created, the extrapolation is that the heat source was massive and probably well beyond the abilities of chemical explosive materials.
When science literate people study this and try to associate this evidence with chemical incendiaries or explosives, they should be left with questions that can't be easily answered.
- Why was this core column not cut there?
- How close was this core column to the neighboring core column that would have been rigged with such incendiary or explosive?
- How much higher temperature does the incendiary or explosive have to burn to not only do its job on the target column but to also span the distance to a neighboring column and to heat a localized area to allow bending into a horseshoe?
- How quickly could this incendiary or explosive on a core column heat a localized portion of a neighboring column to the bending point? [While Dr. Jones and Mr. Jon Cole have done experiments with thermite to show how quickly in human terms (many seconds) it accomplishes its task, the nature of the anomaly within the towers destruction suggests that it would have had to have happened several orders of magnitude faster (milliseconds or less.)]
Now let's discuss bent pieces of metal, most of them compliments of Dr. Judy Wood's collected images:
The images above suggest that they were heated end-to-end (as if in a furnace) in order to achieve the smooth arcing of those massive beams. If an incendiary or explosive is attached to a column in a localized fashion, how could it achieve end-to-end effects? Could the brisance of RDX blast a beam out of shape into a horseshoe or arch? RDX could probably blast a steel beam to pieces, but to get it to bend at a localized spot without fracture or stress marks is another matter.
While fast & hot and designed to cut or tear where they were mounted, such "conventional" mechanisms come up short in explaining these smooth end-to-end bends. The arched beam evidence suggest a massive heat source several orders of magnitude hotter than conventional or exotic chemical mechanisms that would (a) fully heat the metal beams end-to-end (b) in a very short period of time.
The following images imply proximity to a destructive mechanism in a completely different ballpark than a conventional incendiary or explosive.
In the following images, note the wall assemblies are rolled up like "steel doobies". The "steel doobie" is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands. It was ~not~ found under the rubble.
In the last image, the steel doobie stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image. (I'm told this is Liberty Street, which means it got thrown out of the towers that distance as well.) The first steel doobie wasn't under the rubble either. So, one can't malframe the discussion that "a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them" deformed them into what they are.
Note also how the interior and exterior sides of these wall assemblies are "steam cleaned", meaning they have no paint or other things attached to them.
What forces were at play that could get this wall assembly to wrap itself into a "steel doobie"? Hint: the normal forces acting on the wall assembly were primarily downward from the weight of upper floors. The "steel doobie" clearly shows that violent horizontal forces were at play, which resulted in both the rolling of "steel doobie" and its ejection so far away. A conventional incendiary or explosive cannot explain how the spandrels that connected the three beams in a wall assembly (a) could be heated so completely or (b) could wrap themselves up into such a tight "steel joint." The direction of energy forces to achieve is most curious.
Finally, we have the "meteorite", which is noteworthy for how it fuses together various materials. What sort of heat source created this?
Horseshoe
When heating a localized area of a large piece of metal, the caveat is that metal can be great conductors of heat.
The ramifications are that more intense heat (and/or time) are required to get a localized area of a large piece of metal heated to the point where it can be easily bent. Given that time was in very short supply during the towers' decimation when this "lucky horseshoe" would have been created, the extrapolation is that the heat source was massive and probably well beyond the abilities of chemical explosive materials.
When science literate people study this and try to associate this evidence with chemical incendiaries or explosives, they should be left with questions that can't be easily answered.
- Why was this core column not cut there?
- How close was this core column to the neighboring core column that would have been rigged with such incendiary or explosive?
- How much higher temperature does the incendiary or explosive have to burn to not only do its job on the target column but to also span the distance to a neighboring column and to heat a localized area to allow bending into a horseshoe?
- How quickly could this incendiary or explosive on a core column heat a localized portion of a neighboring column to the bending point? [While Dr. Jones and Mr. Jon Cole have done experiments with thermite to show how quickly in human terms (many seconds) it accomplishes its task, the nature of the anomaly within the towers destruction suggests that it would have had to have happened several orders of magnitude faster (milliseconds or less.)]
Now let's discuss bent pieces of metal, most of them compliments of Dr. Judy Wood's collected images:
The images above suggest that they were heated end-to-end (as if in a furnace) in order to achieve the smooth arcing of those massive beams. If an incendiary or explosive is attached to a column in a localized fashion, how could it achieve end-to-end effects? Could the brisance of RDX blast a beam out of shape into a horseshoe or arch? RDX could probably blast a steel beam to pieces, but to get it to bend at a localized spot without fracture or stress marks is another matter.
While fast & hot and designed to cut or tear where they were mounted, such "conventional" mechanisms come up short in explaining these smooth end-to-end bends. The arched beam evidence suggest a massive heat source several orders of magnitude hotter than conventional or exotic chemical mechanisms that would (a) fully heat the metal beams end-to-end (b) in a very short period of time.
The following images imply proximity to a destructive mechanism in a completely different ballpark than a conventional incendiary or explosive.
In the following images, note the wall assemblies are rolled up like "steel doobies". The "steel doobie" is a piece of external wall assembly from the towers. Normally, it consisted of three vertical steel beams that were connected by three horizontal steel spandrels or bands. It was ~not~ found under the rubble.
In the last image, the steel doobie stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris towards the left in your image. (I'm told this is Liberty Street, which means it got thrown out of the towers that distance as well.) The first steel doobie wasn't under the rubble either. So, one can't malframe the discussion that "a pile of material weighing thousands of tons on top of them" deformed them into what they are.
Note also how the interior and exterior sides of these wall assemblies are "steam cleaned", meaning they have no paint or other things attached to them.
What forces were at play that could get this wall assembly to wrap itself into a "steel doobie"? Hint: the normal forces acting on the wall assembly were primarily downward from the weight of upper floors. The "steel doobie" clearly shows that violent horizontal forces were at play, which resulted in both the rolling of "steel doobie" and its ejection so far away. A conventional incendiary or explosive cannot explain how the spandrels that connected the three beams in a wall assembly (a) could be heated so completely or (b) could wrap themselves up into such a tight "steel joint." The direction of energy forces to achieve is most curious.
Finally, we have the "meteorite", which is noteworthy for how it fuses together various materials. What sort of heat source created this?
24. Nuclear Flash and some September Clues
An often-deployed argument against nuclear hijinks at the WTC has to do with a nuclear flash.
Large nuclear detonations? Fission? Fission-triggered fusion?
Or is it a neutron nuclear DEW detonation that aims its highly energetic neutron beam upwards (and resulting explosive and heat yield) from within the very core of the structure? The objection assumes too much, because with the configuration championed here, the structure -- both inner core and outer wall assemblies -- would shield the tactical nuclear detonation.
Tenants in the towers report evidence of construction coming from other floors not occupied. They noted fine layers of dust on their desks and computers on certain mornings. One former tenant related a story of hearing active construction on an empty floor over a period of time and then one day following his curiosity to sneak a look at what they were building. Expecting to see walls delineating office space or structure for raised computer floors, etc., he saw nothing but an empty floor, nothing that would indicate they were doing construction for occupancy by a new tenant.
This article, therefore, speculates that the construction could have related to re-enforcements and shielding material being put into place that would help block a nuclear flash further among other strategic goals.
The counter-arguments against the lack of a nuclear flash being indicative of no nukes ends with a brief speculative nugget mining expedition into September Clues.
Be that as it may, readers are reminded that, to be believable, all disinformation must be built initially on a solid foundation of truth before introducing the skew. One definite nugget of truth to be gleamed by September Clues is that media manipulation did happen. However, the media manipulation probably did not happen to the extreme extent peddled by September Clues. Hints into September Clues' deceit are that they have nothing or very lame speculation to fill the void that their sweeping dismissal of all imagery creates and that they are all or nothing extremists: all imagery is tainted, and none of the imagery is valid.
Here is an errant nugget of truth from September Clues that prove some degree of media manipulation happening on 9/11. There are four different versions of the live helicopter shot of the 2nd plane coming in: (1) one with nothing visible hitting the tower, just harbor background and the visible fireball explosion at the tower; (2) one with a reflective orb on a trajectory to the tower with the harbor background followed by the explosion; (3) one that masked out the harbor background with sky and showed a pixel plane coming from a different direction followed by the explosion; and (4) one with the orb replaced by a hazy plane on the harbor background. The four versions prove that somebody was playing around with it.
Furthermore, September Clues was bolstering this case by showing side-by-side imagery from certain networks to prove from (a) the angle and perspective, (b) the timing of zoom and focus, etc. that the shots had a single-source. However, what was most curious is that the different networks feeds had slightly different chromatic skews. Some were hued more blue, some were hued more yellow, some were hued more gray, and some were "normal."
This nugget is being re-purposed to prove that digital filtering was at play in the 9/11 media imagery. Moreover, this technique of digital filtering and other digital signal processing would enable further manipulation of the imagery to, speculatively, mask out any wayward nuclear flashes.
This weak, speculative argument will not be defended with any vim or vigor by the author, because this author believes the nuclear flash would have been mitigated primarily by (1) the design of the devices [e.g., enhanced radiation weapon], (2) the configuration of the device [e.g., aimed upwards], (3) construction for the devices [e.g., what might have been built or re-enforced in the towers for them], and (4) deployment of the devices [e.g., within the towers' inner-cores]. Plus, it isn't as if fireballs at least weren't present and visible at "collapse initiation," because they were.
The fact is that the profile of a nuclear destruction of the WTC would differ substantially from the known profile of the chemical demolition. One of these would be the tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation. The walls of the buildings would not contain this like normal light.The tell-tale blinding flash of a nuclear detonation? What type of detonation is being referred to?
Large nuclear detonations? Fission? Fission-triggered fusion?
Or is it a neutron nuclear DEW detonation that aims its highly energetic neutron beam upwards (and resulting explosive and heat yield) from within the very core of the structure? The objection assumes too much, because with the configuration championed here, the structure -- both inner core and outer wall assemblies -- would shield the tactical nuclear detonation.
Tenants in the towers report evidence of construction coming from other floors not occupied. They noted fine layers of dust on their desks and computers on certain mornings. One former tenant related a story of hearing active construction on an empty floor over a period of time and then one day following his curiosity to sneak a look at what they were building. Expecting to see walls delineating office space or structure for raised computer floors, etc., he saw nothing but an empty floor, nothing that would indicate they were doing construction for occupancy by a new tenant.
This article, therefore, speculates that the construction could have related to re-enforcements and shielding material being put into place that would help block a nuclear flash further among other strategic goals.
The counter-arguments against the lack of a nuclear flash being indicative of no nukes ends with a brief speculative nugget mining expedition into September Clues.
Brief Detour into September Clues
September Clues is most certainly a clever disinformation effort, whereby they call into question the very voracity of every single snippet of media by claiming it was manipulated and somehow tainted, and therefore nothing can be trusted. [In paraphrasing President Ronald Reagan, we should "(dis)trust but verify."] September Clues presents many crafty pieces of media analysis that can be difficult for lay-people to disprove. This author admits to having been duped by the NPT (no planes theory, referring to the WTC), but no more. September Clues' body of work is a questionably small subset of the available media that they extrapolate to the whole of every single snippet of media. When put to the test on a handful of specific images from Dr. Wood's work, the results of proving tainting were about 50% -- before they banned this author for the direction being headed.Be that as it may, readers are reminded that, to be believable, all disinformation must be built initially on a solid foundation of truth before introducing the skew. One definite nugget of truth to be gleamed by September Clues is that media manipulation did happen. However, the media manipulation probably did not happen to the extreme extent peddled by September Clues. Hints into September Clues' deceit are that they have nothing or very lame speculation to fill the void that their sweeping dismissal of all imagery creates and that they are all or nothing extremists: all imagery is tainted, and none of the imagery is valid.
Here is an errant nugget of truth from September Clues that prove some degree of media manipulation happening on 9/11. There are four different versions of the live helicopter shot of the 2nd plane coming in: (1) one with nothing visible hitting the tower, just harbor background and the visible fireball explosion at the tower; (2) one with a reflective orb on a trajectory to the tower with the harbor background followed by the explosion; (3) one that masked out the harbor background with sky and showed a pixel plane coming from a different direction followed by the explosion; and (4) one with the orb replaced by a hazy plane on the harbor background. The four versions prove that somebody was playing around with it.
September Clues Nugget for Nukes
One of the September Clues episodes documented how all of the networks were seemingly sharing their footage, or rather, getting their critical footage from the same single-sources. They were being fed the important imagery. [Let's remember that control of the media is a strategic military objective in all conflicts.]Furthermore, September Clues was bolstering this case by showing side-by-side imagery from certain networks to prove from (a) the angle and perspective, (b) the timing of zoom and focus, etc. that the shots had a single-source. However, what was most curious is that the different networks feeds had slightly different chromatic skews. Some were hued more blue, some were hued more yellow, some were hued more gray, and some were "normal."
This nugget is being re-purposed to prove that digital filtering was at play in the 9/11 media imagery. Moreover, this technique of digital filtering and other digital signal processing would enable further manipulation of the imagery to, speculatively, mask out any wayward nuclear flashes.
This weak, speculative argument will not be defended with any vim or vigor by the author, because this author believes the nuclear flash would have been mitigated primarily by (1) the design of the devices [e.g., enhanced radiation weapon], (2) the configuration of the device [e.g., aimed upwards], (3) construction for the devices [e.g., what might have been built or re-enforced in the towers for them], and (4) deployment of the devices [e.g., within the towers' inner-cores]. Plus, it isn't as if fireballs at least weren't present and visible at "collapse initiation," because they were.
25. EMP and Electromagnetic Energy
An EMP (electromagnetic pulse) is one of the side-effects of a nuclear detonation. The EMP would have been mitigated by many factors, like
(1) the design of the device in terms of tactical yield,
(2) the placement of the device, like all of the steel surrounding at the core where they would have placed the devices plus the outer wall assemblies,
(3) debris,
(4) the distance from the detonation, and
(5) other buildings.
It is speculated that the neutron devices deployed on 9/11 were staged in the WTC towers' core. The core, the outer steel wall assemblies, and the floor assemblies would have helped shield this side-effect. Of the small EMP produced by these tactical neutron devices, much of could be contained. What wasn't, I speculate, slipped out through window slits or gaps in the debris to cause the vehicle damage on West Broadway and the parking lot.
An EMP can induce large Eddy currents in metal that it hits line-of-sight. The magnitude of the Eddy currents depends on distance from source and how much surface area gets hit (e.g., isn't shaded by obstacles.) Sufficiently large Eddy currents would generate heat in the metal that could be great enough to cause paint on the metal as well as rubber & plastic & things touching the metal to burn (e.g., door seals, door handles, plastic gas caps, etc.) Once a portion of the car is on fire, it becomes easy for other combustible things on the car to burn (or not).
An EMP can destroy electronics in a similar fashion just from the induced currents heating circuit boards to fuse traces together, as well as from overwhelming the doping and biases of semiconductor devices.
EMP would induce electric currents in metals, but not flags, trees, leaves, paper, or people.
Very telling is EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony, where a car's door popped right off its hinges and laterally outwards and actually smacked her into the wall. It could be indicative of an EMP heating the door and expanding it within its constraining door frame to the point it pops out. Patricia Ondrovic does talk about her hair and paramedic coat catching on fire. She left the impression with me that it was not the dust, but was the after-effects of another car exploding right next to her.
(1) the design of the device in terms of tactical yield,
(2) the placement of the device, like all of the steel surrounding at the core where they would have placed the devices plus the outer wall assemblies,
(3) debris,
(4) the distance from the detonation, and
(5) other buildings.
It is speculated that the neutron devices deployed on 9/11 were staged in the WTC towers' core. The core, the outer steel wall assemblies, and the floor assemblies would have helped shield this side-effect. Of the small EMP produced by these tactical neutron devices, much of could be contained. What wasn't, I speculate, slipped out through window slits or gaps in the debris to cause the vehicle damage on West Broadway and the parking lot.
An EMP can induce large Eddy currents in metal that it hits line-of-sight. The magnitude of the Eddy currents depends on distance from source and how much surface area gets hit (e.g., isn't shaded by obstacles.) Sufficiently large Eddy currents would generate heat in the metal that could be great enough to cause paint on the metal as well as rubber & plastic & things touching the metal to burn (e.g., door seals, door handles, plastic gas caps, etc.) Once a portion of the car is on fire, it becomes easy for other combustible things on the car to burn (or not).
An EMP can destroy electronics in a similar fashion just from the induced currents heating circuit boards to fuse traces together, as well as from overwhelming the doping and biases of semiconductor devices.
EMP would induce electric currents in metals, but not flags, trees, leaves, paper, or people.
Very telling is EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony, where a car's door popped right off its hinges and laterally outwards and actually smacked her into the wall. It could be indicative of an EMP heating the door and expanding it within its constraining door frame to the point it pops out. Patricia Ondrovic does talk about her hair and paramedic coat catching on fire. She left the impression with me that it was not the dust, but was the after-effects of another car exploding right next to her.
As I was running up Vesey, the first car blew up on me on the corner of Vessey and the West Side Highway. ... I ended up running through this park, and I couldn't even see where I was running anymore. I kept running North [through North Park]... As I was running up here, two or three more cars exploded on me. They weren't near any buildings at that point, they were just parked on the street. The traffic guys hadn't gotten a chance to tow anything yet, cause this was all during the first hour I guess of this thing happening. So there were still cars parked on the street that were completely independent of that. Three cars blew up on me, stuff was being thrown.Anonymous Physicist writes:
"She [Patricia Ondrovic] tried to enter WTC 6, but was forbidden by guards. But as she looked into the lobby of WTC 6, she "saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that chase in pattern."From On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist", that also critiques Dr. Jones (a certain physicist):
This is best explained by one or more EMPs passing through that area and causing wires or lighting fixtures to "pop."
In a similar vein, is anyone foolish enough to trust a certain physicist's alleged data on his tests of a single steel beam and a friend's apartment? ... When this same physicist tries to shoot down the fact that mini-nukes were used to demolish the twin towers, he rightly knows that he has to address the issue of the evidence of EMPs (Electromagnetic Pulses). But he barely mentions it, and simply says that other factors could have caused the power outages. No mention of the toasted cars -- and not people or paper right next to them. See Ondrovic's statements already alluded to by me. Read how she was knocked down by the car door right next to her overheating from the EMP and exploding off the car and hitting her. ... That physicist knows well that there is no other explanation for these events, except EMP, so he does not include this evidence of the toasted cars or Ondrovic' eyewitness (heavily redacted) testimony.
26. Vehicle Damage
The pattern of vehicle fires was not chaotic. The vehicles affected were line-of-sight and some at quite some distance. It didn't affect shaded vehicles or those around corners, or lots of more easily combustible things, like flags, paper, leaves, trees, or people. The pattern to the burns on vehicles is notable, and just as important is the pattern of what combustible things were not torched (e.g., leaves, trees, flags, people).
Consider why cars were seemingly targeted; they contain sheet metal. Depending on magnitude, duration, & distance, electromagnetic energy can induce Eddy currents in metal, heating up the metal, causing its paint to burn, and torching rubber & plastic things affixed, touching, or adjacent to such.
Thereafter, the rest of the vehicle may or may not burn depending on other factors. Once one vehicle has flames, this can become the source for neighboring vehicles starting to burn. Dr. Wood presents More Toasted Cars to further your research.
Something of note from the fire damage exhibited in some of the images of torched vehicles in Dr. Wood's collection are the delineation of where certain burn patterns start and end. Some instances (like a police car 1 on West Broadway facing away from the WTC) seem to show its rear end having been burned by a line-of-sight EMP, but the fire did not progress beyond the natural boundary of the rear doors, as if the Eddy currents were generated there.
Police car 1
Police car 1 (another view)
Disclaimer: police car 1 was just behind a mail truck that was also on fire (seen below). More views from this police car, Figure 9(a). In this one instance, it could be argued that the proximity of a burning mail truck to the rear of the police car caused the fire damage on the police car. However, one is left with still explaining how the mail truck as well as vehicles not as close on the same side of the street and the other side of the street caught on fire, as seen in the image before WTC-7 came down. Plus, explanations for the other anomalous "pattern" fire damage from other vehicles are needed, which EMP does.
Police car 2
Police car 3. Car 2723 was towed here to the bridge. Other pictures exist of it at another location.
Police Pickup
Ambulance
FDNY car
Proximity of one flaming vehicle to another can and does determine whether or not the second vehicle will go up in flames. The issue is in accounting for the torching of, say, the first vehicle in a cluster.
A discussion opponent once wrote:
Instead, we see things like sheet metal in cars targeted and not always completely, as if of a directional nature and if shading or blocking occurred (like it slipped out through window slits). It suggests something of electrical-magnetic influences that could induce large Eddy currents in the metal that would heat the metal to an extent to ignite materials with lower ignition temperatures (e.g., car paint, seals, plastic gas caps, plastic door handles, etc.)
Consider why cars were seemingly targeted; they contain sheet metal. Depending on magnitude, duration, & distance, electromagnetic energy can induce Eddy currents in metal, heating up the metal, causing its paint to burn, and torching rubber & plastic things affixed, touching, or adjacent to such.
Thereafter, the rest of the vehicle may or may not burn depending on other factors. Once one vehicle has flames, this can become the source for neighboring vehicles starting to burn. Dr. Wood presents More Toasted Cars to further your research.
Something of note from the fire damage exhibited in some of the images of torched vehicles in Dr. Wood's collection are the delineation of where certain burn patterns start and end. Some instances (like a police car 1 on West Broadway facing away from the WTC) seem to show its rear end having been burned by a line-of-sight EMP, but the fire did not progress beyond the natural boundary of the rear doors, as if the Eddy currents were generated there.
Police car 1
Police car 1 (another view)
Police car 2
Police car 3. Car 2723 was towed here to the bridge. Other pictures exist of it at another location.
Police Pickup
Ambulance
FDNY car
A discussion opponent once wrote:
[Dr. Judy Wood's] "toasted cars" for example are simply cars that were exposed to the heat and damage of the explosives and/or pyroclastic flow generated by the explosives.I disagree with this strongly. It is the "specificity" of the destruction that rules out "pyroclastic flow generated by explosives" and suggests that we look for another mechanism as the destruction source. For example, had there been a "hot" (or flaming) pyroclastic flow, it would have torched paper, leaves, trees, flags, humans, etc. in its path.
Instead, we see things like sheet metal in cars targeted and not always completely, as if of a directional nature and if shading or blocking occurred (like it slipped out through window slits). It suggests something of electrical-magnetic influences that could induce large Eddy currents in the metal that would heat the metal to an extent to ignite materials with lower ignition temperatures (e.g., car paint, seals, plastic gas caps, plastic door handles, etc.)
27. Hot and Spicy Thermitic Particulates and Cars
As alternative 9/11 Tetris theory stack, "hot and spicy thermitic particulates blown from the disintegrating towers" has been brought up many times. Unfortunately, this pyroclastic cloud had a considerable distance -- a cooling one at that -- to locate the sheet-metal on vehicles along West Broadway and in the car park. Moreover, this pyroclastic cloud easily went around corners and into places much closer with more easily combustible materials, like neighboring buildings, without causing the expected fires, if the cloud had been so "hot and spicy."
Dr. Jenkins gets it right by faulting Dr. Wood for her analysis of vehicles that were towed to new locations, like the police car at the bridge. However, he makes light of the damage to the vehicles.
No doubt that serial-type burning of vehicles parked closely in the parking lot occurred to a degree.
Dr. Jenkins speculates:
Here's some nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood's website. They show the sequence of when fires started in the parking lot. The quotations are from Dr. Wood. She correctly asks why the "hot-and-spicy dust" does not catch paper, leaves, people, etc. on fire? The fires do not all originate in the engine/battery area [and I am presently stumped to speculate on where within a turned-off automobile a fire from conducting dust could be achieved other than right at the battery. Due to configuration of air conditioning vents, it would be a challenge for unfiltered, conductive dust to wind its way to the insides of the vehicle and then into the compartments of powered-portions of a turned-off vehicle (e.g., security system, clock) in order to short them into igniting a fire.]
[Image20swamp.jpg] West Broadway with WTC-5 on fire at the end. You can see WTC-7.
[Image16.jpg] West Broadway looking the other direction; you can see the same torched bus.
081swamp.jpg
080.jpg
Very selective those burning particulates in the dust cloud.
When all four images are taken into consideration, only one tree looks charred mostly because of the overall darkness of the scene due to smoke clouding the sun and soot on the trees. When the same trees are observed several days later [after a rain storm that may have washed some of the soot away], the tree in the middle still has greenish leaves (not brown, black, or missing). The trunks of all of the trees show little in the way of fire damage from burning particulates in the dust clouds.
What caused the vehicles (line-of-sight) to get torched, and not other combustible things and things not line-of-sight (as shown by the reporter's video)?
There's a great video of WCBS reporter Vince Dimentri coming out from WTC-7 who didn't know really where he was [West Broadway and Barkley] but was commenting on the damage looking like a war zone.
Dr. Jenkins gets it right by faulting Dr. Wood for her analysis of vehicles that were towed to new locations, like the police car at the bridge. However, he makes light of the damage to the vehicles.
No doubt that serial-type burning of vehicles parked closely in the parking lot occurred to a degree.
Dr. Jenkins speculates:
One mechanism which would ignite vehicles, buildings, paper, and other flammables in the vicinity of GZ is burning material ejected during the collapse of the towers. Also, it is well established that extremely hot metal and glass were ejected from the collapsing towers which could easily ignite flammable material.If such ejaculations of hot metal and glass happened, the issues are: (a) Remnants of such items would have been present on the targets. They weren't, except for dust in cases. (b) The targets wouldn't have been just vehicles but would have been trees, leaves, paper, and humans.
Here's some nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood's website. They show the sequence of when fires started in the parking lot. The quotations are from Dr. Wood. She correctly asks why the "hot-and-spicy dust" does not catch paper, leaves, people, etc. on fire? The fires do not all originate in the engine/battery area [and I am presently stumped to speculate on where within a turned-off automobile a fire from conducting dust could be achieved other than right at the battery. Due to configuration of air conditioning vents, it would be a challenge for unfiltered, conductive dust to wind its way to the insides of the vehicle and then into the compartments of powered-portions of a turned-off vehicle (e.g., security system, clock) in order to short them into igniting a fire.]
Pay attention to the trees and their leaves in the following four images.
Figure toast1. After WTC2 was destroyed there don't appear to be any fires.
Figure toast2a. The cloud from the destruction of WTC1 rolls toward the parking lot.
Figure toast2b. Just after WTC1 is destroyed, fires start to burn the vehicles in the large lot, but not the paper. Why?
Figure toast3. The vehicle fires increase in strength as sun light begins to emerge through the clearing dust cloud.
Figure toast4. The air upwind of the WTC has visibly become clearer. The vehicle fires continue increasing and flames can be seen.
Figure toast6. Sunlight begins streaming through the intersection.
Figure toast7 The intersection and the grassy lot are covered with paper and dust that did not burn. So, what caused the vehicles to suddenly catch fire?
Figure toast8. How did these cars catch on fire?
[Image20swamp.jpg] West Broadway with WTC-5 on fire at the end. You can see WTC-7.
[Image16.jpg] West Broadway looking the other direction; you can see the same torched bus.
081swamp.jpg
080.jpg
When all four images are taken into consideration, only one tree looks charred mostly because of the overall darkness of the scene due to smoke clouding the sun and soot on the trees. When the same trees are observed several days later [after a rain storm that may have washed some of the soot away], the tree in the middle still has greenish leaves (not brown, black, or missing). The trunks of all of the trees show little in the way of fire damage from burning particulates in the dust clouds.
What caused the vehicles (line-of-sight) to get torched, and not other combustible things and things not line-of-sight (as shown by the reporter's video)?
There's a great video of WCBS reporter Vince Dimentri coming out from WTC-7 who didn't know really where he was [West Broadway and Barkley] but was commenting on the damage looking like a war zone.
Car after car after car and buses completely obliterated and burned down to the steel... That gaping hole? That's where one of the twin towers stood.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR0IL7K39v4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI10oG1Gzrg&feature=related
The timing of when images were taken can mislead. Certainly much paper debris came flowing in with the dust (although it wasn't flying in on fire). The amount of dust on paper can provide some indication of how long the paper might have been there. Possibly some [but not necessarily all] of the undamaged emergency vehicles near WTC-7 observed in the background of the reporter's piece may have arrived after the torching of vehicles on West Broadway but before the reporter. But some of the undamaged vehicles appear to have been ~not~ line-of-sight to where the towers were and may have been shielded by the Federal Building and WTC-7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI10oG1Gzrg&feature=related
28. Conductive, Corrosive and Abrasive Dust and Vehicle Fires
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins made some statements in "Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics -DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence" relating to the vehicle damage (with author's emphasis added):
[2] More troubling to Dr. Jenkins speculative theory is that the vehicles were torched in certain cases seemingly from the outside-in or strange patterns that did not impact the engine/battery area. The vehicles were turned off and parked, which significantly limits the active electrical circuits & places within the engine/battery/starter area that could be shorted together to start a fire immediately: like between the two battery terminals. If you put a highly conductive metal screw driver across the battery terminals, you'll get a spark; you might even get the battery to explode; whether or not this will lead to fire in the engine compartment depends. Right across the battery terminals or at the starter are pretty damn near the only locations within the engine area that could possibly cause a fire, and the electrical conduction of the dust would have to be assured and not intermittent or flaky.
Dr. Jenkins drops a lot of innuendo about conductive elements measured within the dusts (true), but that doesn't measure up when talking "point A to point B conductivity" that would cause a fire igniting short. Dr. Jenkins seems to believe in "magic dust" that can wind its way under the hood and across the battery terminals (or starter terminals) in sufficient and conductive quantities, or that could wind its way through the air filters and into the passenger compartment behind the dash and into the cooling vent holes of constantly powered electrical devices (e.g., security systems, clocks, or stereos) to cause conductive-dust shorting leading to vehicle fires.
While dust can cause electric shorting in real-world dusty and humid environments, it is something that often takes significant time to happen.
[3] Dr. Jenkins speculative theory does not match the evidence of timing of the "spuriously ignited vehicle fires". He implies that a thicker layer of dust deposits may have been required to ignite the vehicles Vesey/West Street parking lot and West Broadway/Park Place. EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony, among others, discounts this view. The cars were "popping off" well before a "thicker layer of dust deposits" could work its way into the engine cavity and, say, short the battery. She also talks about a car door popping horizontally right out of its hinges and smacking her into a wall. It was not because the car was on fire, because it wasn't. [Refer to the section on "EMP and Electromagnetic Energy."]
Another Witness to EMP:
Dust which may be conductive can short electrical systems in vehicles which might spuriously ignite vehicle fires. Metallic particles, various carbonaceous molecules (constituents of soot, graphite, some office toners, etc.), moisture mixing with the many cations, anions, and salts, are all constituents of the dust which conduct. The electrical conduction of the dust will depend upon the thickness deposited. Thicker dust results in higher electrical conduction.[1] This is a highly speculative effort from Dr. Jenkins used to explain torched vehicles. And it doesn't match real world expectations. Farm/Ranch work is a very dusty endeavor. It takes a very long time for dust and environmental (e.g., humid) conditions to reach accumulation levels that would lead to shorting or other electrical problems in such equipment.
This may explain why the Vesey/West Street parking lot and West Broadway/Park Place vehicles were not ignited by the initial dust cloud from the South tower, but required the subsequent added dust from the North tower collapse. Once the fires had stripped the paint from the vehicles, the heated steel from the fire caused rapid surface oxidation. Steel will rapidly oxidize on the surface when exposed to high temperatures, moisture, and a ready supply of oxygen.
[2] More troubling to Dr. Jenkins speculative theory is that the vehicles were torched in certain cases seemingly from the outside-in or strange patterns that did not impact the engine/battery area. The vehicles were turned off and parked, which significantly limits the active electrical circuits & places within the engine/battery/starter area that could be shorted together to start a fire immediately: like between the two battery terminals. If you put a highly conductive metal screw driver across the battery terminals, you'll get a spark; you might even get the battery to explode; whether or not this will lead to fire in the engine compartment depends. Right across the battery terminals or at the starter are pretty damn near the only locations within the engine area that could possibly cause a fire, and the electrical conduction of the dust would have to be assured and not intermittent or flaky.
Dr. Jenkins drops a lot of innuendo about conductive elements measured within the dusts (true), but that doesn't measure up when talking "point A to point B conductivity" that would cause a fire igniting short. Dr. Jenkins seems to believe in "magic dust" that can wind its way under the hood and across the battery terminals (or starter terminals) in sufficient and conductive quantities, or that could wind its way through the air filters and into the passenger compartment behind the dash and into the cooling vent holes of constantly powered electrical devices (e.g., security systems, clocks, or stereos) to cause conductive-dust shorting leading to vehicle fires.
While dust can cause electric shorting in real-world dusty and humid environments, it is something that often takes significant time to happen.
[3] Dr. Jenkins speculative theory does not match the evidence of timing of the "spuriously ignited vehicle fires". He implies that a thicker layer of dust deposits may have been required to ignite the vehicles Vesey/West Street parking lot and West Broadway/Park Place. EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony, among others, discounts this view. The cars were "popping off" well before a "thicker layer of dust deposits" could work its way into the engine cavity and, say, short the battery. She also talks about a car door popping horizontally right out of its hinges and smacking her into a wall. It was not because the car was on fire, because it wasn't. [Refer to the section on "EMP and Electromagnetic Energy."]
Another Witness to EMP:
[Robert Ruiz, EMT] his utter incredulity at watching a car completely catch on fire for no discernible reason is clear…. Ruiz just barely escaped WTC 2 being destroyed. First he describes the ground near him shaking before the "collapse" starts. This could be evidence of an underground nuclear bomb going off before the top was brought down. He says, the ground shakes, then WTC 2 starts to come down, and he runs and survives under a nearby doorway. Ruiz then states, "I was trapped there. Like things weren't bad enough already, the car that's parked right on that corner catches on fire. I don't mean a little fire, the entire thing. Don't ask me how. The entire car caught on fire. You would think maybe just a motor part or just the engine part. But this entire car just goes up in fire."….The Massive Evidence of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) During WTC Destruction on 9/11, & Combating the Fetzer-Prager-Jones Op-Plan of Denying It
Again both Ondrovic would have been vaporized or melted if neutron fluxes did that to the cars right near them. They were not directly affected by the cars catching fire, except for Ondrovic being injured when the door flung off the car and hit her. This was not neutrons; nothing but EMPs can account for this.
29. Other Neighboring Buildings and Embrittlement
The Banker's Trust Building across from the WTC at 130 Liberty Street had facade damage from the decimated towers, which they repaired after 9/11. But before the building could be occupied, the building was torn down. Why?
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins made some statements in "Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics -DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence" relating to his analysis of an extensive study of the Banker's Trust building performed by the RJ Lee Group.
Dust in computer/electrical systems over time would definitely start to cause problems, like intermittent shorting. But under normal circumstances, it can take a significant period of time before dust and humidity compromise electrical equipment, from circuit boards to electric motors. More importantly, in order for the dust to cause immediate problems of this corrosive nature, the dust would have to be highly conductive.
Owing to the severity of the facade damage from some heavy pieces of the wall assemblies that were thrown great distances, maybe this served to unprotect critical structural elements. From what? The Banker's Trust was not set on fire.
Embrittlement, perhaps?
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins made some statements in "Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics -DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence" relating to his analysis of an extensive study of the Banker's Trust building performed by the RJ Lee Group.
The WTC Dust and WTC Hazardous Substances contaminating the Buildings' mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are conductive, corrosive and abrasive. WTC Dust has permeated every component in the [Banker's Trust] Building. The WTC Dust has been shown to be corrosive to unprotected metal, to affect the conductivity of circuit boards in a manner that will cause intermittent failures, and to be severely abrasive when present in lubricants at only five percent of the volume.
Detour into Real-World Dust
Whenever hand-soldering components to circuit boards, the rule from "solder school" was that the flux applied in the soldering process to facilitate heat transfer had to be removed when finished soldering. One might assume wrongly that the petroleum based flux might serve as a protective barrier on top of the Pb solder and metal lead from the electrical component to prevent water from getting in. The authoritative correction is:"Flux would indeed protect the solder joint in the manner described, but for a short time. Flux left on the circuit board would attract dust. Dust in harsh, hot, and humid environments would attract moisture. That moisture collected by the dust particles that the flux attracted over time would corrode the leads and electrical connections."A similar principle is how dust over time can destroy electric three-phase motors. Such dust on the coils or windings would attract moisture from the humidity in the air that could eventually weaken or corrode wire insulation at spots that then might allow tiny internal arching between windings of a coil. Sometimes this has the effect of isolating a loop from the rest of the coil, that then becomes somewhat of a secondary winding for the electromagnetic flux inherent in the motor to couple with like an accidental transformer. The high currents induced in that isolated loop burns off more insulation, electrically shorts more parts of the coil, and unbalances the phases even more. However, it can take sometimes years for the first defects to manifest, followed by many months of heavy usage before imbalances grew to negatively impact motor performance, followed by still more months before total failure.
Dust in computer/electrical systems over time would definitely start to cause problems, like intermittent shorting. But under normal circumstances, it can take a significant period of time before dust and humidity compromise electrical equipment, from circuit boards to electric motors. More importantly, in order for the dust to cause immediate problems of this corrosive nature, the dust would have to be highly conductive.
Embrittlement
While the concerns over the unique nature WTC dust are valid, they do not add up to sufficient reasoning to demolish a building. Otherwise, the same reasoning would have been applied to all other buildings in a much greater radius from the WTC. The steel in the building had protective coatings intact. The mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are all designed to be maintained and to have critical portions replaced. Dust -- no matter how conductive, corrosive, and abrasive -- can be cleaned out.Owing to the severity of the facade damage from some heavy pieces of the wall assemblies that were thrown great distances, maybe this served to unprotect critical structural elements. From what? The Banker's Trust was not set on fire.
Embrittlement, perhaps?
Embrittlement is a loss of ductility of a material, making it brittle. Various materials have different mechanisms of embrittlement. ... Metal-induced embrittlement (MIE) is the embrittlement caused by diffusion of atoms of metal, either solid or liquid, into the material. Neutron radiation causes embrittlement of some materials, neutron-induced swelling, and buildup of Wigner energy.Is neutron radiation exposure always detrimental to metals (steels)?
We talk about radiation damage and environmental degradation of metals following radiation exposure. Indeed, there have been numerous conferences and symposia held and planned on this subject, which include research work and discussions with the central theme being the damage created in materials by neutron radiation exposure. Radiation embrittlement in metals is believed to be due mainly to (1) changes in flow properties because of the interaction of dislocations with irradiation-produced defects, and (2) precipitation of transmutation-produced gases and irradiation-induced segregation at grain boundaries which are potential fracture sites.In other words, the Banker's Trust Building may have been torn down, because close inspection of the supporting steel may have discovered such "fracture sites" due to embrittlement by the neutron weapons used to destroy the WTC. Brittle supporting columns in a skyscraper are undesirable for their inability to flex without failure to wind loads. The building was hence probably deemed unsafe and demolished accordingly.
30. The dirt on that
Dr. Wood's book covers the dirt differently and truncated. More importantly, the incomplete web effort on the dirt is a glaring piece of evidence for neutron nuclear DEW.
Briefly: Neutron nuclear devices have a different radiation signature than other nukes: namely primarily the ejected highly-energetic neutron radiation that in turn energizes comparatively small amounts of short-lived alpha, beta, and gamma radiation in things they hit (and that the blast & heat wave don't obliterate). The directed energy weapon (DEW) variants of this aim the majority of the neutrons in a manner (e.g., upwards in a cone-shaped charge) that throws most of them away and reduces "collateral damage" to life forms that might otherwise be hit by a spherical emission of neutrons (e.g., the framing of battlefield neutron weapons). This configuration also reduces the blast and heat waves to tactical levels. Multiple neutron DEW devices would be needed for each tower with slight overkill numbers to account for the high probabilities of inter-device fratricide that can lead to device failure or nuclear fizzle.
One of the known radiation mitigation techniques is to spread fresh dirt over the contaminated area; allow it time to absorb alpha, beta, and gamma emissions; collect and dispose of the dirt; repeat.
This page on Dr. Wood's website with pictures of radiation mitigation techniques being implemented.
I also call readers' attentions to figure 93 above, aptly titled "clean wrinkled beams" and is an external wall assembly. This is one example of a major anomalous phenomenon observable everywhere whereby protective coatings and paint have been "burned" off of the steel. Also, the wrinkling (not just the bending) would not have been possible without a massive heat source in its vicinity in the towers to make the steel pliable before a horizontal blast wave did the shaping.
I call readers' attention to figure 94 above, where Dr. Wood notes that wrinkled beams now have dirt on them. Only really makes sense for steel beams to be getting dirt piled on them if they somehow became slightly radioactive from their proximity to a neutron nuclear destructive mechanism.
Briefly: Neutron nuclear devices have a different radiation signature than other nukes: namely primarily the ejected highly-energetic neutron radiation that in turn energizes comparatively small amounts of short-lived alpha, beta, and gamma radiation in things they hit (and that the blast & heat wave don't obliterate). The directed energy weapon (DEW) variants of this aim the majority of the neutrons in a manner (e.g., upwards in a cone-shaped charge) that throws most of them away and reduces "collateral damage" to life forms that might otherwise be hit by a spherical emission of neutrons (e.g., the framing of battlefield neutron weapons). This configuration also reduces the blast and heat waves to tactical levels. Multiple neutron DEW devices would be needed for each tower with slight overkill numbers to account for the high probabilities of inter-device fratricide that can lead to device failure or nuclear fizzle.
One of the known radiation mitigation techniques is to spread fresh dirt over the contaminated area; allow it time to absorb alpha, beta, and gamma emissions; collect and dispose of the dirt; repeat.
This page on Dr. Wood's website with pictures of radiation mitigation techniques being implemented.
Note the references to "still fuming from the wet dirt" and "still hosing down the 'pile' in March 2002", which are two other indications of nuclear fizzle.
Figure 89. Why would there be dirt sprinkled on top of the rubble pile?
Figure 97. This was the pedestrian walkway over West Street, between WFC3 and WTC6. Why would it have a huge amount of dirt in it?
Figure 91. Sprinkled with fresh dirt.
Figure 93. Clean wrinkled beams.
Figure 94. My favorite wrinkled beams now have dirt dumped on them!
Figure 98. If this amount of dirt had been contained in planting pots, there wouldn't have been room for pedestrians.
Figure 102. The four yellow dump trucks are heading south on West Street, toward the WTC complex. Each of the dump trucks carries a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.
Figure 103(a). This appears to be dirt being trucked away from the WTC complex. Why is so much dirt coming and going? The four trucks ahead of the green one carry a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.
Figure 103(b). The large truck headed south appears to be hauling dirt. This intersection is a block east of Church and Vesey, and the top of the photo is west. Broadway is the street from right to left. So, the big truck, which appears to be loaded down with landfill dirt, has driven south on Broadway, past the Vesey Street intersection. It didn't come to where it is from Vesey Street; there are no tracks on Vesey Street!
Figure 104(c). Then, yellow bulldozers appear to be scooping up and removing all of the dirt from in front of WFC1.
Figure 105. Looking east, through the core of WTC1, there is still fuming from the wet dirt.
Figure 106. Looking east, through the core of WTC1, there is still fuming from the wet dirt.
Figure 106. Why are they still hosing down the "pile" in March 2002? And why is there so much dirt, still?
I also call readers' attentions to figure 93 above, aptly titled "clean wrinkled beams" and is an external wall assembly. This is one example of a major anomalous phenomenon observable everywhere whereby protective coatings and paint have been "burned" off of the steel. Also, the wrinkling (not just the bending) would not have been possible without a massive heat source in its vicinity in the towers to make the steel pliable before a horizontal blast wave did the shaping.
I call readers' attention to figure 94 above, where Dr. Wood notes that wrinkled beams now have dirt on them. Only really makes sense for steel beams to be getting dirt piled on them if they somehow became slightly radioactive from their proximity to a neutron nuclear destructive mechanism.
31. Decibel: Can You Hear Me Now?
As part of its broom to sweep controlled demolition using chemical explosives and incendiaries off the table, the conclusion from NIST (via Wikipedia) said:
Two additional sensitive instruments are at our disposal to help NIST analyze the 9/11 decibel issue: (1) barometric pressure measurements and (2) the human ear.
How many survivors and up-close witnesses suffered severe hearing loss on 9/11? To my knowledge: Zero. Consider:
- the firemen in the WTC stairwell.
- Willy Rodriquez holed up under a fire truck in the street near the towers.
- EMT Patricia Ondrovic running down Vesey Street.
- [There are more.]
They were all easily within 1/4 mile of the towers. None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction.
Working backwards from the (minimal) hearing damage inflicted and attenuating distance from the source, we gain an idea of the decimal levels of the source. It does not match the signature characteristics for RDX enhanced nano-thermite.
It isn't a question of what "ear witness" testimony heard: "explosions" "bombs going off" "three loud booms" "bang bang bang" "like when they set off charges around a building for demolition." The question is whether or not what was heard correlates to chemical explosives, multiple neutron nuclear devices, or both.
Because Dr. Jones allegedly found energetic flakes in his dust samples, the implication has been that the towers were brought down by thermite. After it is pointed out that thermite doesn't have the brisance to achieve pulverization of even the super-course dust particles, Dr. Jones rejoins with "something like RDX was added to the mix."
Where are the published calculations on the quantities of this chemical mixture with the brisance to achieve the observed pulverization? Dr. Jones has never provided them. Ignoring those pesky hot-spots and considering only pulverization into super-course dust particles, the amount of chemical explosives is still massive. Owing to their brisance nature, their detonation would have been very loud, but owing to the massive quantities required (if we limited our thinking to this mechanism), their detonation would have been deafening: "a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile."
Let's put some perspective on the meaning of 130-140 decibels. One can refer to this link and this one, and the following quote:
This is another one of those examples where chemical explosives can't have it both ways. Cranking up the brisance to achieve pulverization (together with massive amounts) results in debilitating sound levels and deafness in victims. [The first example was that cranking up the brisance to achieve pulverization make it less likely to be able to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.]
Over the weekend of 2013-08-11, Adam Syed posted something from John Albanese, a denier of controlled demolition (using conventional chemical explosives including thermite.)
Dr. Sunder in his NIST reports and interviews made a similar argument with a straight-face: "insufficient decibel levels for controlled demolition (using chemical explosives)." Make a note of how Dr. Sunder and Mr. Albanese dubiously frame the argument, which they want the science-challenged to conclude means: "no controlled demolition; gravity did it by itself; no energy was added." In adherence to Newton's Laws, energy had to have been added, but it wasn't in the form of loud, chemical, conventional explosives. It was a controlled demolition, but who is to say how loud tactical neutron bombs would be by comparison?
As a further real-world example from 2013, consider the fertilizer plant explosion near Waco, Texas [video] . Towards the end of the short 55 second clip immediately after the explosion, the daughter from the back of the vehicle that is ~1/4 mile away is saying words to the effect, "I can't hear anything, Daddy." Apples-to-apples this is not. We know that the mechanisms of destruction are different between the fertilizer plant and the WTC towers. The point is that the brisance of chemical explosives needed for pulverization on 9/11 would have made the WTC destruction a painfully loud and deafening experience for many survivors and witnesses, just like the recent Waco explosion.
Therefore, this is another clue that the primary destructive mechanisms on the WTC was ~not~ massive quantities of chemical explosives with the brisance to pulverize.
The observed destruction [e.g., calcine concrete, iron spheres in dust, correlated percentages of various elements in the dust, TRITIUM, etc.] could be explained by small nuclear DEW (neutron weapons) directed upwards and placed every 10 floors or so. Study from Dr. Wood's book or website the damage to WTC-4 main edifice, WTC-5, and WTC-6. The leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice (9 stories) is particularly noteworthy for being sliced from its North Wing at a line and for having insufficient debris from the towers to account for the dustification of the main edifice.
Nobody ever said small nuclear DEW (neutron weapons) would be without sound. But by their very nature and location within the towers' shielding walls, their dB signature might indeed be small compared to RDX and other brissanty conventional explosives.
What is "IMPOSSIBLE" with regards to decibels and recordings is a bit of distraction from the salient point: "The WTC destruction would have been significantly louder if the primary mechanisms were chemical explosives (e.g., super-duper nano-thermite mixed with RDX.)"
The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse [of WTC-7] and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile.Some argue that sound recordings can't be used to determine how loud (or soft) the 9/11 WTC explosions were, because of the difficulty -- or they'd say "impossibility" -- of calculating decibel ratings from recorded media. Thus, they attempt to brush aside the argument about the destruction "not being loud enough to match the known characteristics of chemical explosives." The fatal assumption here is that sound recordings are the only evidence of this.
Two additional sensitive instruments are at our disposal to help NIST analyze the 9/11 decibel issue: (1) barometric pressure measurements and (2) the human ear.
How many survivors and up-close witnesses suffered severe hearing loss on 9/11? To my knowledge: Zero. Consider:
- the firemen in the WTC stairwell.
- Willy Rodriquez holed up under a fire truck in the street near the towers.
- EMT Patricia Ondrovic running down Vesey Street.
- [There are more.]
They were all easily within 1/4 mile of the towers. None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction.
Working backwards from the (minimal) hearing damage inflicted and attenuating distance from the source, we gain an idea of the decimal levels of the source. It does not match the signature characteristics for RDX enhanced nano-thermite.
It isn't a question of what "ear witness" testimony heard: "explosions" "bombs going off" "three loud booms" "bang bang bang" "like when they set off charges around a building for demolition." The question is whether or not what was heard correlates to chemical explosives, multiple neutron nuclear devices, or both.
Because Dr. Jones allegedly found energetic flakes in his dust samples, the implication has been that the towers were brought down by thermite. After it is pointed out that thermite doesn't have the brisance to achieve pulverization of even the super-course dust particles, Dr. Jones rejoins with "something like RDX was added to the mix."
Where are the published calculations on the quantities of this chemical mixture with the brisance to achieve the observed pulverization? Dr. Jones has never provided them. Ignoring those pesky hot-spots and considering only pulverization into super-course dust particles, the amount of chemical explosives is still massive. Owing to their brisance nature, their detonation would have been very loud, but owing to the massive quantities required (if we limited our thinking to this mechanism), their detonation would have been deafening: "a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile."
Let's put some perspective on the meaning of 130-140 decibels. One can refer to this link and this one, and the following quote:
The pain threshold for humans is 120-130 Decibels. Any sound above 85 dB can cause hearing loss, and the loss is related both to the power of the sound as well as the length of exposure.Let's just say that the "simply hundreds of such testimonials from those near the area, and many from those actually in the towers" comes up vastly short for those victims experiencing severe hearing loss as a result of this event.
This is another one of those examples where chemical explosives can't have it both ways. Cranking up the brisance to achieve pulverization (together with massive amounts) results in debilitating sound levels and deafness in victims. [The first example was that cranking up the brisance to achieve pulverization make it less likely to be able to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.]
Over the weekend of 2013-08-11, Adam Syed posted something from John Albanese, a denier of controlled demolition (using conventional chemical explosives including thermite.)
There were numerous videos that were taken up close. In some of the videos you hear the actual rumbling of the collapse. No bangs. In the Naudet brothers documentary BOTH collapses were caught up VERY CLOSE. no bangs. In the live TV feed showing buildings 7's collapse - again - you hear the low frequency rumbling of the collapse - but no high frequency bangs.Video manipulation happened, so the above is not definitive and is contradicted by a witnesses reported (NYPD officer Craig Bartmer on WTC-7):
9/11 was perhaps one of the most documented historical events ever recorded. this was new York with millions of people - many carrying video devices - every major network with multiple cameras transfixed in the buildings. No explosions no bangs.
Do u have any idea how loud a controlled demolition is? The idea that ambient noise - even screams - could drown it out is laughable.
The whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom."In other words, the explosions could be counted. Or, a single explosion took out multiple floors. How many floors could a mixture of RDX/Thermite (or other CD tools) take out at once and what would their decibel signature be?
Dr. Sunder in his NIST reports and interviews made a similar argument with a straight-face: "insufficient decibel levels for controlled demolition (using chemical explosives)." Make a note of how Dr. Sunder and Mr. Albanese dubiously frame the argument, which they want the science-challenged to conclude means: "no controlled demolition; gravity did it by itself; no energy was added." In adherence to Newton's Laws, energy had to have been added, but it wasn't in the form of loud, chemical, conventional explosives. It was a controlled demolition, but who is to say how loud tactical neutron bombs would be by comparison?
As a further real-world example from 2013, consider the fertilizer plant explosion near Waco, Texas [video] . Towards the end of the short 55 second clip immediately after the explosion, the daughter from the back of the vehicle that is ~1/4 mile away is saying words to the effect, "I can't hear anything, Daddy." Apples-to-apples this is not. We know that the mechanisms of destruction are different between the fertilizer plant and the WTC towers. The point is that the brisance of chemical explosives needed for pulverization on 9/11 would have made the WTC destruction a painfully loud and deafening experience for many survivors and witnesses, just like the recent Waco explosion.
Therefore, this is another clue that the primary destructive mechanisms on the WTC was ~not~ massive quantities of chemical explosives with the brisance to pulverize.
The observed destruction [e.g., calcine concrete, iron spheres in dust, correlated percentages of various elements in the dust, TRITIUM, etc.] could be explained by small nuclear DEW (neutron weapons) directed upwards and placed every 10 floors or so. Study from Dr. Wood's book or website the damage to WTC-4 main edifice, WTC-5, and WTC-6. The leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice (9 stories) is particularly noteworthy for being sliced from its North Wing at a line and for having insufficient debris from the towers to account for the dustification of the main edifice.
Nobody ever said small nuclear DEW (neutron weapons) would be without sound. But by their very nature and location within the towers' shielding walls, their dB signature might indeed be small compared to RDX and other brissanty conventional explosives.
What is "IMPOSSIBLE" with regards to decibels and recordings is a bit of distraction from the salient point: "The WTC destruction would have been significantly louder if the primary mechanisms were chemical explosives (e.g., super-duper nano-thermite mixed with RDX.)"
32. First Responder Ailments
Earlier in this article, the work of Lioy et al was mentioned. Buried in their work was their main focus of discussing the health impacts of 9/11 and to caste the blame on asbestos and pulverized gypsum dust. As was written by a supporter:
This stuff was a caustic as Drano. Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it.True. But the sudden onset of ailments and their kind is paralleled only by incidences of nuclear mishap. Acute radiation syndrome would have been experienced by few.
Acute radiation syndrome (ARS), also known as radiation poisoning, radiation sickness or radiation toxicity, is a constellation of health effects which present within 24 hours of exposure to high amounts of ionizing radiation, and may last for several months. ... Radiation exposure can also increase the probability of developing some other diseases, mainly different types of cancers. ... Radiation sickness is caused by exposure to a large dose of ionizing radiation (>~0.1 Gy) over a short period of time. ... Alpha and beta radiation have low penetrating power and are unlikely to affect vital internal organs from outside the body. Any type of ionizing radiation can cause burns, but alpha and beta radiation can only do so if radioactive contamination or nuclear fallout is deposited on the individual's skin or clothing. Gamma and neutron radiation can travel much further distances and penetrate the body easily, so whole-body irradiation generally causes ARS before skin effects are evident. Local gamma irradiation can cause skin effects without any sickness.What Is Radiation Sickness?
Ionizing radiation is radiation that produces immediate chemical effects on human tissue. X-rays, gamma rays, and particle bombardment (neutron beam, electron beam, protons, mesons, and others) give off ionizing radiation. ... Radiation exposure can also increase the probability of developing some other diseases, mainly cancer, tumors, and genetic damage.From 9/11 NUKE DEMOLITION PROOF: Firefighters Radiation Cancers "Off the Scale" (2011-04-04):
Firefighters who recovered bodies at Ground Zero are developing cancer at a faster rate than those who worked before the atrocity, medical officials have revealed. ... A seven-year study by the New York Fire Department has claimed that there are "unusual rises" in the number of cancer cases among firefighters who worked in the aftermath of 9/11. Some types of cancer among 9/11 firefighters are even "bizarrely off the charts," according to sources who have seen the as-yet-undisclosed federal-funded study. ... Dr. David Prezant, the Fire Department's chief medical officer, has reportedly said that cancer cases across "all ranks" of the FDNY who worked at Ground Zero are "up significantly". ... The New York state Health Department has confirmed that 345 Ground Zero workers have died of various cancers as of June 2010.From Prager Page 52: Part One Conclusions
1. Leukemia, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, three rare cancers, have increased dramatically and in an unprecedented number, frequency and rapidity in very young age groups never seen before.Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia, a WTC responder, rescue worker, counselor, and FEMA consultant has made many remarkable statements related to the nuking of the WTC.
2. All three of these cancers, increasing together in a select population have previously always indicated radiation exposure. The CDC study (K25 Workers), Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima data are all conclusive and in agreement on this issue as well.
[See: Robert W. Miller, M.D., and William J. Blot, Ph.D., and others, US National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Japanese National Institute Of Health Of The Ministry Of Health And Welfare, Atomic Radiation, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also see Ionizing Radiation 911, parts 1, 2 and 3 linked on a previous page. Also see: CDC study of K25 workers linked previously]
3. Increases in these cancers using September 11th as the 'start date,' specifically and most importantly; Leukemia, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma along with increases in esophageal, prostate & thyroid cancers with all of them very rapid increases often in young and otherwise healthy people indicates clearly, without ambiguity and with certainty that further study into a radioactive component of some type and design is critically required.
4. The government, in all its wisdom, decided not to cover cancer in the Zadroga Bill while cancer deaths in First Responders are exploding like the Twin Towers on 911.
5. The EPA, Congress and the military and other governmental and environmental agencies responsible for the disaster cleanup knew from the very beginning that the dust in New York City was highly toxic, caustic and contained 100s of known human poisons. Very few people knew it was radioactive.
7. Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will show that there are and were bombs tested that were 'salted' such or designed such that over 97% of their radiation was eliminated from the detonation. There was radiation, but not much, not easily measurable without sophisticated equipment, certainly not with a Geiger Counter, and not long-lasting. And it wasn't alpha, beta or gamma radiation; these are the types we usually measure. But enough to kill people, as we're seeing now. It was neutron radiation.
The rescue people - when our clothes got so contaminated, we were told not to bring our clothes off that site. Don't wear anything on the site you're not prepared to leave there because it's contaminated. ... My teeth are falling out. ... Most everybody has chronic sinusitis. They have ringing in the ears. Some people's teeth and gums are bothering them. In the last year, I've lost seven teeth. They have just broken while I was eating. I have three or four more teeth that are just dying. And my dentist says, "I've never seen anything like this in someone who's healthy. There is something wrong with you but I cannot find what it is. And I can't stop it either." ... The doctor said to me, I have - 97% of the population in American breathes more efficiently than I do. And that most of the people who are in that 3% are the people from Ground Zero. It's this debilitating, death-bed type of lung problems.Officer Sue Keane:
I had burn marks, not like you'd have from a fire, but my face was all red, my chest was redUAlbany Alumna and 9/11 First Responder Dr. Terri Tobin:
Since 2001, Tobin has had surgery each year and had two-thirds of her teeth replaced.9/11 First Responders Plagued by Health Problems From Toxic Dust and Debris
Those who worked at the WTC site seem to be at increased risk of cancer, especially thyroid cancer, melanoma and lymphoma. According to a study released of nearly 10,000 New York firefighters (half of whom worked at the WTC site), those from the site are 32 percent more likely to have cancer.From On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist", that also critiques Dr. Jones:
It later became known that they found high levels of (asbestos, mercury and other) toxins shortly after 9/11, and yet told the world, and the responders, that "the "air was safe." They lied, for quite some time, about what they had found in this sense. Now if the EPA tested for, and found, significant radiation, and/or radionuclides, and failed to tell the responders this; it resulted in the responders not wearing radiation-shielding, protective clothing. This would then likely lead to cancer and other illnesses. I note that there has been cancers, in 9/11 responders, and people living nearby; and asbestos is known to usually take far longer for its victims to get cancer. Could these cancers be the result of radiation? Cancer can be caused by even the very lowest levels of radiation. The father of the field of health physics, Dr. Karl Ziegler Morgan, has so stated.
33. Tight Security and Destruction of Evidence
For those who may not be aware, the WTC after 9/11 was ~not~ a place that just anyone could walk right into.
From Kevin R. Ryan's Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects. [Use the endnote number to locate the exact position in the book.]
On the other hand, if the truth is something else, pictures of anomalous would have to be controlled. And the ERTs (Evidence Recovery Teams) would have to purge damning pieces of evidence.
Another scene setting quote from Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia, a WTC responder and FEMA consultant:
From On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist":
From Kevin R. Ryan's "Another Nineteen":
If we're talking remnants of nuclear devices -- maybe even nuclear fizzling -- then this explains the ineffectual "extreme firefighting efforts" on the "violent and long-lasting" "fires in the debris pile" as well as the "unbelievable security."
From Kevin R. Ryan's Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects. [Use the endnote number to locate the exact position in the book.]
During the five-month cleanup effort, there were unprecedented measures taken to control access to the site. The site was restricted, and photographs were banned, by order of Rudy Giuliani. [808] Anthony Mann of E.J. Electric, one of the contractors for the WTC towers, said that "Security is unbelievable. It's really on a need-to-be-down-there basis."[809]The above quotations sets the scene. If the outcome was as the official conspiracy theory spins, there would have been no reason for the unprecedented and tight security at Ground Zero. Pictures of a gravity collapse would not be damning to anyone.
[808] Jim Hoffman, Access Restrictions: The Closure of Ground Zero to Investigators, 911Research.WTC7.net
[809] Amy Florence Fischbach, CEE News, September 20, 2001.
... Evidence Recovery Teams (ERTs) involved in the sorting process stole pieces of debris, and kept or disposed of them. This removal of debris was condoned and encouraged by the FBI agents in charge. ... The claim that these were merely souvenirs seemed unlikely considering the volume of materials stolen, and considering the WTC building 7 was the focus of much of the theft.
The restrictions on FEMA investigators and photographers and the extensive site security are all indications that something was being hidden.
... highly secure site, as well as the authority to hire suspected crime syndicate companies to perform the actual cleanup.
On the other hand, if the truth is something else, pictures of anomalous would have to be controlled. And the ERTs (Evidence Recovery Teams) would have to purge damning pieces of evidence.
Another scene setting quote from Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia, a WTC responder and FEMA consultant:
They would tackle you and take your camera away. ... When we first got there, we were told where we could go and where we couldn't go. There were different places that you were not to go to. One of the things you were not to go to and they claimed it was for safety was down in the garages, the parking garages. They were very flooded. There were a lot of problems like that. All the apartments around there were all sealed off. A lot of things were very much sealed off. ... If you spoke to civilians, you actually were reprimanded by not being allowed to go back to the pile per hour, per occurrence. So if you talked to four people, they wouldn't say anything to you on the pile. But when you got back, to come back and got ready at the Port Authority, got showered, dressed and ready to return, they'd say, "Tartaglia, you have to hold up a second, we need to talk to you for a second." And then you would have nonsensical conversations for two or three hours. [Alex Jones: Now we know that by day two, they arrested anybody with cameras. They said no over-flights, no cameras.] First of all they didn't take cameras away from everybody. They took them away from people they couldn't control. ...Readers, please accept apologies for the incomplete and disjointed quotes that follow from Kevin R. Ryan's "Another Nineteen".
... shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel -- including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns -- were gone. ... bargain price, the WTC debris was considered highly sensitive. ... The recycling of the most important steel evidence was done in a hurry, ... done so fast that the City took much less than market value for the scrap metal.The WTC clean-up were in such a "hurry to remove evidence", they sold it as scrap at below-market (bargain) prices. Note the critical pieces that "were gone", either by removal and/or the demolition means.
From On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist":
Regarding 9/11, never forget that whatever radionuclides may have been created were sent to China, or otherwise were not allowed to be studied. This remarkable article states that before the steel was shipped to China, it was "first sent to be washed down" - a standard method of decreasing radiation levels! ... The same demolition expert said of the 1993 nuke - after he examined the basement of that tower: "The particular type of construction type micronuclear device is mostly radiologically clean." So, as I indicated in my WTC nuclear demolition article, recent nuclear devices can be designed to be "steered" towards blast capability, and away from any (significant) radiation release.From Kevin R. Ryan's "Another Nineteen":
... {The response had the appearance of a} careful rescue operations. [802] But the facts also align with the hypothesis that authorities were actually in a hurry to remove evidence that pointed to the use of explosives.The above is one of many instances where Mr. Ryan frames the discussion to be "the use of explosives." However, remnants of nuclear devices (like multiple neutron nuclear DEW) would exhibit the same "hurry to remove evidence."
[802] Suzanne Mattei, Pollution and Deception at Ground Zero: How the Bush Administration's Reckless Disregard of 9/11 Toxic Hazards Poses Long-Term Threats for New York City and the Nation, Sierra Club, http://www.gothamgazette.com/rebuilding_nyc/sierraclub_report.pdf
From Kevin R. Ryan's "Another Nineteen":
... hypothesis that unexplained explosive or incendiary events were occurring at the site during the cleanup efforts. The fires in the debris pile, which were violent and long-lasting, could not be extinguished even through extreme firefighting efforts, and indicated the presence of energetic materials. [901]It isn't hard to agree that "unexplained explosive or incendiary events occurred at the site during the cleanup efforts." The cited paper notes a half dozen or so of these; spikes in the release of toxic gases. Yes, this indicates the presence of energetic materials (e.g., chemical explosives or incendiaries). The issue is that these spikes were different than what would be required to maintain the long-lasting nature of the fires.
[901] Kevin R. Ryan, et al, Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center.
If we're talking remnants of nuclear devices -- maybe even nuclear fizzling -- then this explains the ineffectual "extreme firefighting efforts" on the "violent and long-lasting" "fires in the debris pile" as well as the "unbelievable security."
34. Drills and Space Command
Among the drills happening on 9/11 were Apollo Guardian, Global Guardian, and Vigilant Guardian. From http://www.dod.mil/pubs/dswa/document.html
If 9/11 had no nuclear component, why was Global Guardian scheduled for the 9/11 drill dates?
It should be pointed out that Apollo Guardian was sponsored by Space Command. What would space command have to do with the exercises?
With 20/20 hindsight into September Clues, one of its meme's was "no planes hit the towers because it was digital fakery." The disinformation effort had many purposes but was designed to fail. The failure was a success, because once the 9/11 Truth Movement had been through the wringer on the "No Planes Theory" (at the tower), they are in no more mood to consider the valid instances of "no plane in Shanksville hole" and "no plane hitting the Pentagon cuz it flew over."
Many other examples of this exist, such as assuming that the destructive mechanisms that destroyed WTC-1 were identical to WTC-2, were identical to WTC-7, were identical to WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6. They didn't have to be.
I've never disputed [but maybe somebody should] the involvement of nano-thermite. I could be convinced it wasn't given that nano-thermite did not come up in the USGS dust samples and wasn't scraped off of beams and analyzed. What I disputed was nano-thermite's "primary role" in the destruction and being unable to account for pulverization, hot-spot duration, and anomalous vehicle damage along West Broadway and the car park.
Dr. Wood's textbook has many nuggets of truth and -- surprise, surprise -- scant few actual operational theories that give a cohesive explanation for the observed destruction. [The lack of an objective & thorough review by any leader of the 9/11 Truth Movement should be a glaring flag.]
Of the elements -- mostly from her website -- to which someone could point of Dr. Wood advocating a theory like "directed energy weapons", she could not power it or explain in a real-world operational sense how it would get its energy, while at the same time giving nuclear themes a disinfo treatment. Her detractors always want to couch her work as "beams from space."
However, the giant crater in WTC-6, the bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice at a line with its North Wing? Apollo Guardian, a US Space Command exercise? And the overplaying of the belittling and derogatory hand against the entirety of Dr. Wood's presented evidence and concepts as "beams from space"? Well, maybe beams from space were involved for those buildings. (I'm on the fence, but open to the suggestion.)
Two benefits out of many for using mixed methods in a highly orchestrated, massive, public, destruction project at the WTC would be:
(1) To validate various weapons, from nano-thermite to neutron nuclear DEW to space-based lasers (powered by Tesla or Hurricane Erin or whatever).
(2) To be able to play "the evidence of one" off of "the evidence of another" to confuse the honest researcher and general public; to purposely distract and have the public make simplified extrapolating assumptions; to purposely throw off research into one root cause by conflating with the evidence from another.
GLOBAL GUARDIANFrom http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=apollo_guardian
Annual command-level exercise sponsored by the U.S. Strategic Command in cooperation with Space Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command. The primary purpose of the exercise is to test and validate nuclear command and control and execution procedures.
Ken Merchant in fact told the 9/11 Commission that Apollo Guardian had been "running on September 11, 2001." HE is NORAD's joint exercise design manager, the National Military Command Center (NMCC) at the Pentagon. Ken Merchant called Vigilant Guardian a "full-blown nuclear war" exercise.It should be pointed out that the annual Global Guardian drill both pre- and post-9/11 has always been in October, yet in 2001 they re-scheduled it for September.
If 9/11 had no nuclear component, why was Global Guardian scheduled for the 9/11 drill dates?
It should be pointed out that Apollo Guardian was sponsored by Space Command. What would space command have to do with the exercises?
Brief Detour into Conflation
A hallmark of 9/11 has been the conflating of individual events with one another when really they need to be separated. For instance, "we saw on the telly aircraft hitting the towers, luv," therefore it is assumed that the Pentagon and the Shanksville hole were hit by aircraft.With 20/20 hindsight into September Clues, one of its meme's was "no planes hit the towers because it was digital fakery." The disinformation effort had many purposes but was designed to fail. The failure was a success, because once the 9/11 Truth Movement had been through the wringer on the "No Planes Theory" (at the tower), they are in no more mood to consider the valid instances of "no plane in Shanksville hole" and "no plane hitting the Pentagon cuz it flew over."
Many other examples of this exist, such as assuming that the destructive mechanisms that destroyed WTC-1 were identical to WTC-2, were identical to WTC-7, were identical to WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6. They didn't have to be.
I've never disputed [but maybe somebody should] the involvement of nano-thermite. I could be convinced it wasn't given that nano-thermite did not come up in the USGS dust samples and wasn't scraped off of beams and analyzed. What I disputed was nano-thermite's "primary role" in the destruction and being unable to account for pulverization, hot-spot duration, and anomalous vehicle damage along West Broadway and the car park.
Dr. Wood's textbook has many nuggets of truth and -- surprise, surprise -- scant few actual operational theories that give a cohesive explanation for the observed destruction. [The lack of an objective & thorough review by any leader of the 9/11 Truth Movement should be a glaring flag.]
Of the elements -- mostly from her website -- to which someone could point of Dr. Wood advocating a theory like "directed energy weapons", she could not power it or explain in a real-world operational sense how it would get its energy, while at the same time giving nuclear themes a disinfo treatment. Her detractors always want to couch her work as "beams from space."
End of Detour and Out of the Woods
Before the detour started, the subject was: "Apollo Guardian was sponsored by Space Command. What would space command have to do with the exercises?" To this, we add "beams from space." Not applicable to the towers or WTC-7, which this article is attributing to neutron nuclear DEW.However, the giant crater in WTC-6, the bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice at a line with its North Wing? Apollo Guardian, a US Space Command exercise? And the overplaying of the belittling and derogatory hand against the entirety of Dr. Wood's presented evidence and concepts as "beams from space"? Well, maybe beams from space were involved for those buildings. (I'm on the fence, but open to the suggestion.)
Two benefits out of many for using mixed methods in a highly orchestrated, massive, public, destruction project at the WTC would be:
(1) To validate various weapons, from nano-thermite to neutron nuclear DEW to space-based lasers (powered by Tesla or Hurricane Erin or whatever).
(2) To be able to play "the evidence of one" off of "the evidence of another" to confuse the honest researcher and general public; to purposely distract and have the public make simplified extrapolating assumptions; to purposely throw off research into one root cause by conflating with the evidence from another.
35. Nuclear Neutron Devices
A "standard" nuclear weapon typically has a heat wave, a blast wave, an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and radiation. All of these are features that can be tweaked or mitigated in the implementation (e.g., EMP inside a steel box). To be sure, a neutron weapon is designed with the trade-off of sacrificing much of its heat wave and blast wave in order to release neutron radiation in a targeted fashion.
The multiple tactical ERW weapons of 9/11 each were small directed energy weapons that were aimed where they wanted the energy: up. This can be observed in the "fountain" effects of the debris mid-way through the towers' pulverization. [Some of the damage to neighboring buildings and vehicles could be attributed to ERW becoming misaligned in the destruction.]
The radiation signature of a neutron device? Primarily highly energetic neutrons whose application in this instance directed them upwards. Secondary alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would have been at vastly reduced levels and short-lived - contrary to the mini-nukes of the standard fission or fusion variety.
From Wikipedia, "A neutron bomb, also called an enhanced radiation bomb, is a type of thermonuclear weapon. An enhanced radiation bomb is any weapon which uses fusion to enhance the production of radiation beyond that which is normal for an atomic device."
For additional reading on this topic to show I'm not the only one, refer to this Veteran's Today article.
To be successful in this nuclear plan, the perpetrators would have to limit access to the WTC: no errant measuring devices or cameras. They would have to run out the clock as best they could in terms of keeping investigators and scientific researchers at bay while giving time for alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation to deplete and for tritium to dissipate. And then they would have to manage the reports. Meanwhile, though, they couldn't keep the first responders out, and like a canary-in-a-coalmine, the rapid onset of poor health of the 1st responders resembled that of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
The multiple tactical ERW weapons of 9/11 each were small directed energy weapons that were aimed where they wanted the energy: up. This can be observed in the "fountain" effects of the debris mid-way through the towers' pulverization. [Some of the damage to neighboring buildings and vehicles could be attributed to ERW becoming misaligned in the destruction.]
The radiation signature of a neutron device? Primarily highly energetic neutrons whose application in this instance directed them upwards. Secondary alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would have been at vastly reduced levels and short-lived - contrary to the mini-nukes of the standard fission or fusion variety.
From Wikipedia, "A neutron bomb, also called an enhanced radiation bomb, is a type of thermonuclear weapon. An enhanced radiation bomb is any weapon which uses fusion to enhance the production of radiation beyond that which is normal for an atomic device."
For additional reading on this topic to show I'm not the only one, refer to this Veteran's Today article.
To be successful in this nuclear plan, the perpetrators would have to limit access to the WTC: no errant measuring devices or cameras. They would have to run out the clock as best they could in terms of keeping investigators and scientific researchers at bay while giving time for alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation to deplete and for tritium to dissipate. And then they would have to manage the reports. Meanwhile, though, they couldn't keep the first responders out, and like a canary-in-a-coalmine, the rapid onset of poor health of the 1st responders resembled that of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
36. 9/11 Tetris: The Theory Stack with the Fewest Gaps
In the game of 9/11 Tetris, the pieces of evidence come down at weird intervals and angles and must be oriented into a "theory stack" that leaves the fewest and smallest gaps. A given piece of evidence might fit equally well in multiple theory stacks. However, all of the valid evidence must be accounted for in a reasonable manner. And to make the game more challenging, disinformation is part of the mix. A piece of evidence coming from a disinformation source is not invalidated by this association.
With regards to 9/11 and the shock-&-awe global agenda that 9/11 put into effect, one could argue that all sources of information are in some ways disinformation. Remember that in order to be credible and hence successful, all disinformation must have copious amounts of truth. Owing to this and that some truths are inconvenient to the agenda, some disinformation is fashioned as a straw-man, such that when the deceit of the disinformation vehicle is discovered or purposely exposed, all "Nuggets of Truth" contained therein might be knocked from the table in the hopes of no further public consideration. "All or nothing" is the charge given those with less discerning, meaning "either everything in a work is true, or nothing is true and it can be dismissed without further study... And trust the 2nd- and 3rd-hand accounts that label it disinformation, because it was a PhD who said so."
No! "Nuggets of Truth" must be actively mined, re-fined, and re-purposed from (dis)information sources, because often they are the only source of information. In a disinformation world, you must "distrust but verify."
The "theory stack" that supposes only chemical-based explosives and incendiaries for pulverizing the towers comes up short. It has glaring gaps out of which tritium stares and astronomical quantities of unspent explosive materials spill.
The "theory stack" for "neutron nuclear DEW" orients the evidence with fewer and tighter gaps that can even explain concerted efforts to prevent the public from discovering that 9/11 was nuclear.
Evidence of "nuclear anything" has about the same PR stigma as a "toxic waste dump": nobody wants it in their backyard, their playground, their place of employment, or their commerce centers. Want to see a portion of NY city shrivel up & die as inhabitants and workers make their exits to greener, non-toxic pastures? Then let it slip out that "nuclear something" was involved. Even though the spectrum of "nuclear somethings" is very wide with respect to radiation signatures, their duration, and their impacts on human health, misconceptions will still run wild in the public sphere. The "Field of Dreams" message to Silverstein paraphrased: "If you re-build it, ain't nobody gonna come."
All over the internet, intelligent thinkers offer hints at much deeper causes, motives, and players to what is happening in the world. If any of that is given any credit as being valid with respect to the players and the nookies-and-cranies of all the arsenals of the world, then it seems rather contradictory that nuclear mechanisms get taken off the table so quickly with regards to 9/11. That was a showcase event with redundancies to their redundancies, but with shock-&-awe, baby, being first and foremost. They did not care WTF it looked like, because they were going to PR tell the masses what they wanted the masses to believe. And so it was.
The roots of government-controlled messaging are deep, but have been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions for well over a decade. A more recent embodiment of this is a 2008 Harvard paper co-written by Cass Sunstein now in the Obama administration who proposed that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites - as well as other activist groups - which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.
Mr. Daniel Noel wrote (2013-07-30):
An excerpt from 9/11 - The Defining Line of Conscience:
I have no doubt that the PTB could have nuked us and blamed someone else in a very false-flag sense. They could have even kept with the meme of 19 Muslim extremists. And the nation and I would have been eager to believe that fairy-tale, too. I suspect that the PTB through its MIC institutions were squashing this -- "9/11 censorship" --, because the ground-swell from the FOX & CNN viewers to "nuke them into a parking lot because (according to the fairy-tell) them foreign rag-head SOBs done nuked us first" would be counter-productive with the war-profiteering.
In fairness with the nuclear theme, the USA did "nuke them foreign rag-head SOBs" with depleted uranium weapons against the better judgment of just about anybody. [My mocking of the sentiments of FOX-style Hawks is not mine; it is an indication of how "the enemy was de-humanized" in the PSYOPS perpetrated on us.] The USA instigated rendition, torture, enemy combatant legal limbo status, indefinite detention without trial, drone killings, and a host of other atrocities against our nation's laws, its Constitution, and its moral & religious underpinnings.
Nuking of Iraq and Afghanistan via depleted uranium is another one of those dots in the trend line that says, "if their morals & ethics permits them to nuke their alleged enemies, then a 9/11 nuclear Pearl Harbor event at the WTC isn't beneath them either," particularly if it furthers the PNAC goals.
A gem to be plucked from all of this is that the PTB nuked us, and then went to great effort to tell us via the media and lots of "authority figures" it was something else: gravity driven pancaking pile-driver. Jonesian Thermite and Woodsian DEW were back-stops to prevent full nuclear revelation and its subsequent "hair-on-fire panic." And I believe it is why lots of 9/11 Censors who were late to the game and should've (or did) known better but played ball anyway: to preserve status quo. And it was probably "personally incentivized" upon them as well in a "deal with the devil" sense. Those who didn't play didn't last very long in Congress.
Like Iceland before us, we the people in order to form a more perfect union must establish government anew. The house-cleaning will be deep; the re-organization significant, even down to the drawing of new regional borders; could make "the guvmint of Merika" and all its institutions obsolete.
The danger is that such radical talk, instead of carving Merika into several manageable regions of autonomy, might consolidate us into the NWO plan, thereby having us play directly into their hand like sheeple that we are.
With regards to 9/11 and the shock-&-awe global agenda that 9/11 put into effect, one could argue that all sources of information are in some ways disinformation. Remember that in order to be credible and hence successful, all disinformation must have copious amounts of truth. Owing to this and that some truths are inconvenient to the agenda, some disinformation is fashioned as a straw-man, such that when the deceit of the disinformation vehicle is discovered or purposely exposed, all "Nuggets of Truth" contained therein might be knocked from the table in the hopes of no further public consideration. "All or nothing" is the charge given those with less discerning, meaning "either everything in a work is true, or nothing is true and it can be dismissed without further study... And trust the 2nd- and 3rd-hand accounts that label it disinformation, because it was a PhD who said so."
No! "Nuggets of Truth" must be actively mined, re-fined, and re-purposed from (dis)information sources, because often they are the only source of information. In a disinformation world, you must "distrust but verify."
The "theory stack" that supposes only chemical-based explosives and incendiaries for pulverizing the towers comes up short. It has glaring gaps out of which tritium stares and astronomical quantities of unspent explosive materials spill.
The "theory stack" for "neutron nuclear DEW" orients the evidence with fewer and tighter gaps that can even explain concerted efforts to prevent the public from discovering that 9/11 was nuclear.
Evidence of "nuclear anything" has about the same PR stigma as a "toxic waste dump": nobody wants it in their backyard, their playground, their place of employment, or their commerce centers. Want to see a portion of NY city shrivel up & die as inhabitants and workers make their exits to greener, non-toxic pastures? Then let it slip out that "nuclear something" was involved. Even though the spectrum of "nuclear somethings" is very wide with respect to radiation signatures, their duration, and their impacts on human health, misconceptions will still run wild in the public sphere. The "Field of Dreams" message to Silverstein paraphrased: "If you re-build it, ain't nobody gonna come."
All over the internet, intelligent thinkers offer hints at much deeper causes, motives, and players to what is happening in the world. If any of that is given any credit as being valid with respect to the players and the nookies-and-cranies of all the arsenals of the world, then it seems rather contradictory that nuclear mechanisms get taken off the table so quickly with regards to 9/11. That was a showcase event with redundancies to their redundancies, but with shock-&-awe, baby, being first and foremost. They did not care WTF it looked like, because they were going to PR tell the masses what they wanted the masses to believe. And so it was.
The roots of government-controlled messaging are deep, but have been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions for well over a decade. A more recent embodiment of this is a 2008 Harvard paper co-written by Cass Sunstein now in the Obama administration who proposed that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites - as well as other activist groups - which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.
Mr. Daniel Noel wrote (2013-07-30):
Accordingly, the most dangerous 9/11 conspirators, contrary to what many 9/11 dissidents believe, are not the actual agents of terror, nor the much more numerous public servants who engineered their cover and protection, but the still more numerous watchdogs who have knowingly been sending for a decade their gullible supporters on wild goose chases - like ending the open-ended Afghan war - that 9/11 Truth would nullify.The news and media have tried to advertise themselves as being one of those watchdogs, the fourth estate, right? The representatives of our local interests who should have been aware, or listening to their constituents (and as a result researching on their own) would be another. I guess it would be fair to say that this is a great example of how money in politics talked, because money for elective office was given by TPTB (the powers that be) through their tax-dodging 501(c)3 [or whatever IRS designation they got] to candidates who did ~not~ even speak of 9/11.
An excerpt from 9/11 - The Defining Line of Conscience:
The Litmus TestThey have acted as part of 9/11 Censors against the fact that 9/11 was nuclear, which has its very own figuratively "nuclear" connotations with regards to how the public would, should, or could react with respect to the status quo, leadership, government, government institutions, banking institutions, etc. This is in addition to the literal "nuclear" connotations with regards to what the military reaction would, should, or could be with respect to nuclear responses to those framed as the aggressors. The spoils of war that they hoped to gain would go up in mushroom clouds. What profit $$$ is there in that?
It should go without saying that anyone who promotes the official story of 9/11; anyone who accepts the official story, who oppresses those who doubt the official story, who does not question the official story, is involved or stupid.
Any presidential candidate, senator, congressman, fireman, pilot, engineer, architect… anyone who, knowing the facts, does not dispute the official story is a traitor to their nation and a tool of those who accomplished the attack.
Whether you like it or not, whether you admit it or not, every violation of our basic rights we so docilely accept - TSA cavity searches, being forced to remove your shoes in order to board a flight, metal detectors and X-Ray scanners (even in hospitals), ID checks at every turn - they all came about because of 9/11. Everything that curtails, inhibits, or restricts your everyday life today is a direct or indirect result of 9/11. Think about it.
And every one of these violations of our personal freedoms is based on a lie.
Therefore, everyone in government, in the media, in entertainment, in organized religion, in the public eye and in the public who accepts and promotes the official story is either a traitor or a tool.
I have no doubt that the PTB could have nuked us and blamed someone else in a very false-flag sense. They could have even kept with the meme of 19 Muslim extremists. And the nation and I would have been eager to believe that fairy-tale, too. I suspect that the PTB through its MIC institutions were squashing this -- "9/11 censorship" --, because the ground-swell from the FOX & CNN viewers to "nuke them into a parking lot because (according to the fairy-tell) them foreign rag-head SOBs done nuked us first" would be counter-productive with the war-profiteering.
In fairness with the nuclear theme, the USA did "nuke them foreign rag-head SOBs" with depleted uranium weapons against the better judgment of just about anybody. [My mocking of the sentiments of FOX-style Hawks is not mine; it is an indication of how "the enemy was de-humanized" in the PSYOPS perpetrated on us.] The USA instigated rendition, torture, enemy combatant legal limbo status, indefinite detention without trial, drone killings, and a host of other atrocities against our nation's laws, its Constitution, and its moral & religious underpinnings.
Nuking of Iraq and Afghanistan via depleted uranium is another one of those dots in the trend line that says, "if their morals & ethics permits them to nuke their alleged enemies, then a 9/11 nuclear Pearl Harbor event at the WTC isn't beneath them either," particularly if it furthers the PNAC goals.
A gem to be plucked from all of this is that the PTB nuked us, and then went to great effort to tell us via the media and lots of "authority figures" it was something else: gravity driven pancaking pile-driver. Jonesian Thermite and Woodsian DEW were back-stops to prevent full nuclear revelation and its subsequent "hair-on-fire panic." And I believe it is why lots of 9/11 Censors who were late to the game and should've (or did) known better but played ball anyway: to preserve status quo. And it was probably "personally incentivized" upon them as well in a "deal with the devil" sense. Those who didn't play didn't last very long in Congress.
Like Iceland before us, we the people in order to form a more perfect union must establish government anew. The house-cleaning will be deep; the re-organization significant, even down to the drawing of new regional borders; could make "the guvmint of Merika" and all its institutions obsolete.
The danger is that such radical talk, instead of carving Merika into several manageable regions of autonomy, might consolidate us into the NWO plan, thereby having us play directly into their hand like sheeple that we are.
37. Acknowledgements and Credits
My thanks goes out to Craig McKee for having a place on the Internet that can talk about nuggets of truth objectively.
This article would not have been possible without the challenges regularly posed by William Whitten (aka Hybridrogue1 or "Mr. Rogue"), my staunchest debate opponent on Truth & Shadows. He helped me coin the phrase "neu nookiedoo." My deep, heart-felt gratitude is extended to him for his assistance in honing my argument, although he did so unknowingly, unwillingly, would deny supporting the contentions presented here, and probably truly despises me in every conceivable way.
I do not know Dr. Judy Wood or the Anonymous Physicist personally, and have never communicated with them directly (although I tried.) I have never championed their work 100%, and today deviate from their theories. Nonetheless, I must thank them for their contributions to the cause of truth. In particular, I am grateful for Dr. Judy Wood's 2010 textbook, "Where Did The Towers Go?" and her website. Yes, they have disinformation, but they also have the best collection of pictorial evidence and nuggets of truth that need to be addressed by any 9/11 theory-du-jour. Her book also proved to be an excellent objectivity test that many leaders of the 9/11TM failed. I speculate that some of her disinformation was forced upon her, which is why her crafty quote about "listening to the evidence" is important. A sneaky hint to objectively look at her collective evidence and not be distracted by what she puts around it.
Mr. Jeff Prager also deserves large amounts of praise for his Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB], and his two part eMagazine of a few hundred pages Part 1 [86MB] and Part 2 [56MB]. The 9/11TM was awaiting a thorough analysis of the dust that its resident (nuclear) physicists glaringly neglected.
Some will interpret my critique of Dr. Steven Jones' work as ad hominem attacks and bashing him personally. Not so.
Dr. Ed Ward deserves praise for the high school math calculations into what it takes for explosives and incendiaries to burn for long periods of time, and for discovering the re-definition of "background and trace levels" in the tritium reports.
Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11 By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
This article would not have been possible without the challenges regularly posed by William Whitten (aka Hybridrogue1 or "Mr. Rogue"), my staunchest debate opponent on Truth & Shadows. He helped me coin the phrase "neu nookiedoo." My deep, heart-felt gratitude is extended to him for his assistance in honing my argument, although he did so unknowingly, unwillingly, would deny supporting the contentions presented here, and probably truly despises me in every conceivable way.
I do not know Dr. Judy Wood or the Anonymous Physicist personally, and have never communicated with them directly (although I tried.) I have never championed their work 100%, and today deviate from their theories. Nonetheless, I must thank them for their contributions to the cause of truth. In particular, I am grateful for Dr. Judy Wood's 2010 textbook, "Where Did The Towers Go?" and her website. Yes, they have disinformation, but they also have the best collection of pictorial evidence and nuggets of truth that need to be addressed by any 9/11 theory-du-jour. Her book also proved to be an excellent objectivity test that many leaders of the 9/11TM failed. I speculate that some of her disinformation was forced upon her, which is why her crafty quote about "listening to the evidence" is important. A sneaky hint to objectively look at her collective evidence and not be distracted by what she puts around it.
Mr. Jeff Prager also deserves large amounts of praise for his Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB], and his two part eMagazine of a few hundred pages Part 1 [86MB] and Part 2 [56MB]. The 9/11TM was awaiting a thorough analysis of the dust that its resident (nuclear) physicists glaringly neglected.
Some will interpret my critique of Dr. Steven Jones' work as ad hominem attacks and bashing him personally. Not so.
Dr. Ed Ward deserves praise for the high school math calculations into what it takes for explosives and incendiaries to burn for long periods of time, and for discovering the re-definition of "background and trace levels" in the tritium reports.
Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11 By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
"Thank you for having the courage to look at the evidence."~Dr. Judy Wood
38. Enough to Alter Conclusions?
"When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" ~John Maynard KeynesMuch debate on many specific topics from this article has already transpired, with the above both laying down the neutron nuclear DEW arguments and addressing counter-arguments brought up at various points in time. This does not mean that this is the final story or even applicable to all destroyed WTC buildings. [WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 are worthy of their own reports.]
With properly applied science to all of the 9/11 evidence, I could easily be duped into believing something else and will henceforth issue a heartfelt & public apology for having led others astray. But as this work brings to light, much of what supports the non-nuclear beliefs of the 9/11TM does not stand up to deeper scrutiny. The above is my present understanding of 9/11 at the WTC.
// ~27,500 words
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Vatic Clerk Tips: After 7 days, all comments to an article go into the moderation queue for approval which happens at least once a day. Please be patient.
Be respectful in your comments, keeping in mind that these discussions will become the Zeitgeist of our time that future database archeologists will discover. Make your comments worthy and on the founding father's level in their respectfulness, reasoning, and sound argumentation. Prove we weren't all idiots in our day and age. Comments that advocate sedition or violence are not encouraged. Racist, ad hominem, and troll-baiting comments might never see the light of day.