"It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little."
~ Sydney Smith
Pages
▼
2023-11-11
9/11 FGNW Exotic Nuclear Weapons
Clerk Note: This article sums up neatly why and how exotic nuclear means were deployed in the WTC dustification. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. Be sure to click on all of the Easter-Egg reference.
Fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001. The evidence for nuclear components leaks out of the entire 9/11 record. The overkill energy of the observed sudden complete decimation of the towers is a clue, purposely missed.
[Decimation] The towers were decimated through their paths of greatest resistance at near free-fall acceleration while also violently ejecting heavy content laterally. These are huge energy sinks.
But according to the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) promoted by government spokespersons and corporate media:
"NO EXTRA ENERGY WAS ADDED!!! The potential energy of the upper block, acting under the forces of gravity alone after structural steel was allegedly weakened by fires fueled by jet fuel and office furnishings, was sufficient to cause the towers to turn dust."
By definition, a true Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon (FGNW) is supposedly pure fusion, which is very hard to initiate without assistance. In this paper, FGNW refers to "late-3rd/early-4th generation nuclear weapons", which are hybrid fission-fusion.
A conventional chemical-based charge is used to smash fissile material together in the fission stage. The fission stage generates the requisite heat for the fusion stage.[1]
[1] A fission nuclear weapon begins with a conventional kick-starter charge to smash fissile material together, results in an uncontrolled chain nuclear reaction, consumes only a fraction of the fissile material, and has the largest share of its total energy output in thermal heat and blast waves. The blast wave disperses fissile material in the environment. First generation nuke.
[fission process] 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. ... By far the largest share [of nuclear yield] 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.
A thermo-nuclear weapon releases about 5% of their energy in the form of prompt radiation, and the rest is dispersed in the thermal pulse and blast effects.[2]
[fusion process] 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, neutron-induced radioisotopes are also dispersed in the environment along with enormous amount of energy.
A "neutron-bomb" instead allows the neutrons to escape. Its fusion stage releases 80% of its energy in the spherical emission of high-energy neutrons and gamma rays, and 20% is the thermal heat and blast waves. [3][4]
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.
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).
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.
A FGNW takes the neutron bomb to its next level of evolution. It releases 80% of its nuclear yield as highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion: not just spherical, but also semi-spherical, quarter-spherical, to variable angle cone or wedge fanning out from the ignition point. Technically, FGNW are in the category of DEW (directed energy weapons). Only 20% of its already tactical nuclear yield is in the form of heat wave, blast wave, and EMP.[5]
To this author's knowledge, Dr. Andre Gsponer has not written a single word of speculation regarding the devices used to destroy the WTC on 9/11. His works on FGNW in the decade leading up to 9/11 were peer-reviewed and published in reputable science publications. It isn't as if nuclear scientists were stepping out in droves (or even as individuals) to debunk his efforts; quite the contrary, many of his works went through multiple revisions, which would indicate that nuclear scientists were providing feedback to improve his works.
FGNW are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can produce direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response within their targets. Depending on design goals, FGNW can:
Generate a fireball (in air or a material).
Launch a shockwave (in air or in a material).
Heat the surface of a material.
Accelerate or compress a material.
Transfer momentum to a material.
Heat the volume of a material.
Energize a working material.
Forge and project missiles.
Form and send high-velocity jets.
Ablate a material and produce a shock wave in it.
Collateral effects of the above list of "mechanical" and "thermodynamical" effects are non-thermo-mechanical effects, such as an electromagetic pulse (EMP) and prompt or delayed radiations.
Words like "pulverization", "dustification", and "decimation" were used to describe the WTC towers' destruction. This certainly applied to the concrete and drywall, where trapped water molecules instantly turn to extremely hot steam whose expanding volumetric pressure microfractures.[6]
As for metal such as the metal pans and trusses supporting the concrete, when the surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material will vaporize (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction a large pressure will be exerted, launching a shock-wave into the material, hence the significant percentage of tiny iron spheres in the dust samples.
Because neither the fission stage nor the fusion stage are designed for a destructive blast wave with the FGNW, this changes expectations for its audible effects[7] and for its fissile signatures in the outcome.[8]
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.
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.
Dr. Sunder in his NIST reports and interviews made a similar argument: "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."
Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST, in debunking conventional chemical explosives in WTC-7, stated that if they were used (and certainly to achieve observed pulverization), the explosions would have been deafening. Hearing loss was not one of the ailments of first-responder survivors.
NIST concluded the following:
- [T]he minimum charge (lower bound) required to fail a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have produced a pressure wave that would have broken windows on the north and east faces of the building near Column 79. The visual evidence did not show such breakage....
- [T]he noise level at a distance of 1/2 mile would have been on the order of 130 dB to 140dB... People on the street would have heard 9 lb of RDX go off a mile away....
- Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the building without detection...1 Beyond Misinformation page 39
The detonation of a FGNW is not extremely loud at its ignition point, because the stages leading towards neutron emission were not noisy or blasting air around. The low, consistent rumble that was heard was the results of the penetrating highly energetic neutrons creating within the targeted materials themselves "destroying shock waves", and is a much different audio signature than shock waves transmitted through air (blasts).
1. Linda Raisch-Lopez "The building was vibrating "
2. EMT RUSSELL HARRIS I looked at the building and it started vibrating
3. EMT JOHN ROTHMUND "The noise and the vibrations."
4. CHARLES WELLS "- a very strong vibration, shaking, and a loud noise like a subway train coming through a station at speed,"
5. LIEUTENANT DANIEL WILLIAMS "I heard a deep rumbling, and I felt vibrations."
6. FIREFIGHTER KEVIN MCCABE SOME SORT OF VIBRATION LIKE VRR VRR VRR GETTING LOUDER AND LOUDER
7. LIEUTENANT JAMES MCGLYNN "THAT VIBRATION THAT WE FELT WAS THE SOUTH TOWER" Hour Later Big Big Explosion
{http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/09/his_job_was_to_keep_the_world.html}
Mineta Transportation Institute Reported 30 Seconds of vibrations
"People inside the South Tower felt the floor vibrate as if a small earthquake were occurring. Instinctively, they sought shelter behind the massive pillars in the lobby, then everything went black. The vibration lasted for about 30 seconds. The doors were knocked out, and a huge ball of flame created by the exploding diesel fuel from the building’s own supply tank shot from the elevator shaft and out the doors of the South Tower, consuming everything in its path."
Mineta Transportation Institute's 30 Seconds of vibrations BEFORE collapse clearly was not caused by 1. planes 2. fires or 3. falling debris. Therefore it's something else was used to help the building turn to dust.
{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXaNBzm90m4}
"You’re hearing the rumble and you don’t see a thing. Everything is shaking around you. building is pulling me in"
[8] In general, the efforts to debunk 9/11 nuclear involvement created a straw man about large 2nd generation thermo-nuclear devices, which indeed would have exhibited large blast waves to spread considerable radioactive badness everywhere. When those expected levels for their large nukes wasn't measured in the data samples, starting with Dr. Steven Jones, they could have said: "the evidence does not support large thermo-nuclear weapons,", which is true. Instead, they said (paraphrased) "no nuclear devices whatsover were used." They don't even mention neutron bombs, much less "exotic (nuclear) weapons", such as FGNW.
"Nuclear blasts" was the strawman used by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE9/11Truth) in their FAQ #15: Various authors claim that nuclear blasts caused or contributed to the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Why does AE911Truth not endorse this claim?
https://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2015/Aug_2015/FAQ-15-supplement.pdf
blast:
destructive wave of highly compressed air spreading outward from an explosion
an explosion or explosive firing, especially of a bomb.
a strong gust of wind or air.
a strong current of air used in smelting.
When the framing of the dicussion is "nuclear blasts", it easy to agree with FAQ #15 that "nuclear blasts were not the primary mechanisms of destruction." Such "nuclear blasts" would certainly have thrown radioactive material great distances, radiated surrounding buildings, and ultimately would have impacted the health of a much larger population in the area, not primarily survivors and first responders. Owing to the "nuclear blasts" needing highly compressed air to spread destruction, they would be very loud.
When framing the discussion properly as FGNW, it isn't a blast or a bang; it is high amounts of energy suddenly deposited deeply and through out the molecular structure of the content.
The FGNW were multi-stage devices -- kick-start, fission, fusion. Trigger to full nuclear yield was not instantaneous. In addition, the nuclear output had a brief duration; the kick-start conventional charge had kick-back; FGNW were being used in tandem where misalignment can foul others.
Thus, successful implementation required a stable mounting point that would not be destroyed during its own nuclear output. Between angle adjustments afforded by the mounting bracket and the output aperture allowing different fixed output shapes and fanning angles, the FGNW were aimed.[9][10] The FGNW themselves were probably the size and shape of a soda fountain refill keg or a large fire-extinguisher.
[9] The initial neutron bombs had a spherical emission. It is reasonable to expect that the emission originating at the sphere's center could be designed to be "any slice or wedge or cone of the sphere". The simpliest aperature is circular tending torwards cone-shaped outputs.
In general, they are aimed upwards so that excess neutron emissions go into the sky and not create more collatoral damage.
[10] Both towers (but most visible on WTC-2) had outer structure falling away leaving behind for a few moments tall portions of the inner core, which later became known as "the spire." This was the stable platform required for multiple FGNW working in tandem.
Each of the WTC towers probably had four (4) FGNW per detonation level and 6-10 detonation levels. The following image of the configuration of just two detonation levels, a cone-shaped nuclear emission is assumed.
Variable are: whether the emission shape is a cone, wedge, or other; the cone's (or wedge's) angle; the amount of execution overlap from lower FGNW; how many levels above the detonation point before the output cone would start to graze and then penetrate the inside of the outer wall assemblies.
Total number of FGNW required for the observed WTC destruction is probably on the order of 50 to 100. Assuming mounting bracket installation was completed in advance, then transporting the FGNW into the buildings and "clicking" them into their mounting brackets is logistically possible over a long weekend (by one team of at least two per building).
The USGS collected dozens of dust samples. The tables in the USGS analysis of their WTC dust samples are noteworthy, because the expected fissile by-product elements [11] and their decay elements are present in the dust.
[11] The following image depicts how a nuclear reaction with Uranium creates other elements (Barium and Strontium) and that then decay quickly into other elements.
More important is the omission of an explanation in the report for these elements in the dust. The trend for not mentioning significant findings began with "Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001" by The Paul Lioy et al.[12]
- Limited its analysis to three (3)"representative" dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets).
- 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.
The Lioy report states:
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.
The tritium study re-define "background levels", so this report might be following the same pattern. Except that this report provided neither the measured values nor the values of what they "background level".
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 radioactive 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 such were the only cause of destruction.
The Lioy report characterizes the dust as:
[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, Lioy does ~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.
[13] Mr. Jeff Prager reviewed this USGS data in Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB] {mcb: Link no longer works; local copy should be made available.}
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.
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 following is based on Mr. Jeff Prager's conclusion.
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.
Tritium is a building block of nearly all FGNW. This is why the "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" was hamstrung and scope-limited from the onset. The study can't be taken at face-value as the final word on tritium, how much was really present, or what the tritium sources could be. [14][15]
They limited themselves into attributing tritium to RL devices that might already have been part of the contents of the WTC complex. The shoddy sampling (9/13 and 9/21) were only taken in the run-off from WTC-6, yet it was meant to make conclusions about tritium levels every where at the WTC. They stopped taking additional samples when their analysis indicated levels well below the EPA threshold for what constitutes a health risk. The study re-defines "trace or background levels" to be 55 times greater than they were previously. (More details.)
The study suggested that only airplane exit signs, weapons sights, and time pieces can attributed to the tritium they measured at WTC-6, the customs house with basement vaults for confiscated contraband: weapons, money, drugs, etc.
The conclusion buries the fact that its mathematical modeling of the aircraft exit signs 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.
Worse, FEMA photographer who went below WTC-6 states that its vaults were emptied prior to the event, which removes its weapons sights from being considered a tritium source.
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 study achieved its scope-limited goals, but is deeply flawed in its shoddy sampling & analysis to be held up by Dr. Jones as the final authority on tritium at the WTC. 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.
This should have been a red flag for Dr. Jones. 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 the frames the discussion as a large thermonuclear (fusion) bomb by writing:
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.
Dr. Jones accepts unchallenged the Lioy report that characterizes the dust and smoke and does not even question its blatant flaws, such as sample size and location.
Dr. Jones then introduces a blatant logic error, best summarized as follows:
"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. Other than airplane exit signs, police gun sights, and time pieces from the scope-limited tritium study, Dr. Jones does not speculate much into the radiation signature D (tritium), which is a signature of a fusion device.
The blatant omission are neutron bombs and their exotic
FGNW offspring.
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, and that large releases of tritium supposedly did not happen.
However, the study proves that not only was tritium present, but that its very presence required interference be run to control the narrative and steer public consideration away from its true significance.
The air from Ground Zero was laden with extremely high amounts of very small particles associated with high temperatures. Many different metals of very fine particles were found in the samples, and some were found at the highest levels ever recorded in air in the United States. There were also an unusual, very fine, silicon-containing aerosol. This latter type of aerosol can be produced only by very high temperatures, including vaporisation of soil and glass.[16]
[16] From October 2, 2001 until mid-December 2001, a volunteer research team from the DELTA Group monitored the levels of atmospheric particles and aerosols in the atmosphere of New York, following the collapse of the World Trade Center. Professor Thomas Cahill of the the UC Davis DELTA Group (Detection and Evaluation of Long-range Transport of Aerosols) described some of this finding on February 11, 2002. {Source with direct quotes from Dr. Cahill}
"The air from Ground Zero was laden with extremely high amounts of very small particles, probably associated with high temperatures in the underground debris pile. Normally, in New York City and in most of the world, situations like this just don’t exist."
"Even on the worst air days in Beijing, downwind from coal-fired power plants, or the Kuwait oil fires, we did not see these levels of very fine particulates."
The amounts of very fine particles, particularly very fine silicon, decreased sharply during the month of October.
"The US Davis DELTA Group’s ability to measure and analyze particle size, composition and time continuously, day and night, is unequalled. There were numerous events when bursts of wind lasting 6 to 8 hours carried unprecedented amounts of very fine particles to the sampling site. In the largest spike, the DELTA Group analysis found 58 micrograms per cubic meter of very fine particles in one 45-minute period – "an extremely high peak" Cahill said.
Many different metals were found in the samples of very fine particles, and some were found at the highest levels ever recorded in air in the United States.
Some of the metals for which there are no guidelines that were present in very fine particles in relatively high concentrations were Iron, Titanium (some associated with powdered concrete), Vanadium, Nickel (often associated with fuel-oil combustion), Copper and Zinc. Mercury was seen occasionally in fine particles but at low concentrations. Many of those metals are widely used in building construction, wiring and plumbing. Some are common in computers. The metal of the coarse particles is still being analyzed.
Very small particles are particularly dangerous since they can bypass the bodies natural defence mechanisms and if breathed in, enter directly into the bloodstream. They can also pass through HEPA filters, the finest grade of gas mask available and they can even enter the body through the skin. They are a serious hazard.
Anything with a diameter of less then 2.5 millionths of a meter is to be considered dangerous for these reasons.
The press release further states:
"There are no established safe limits for inhaled very fine particles. The closest reference is the US EPA "PM2.5" standard, which limits the allowable mass of airborne particles 2.5 micrometers to (0) Zero micrometers. That standard is based on health studies of typical air samples, in which very fine particles are a small fraction of the total mass. In contrast, in the World Trade Center dust samples analyzed at UC Davis, the very fine particles are a large fraction of the total mass."
So we can understand that Professor Cahill would want to draw attention to the fine particulates for health and safety reasons. But is there more to it?
Prof. Cahill also explained the meaning of the generation of the particles to reporters more clearly:
"The presence of coarse particles immediately after days of rain indicated that they were being continually re-generated from a dry, hot source, not re-suspended from roadways and other surfaces."
Cahills words. Continually Regenerated.
Is this another subtle hint by a man who can't speak his mind freely that a nuclear reaction occurred?
"The very fine particles were high in a number of species generally associated with combustion of fuel oil – such as Sulfur, Vanadium and Nickel, and incineration of plastics and other organic matter."
"There were also an unusual, very fine, silicon-containing aerosol. This latter type of aerosol can be produced only by very high temperatures, including vaporisation of soil and glass."
"The presence of coarse particles immediately after days of rain indicated that they were being continually re-generated from a dry, hot source, not re-suspended from roadways and other surfaces."~Dr. Thomas Cahill.
"Nuclear Fizzle" from one or more of the tandem FGNW is the most likely source.[17]
A fizzle occurs when the detonation of a device for creating a nuclear explosion (such as a nuclear weapon) grossly fails to meet its expected yield. The bombs still detonate, but the detonation is much less than anticipated. ... A fizzle can spread radioactive material throughout the surrounding area, involve a partial fission reaction of the fissile material, or both.[4] For practical purposes, a fizzle can still have considerable explosive yield when compared to conventional weapons.
In multistage fission-fusion weapons, full yield of the fission primary that fails to initiate fusion ignition in the fusion secondary (or produces only a small degree of fusion) is also considered a "fizzle", as the weapon failed to reach its design yield despite the fission primary working correctly.
Castle Koon: A thermonuclear device whose fusion secondary did not successfully ignite, with only low-level fusion burning taking place.
The debris pile had many Hot-Spots and exhibited Extremely High Temperatures, that FGNW can address with fizzled nukes but that other consensus 9/11 theories, such as Nano-Thermite, cannot address and therefore do not address.
[Hot-Spots] The duration of under-rubble hot-spots allegedly without fuel sources is a very perplexing question.
Not only was molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2, dozens of eyewitnesses observed it in the debris of all three buildings. A small selection is presented below:
- Leslie Robertson, a lead engineer in the design of WTC 1 and WTC 2, told an audience: "We were down at the B-1 level and one of the firefighters said, 'I think you'd be interested in this.' And they pulled up a big block of concrete, and there was like a little river of steel flowing."2 - FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo recalled with other firefighters seated next to him: "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." Other firefighters chimed in: "Like lava.""Like lava from a volcano."3 - Ken Holden, the Commissioner of the NYC Department of Design and Construction, testified before the 9/11 Commission: "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."4 ...
[S]tructural steel does not begin to melt until about 1,482°C (2,700°F).
...
NIST assumes that the only possible cause of “melting steel” would have been “the jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers,” which is an implausible hypothesis on its face.
Three scientific studies have documented evidence in the WTC dust that indicates extremely high temperatures during the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2 — and possibly WTC 7.
Released in May 2004, the RJ Lee report titled WTC Dust Signature identified “[s]pherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature” in the dust.
An earlier 2003 version of RJ Lee’s report observed:
Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension…. Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in the WTC dust…but are not common in normal office dust.
The 2003 version also reported that while iron particles make up only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted 5.87 percent of the WTC dust.
Iron does not melt until 1,538°C (2,800°F), which, as discussed above, cannot be reached by diffuse hydrocarbon fires. Still, even higher temperatures than 1,538°C were indicated by another discovery documented in RJ Lee’s report:
The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool.
The 2003 version also referred to temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization.” For such vaporization to occur, lead would need to have been heated to its boiling point of 1,749°C (3,180°F).
Released in 2005, a report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) titled Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust identified “trace to minor amounts” of “metal or metal oxides” in the WTC dust and presented micrographs of these particles, two of which were labeled “Iron-rich sphere.”
Published by Dr. Steven Jones and seven other scientists in early 2008, the paper Extremely High Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction connected the dots between the earlier RJ Lee and USGS reports. It also provided new observations based on analysis of WTC dust samples obtained by Dr. Jones. According to the authors:
The formation of spherules in the dust implies the generation of materials somehow sprayed into the air so that surface tension draws the molten droplets into near-spherical shapes. The shape is retained as the droplet solidifies in the air.
In addition to observing spherules of iron and silicates, their study discussed the presence of molybdenum spherules documented by the USGS study but not included in its report. (This additional data from the USGS study was obtained through a FOIA request.) Molybdenum is known for its extremely high melting point of 2,623°C (4,754°F).
Jones’ study also discussed evidence of even higher temperatures contained in the RJ Lee report (quoting from the RJ Lee report):
Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation)….
These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. Dr. Jones and his coauthors observed:
[I]f the “Swiss-cheese appearance” is indeed the result of “boiling and evaporation” of the material as the [RJ Lee] report suggests, we note the boiling temperature for aluminosilicate is approximately 2,760°C.
They then provided a table (see Table 6 at left) summarizing the temperatures needed to account for the various evidence of high temperatures in the World Trade Center destruction, which they contrasted with the much lower maximum temperatures associated with the fires on September 11.
...
Table 6: Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required
PROCESS AND MATERIAL
°C
°F
To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel
After Dr. Steven Jones "repudiated the hypothesis" that any form of nuclear device were involved with 9/11, he filled the void with Nano-Thermite (NT) stemming from energetic particles that were found in his dust samples.
NT is an incendiary, not an explosive. So Dr. Jones suggested that NT was mixed with something having more brisance, such as RDX. Unfortunately, RDX or similar chemical-based explosives -- on paper -- exasperate getting NT to explain the anomaly of under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months.
NT has a burn rate of ~1,100 feet per second (f/s). RDX has a burn-rate of ~31,000 f/s. Hot-spots were several and burned for many weeks. Simplify by considering only one hot-spot that 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 packed with pure NT implies a length of 226,000 miles, while RDX implies 7,510,000 miles. Thus, a mixture of NT with RDX (or equivalent) would still result in something many hundreds of thousand miles long.
Red flags should be going up at this point, because those triple zeros to the left of the decimal point are significant. If we assume "salting" of the material in the pile and grossly simplified it down to "n" thousand miles and a hose diameter of a mere 1/8", the volume of material required (for one hot-spot) is still massive! The answers are not trivial and represent significant logistics hurdles, if the search for 9/11 destructive sources is stopped at RDX/NT.
Worst of all, this represents material that was unspent and left-over from its original task of decimating the towers.
"Hedegaard had earlier calculated, on his own, that at least 60 tons of thermite would have been needed to take down the Twin Towers, and on that basis he found it difficult to believe that controlled demolition had been used to level those two buildings."
When Dr. Nils Harrit calculated backwards from 5.87% content of iron-rich spheres in the dust to source amounts of NT, the result was a massive amount, say, between 70,000 and 143,000 metric tons. The amount required to maintain the hot-spots is obscenely over and above that already massive and inconceivable amount.
In Dr. Steven Jones and Mr. Kevin 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 in their paper is that NT used in any combination with conventional explosives cannot explain what maintained the under-rubble hot-spots between those spikes.
In September of 2012, Dr. Jones wrote:
"Something maintained those hot-spots (not just nano-thermite.)"
Concerted effort was expended to purposely not look into that "something that maintained the hot-spots.
The FEMA/NIST captured video footage of the mangled state of steel wall assemblies and internal support beams, all of which raise questions about the mechanisms of destruction, their placement, and the energy involved.
However, the video footage as a side-effect also caught real-time radiation emissions from the Ground Zero debris pile and specific pieces from the Fresh-Kills Landfill. The evidence is in the form of camera scintillation -- flashes or sparkles of light -- as a result of radioactive particles in the dust cloud.[18]
In some cases due to the close proximity of the video camera to the radioactive material, the video tape completely glitches out and is unviewable. This was probably unknown to the person running the camera until later playback, and may have contributed to the slow-walking of releasing the FEMA/NIST videos.
The video glitches underscore the nuclear nature of the anomalous pieces of steel.
At around 6:00 as the camera pans up and down, whenever it aims down, more scintillation appears in the lower half of the image that depicts the pulverized debris pile. Other instances in the video (such as around 12:00), the camera will have relatively few glitches, but as it pans over areas of the destruction, the lower portion of the image with the debris pile (and not the upper portion with standing structures) begin to have more white flashes or camera anomalies. When the camera pans over other areas of equipment and workers, not such scintillation.
Right from the beginning are many anomalies pieces of steel whose twisted shapes suggest some form of volume heating of the material to make it suddenly pliable. One of many places the video camera suddenly experiences serious glitches is just before 46:00.
28:51 A box column of a wall assembly exhibited a gash along 1/3 or more of its length and through the spandrel (thicker) area.[19]
[19] FGNW's instant volume heating explains a gash along 1/3 or more of the length of a box column and through the spandrel (thicker) area. The wall assembly was volume heated and made pliable such that something was able to gouge it. The edges of the gash wilted inwards.
1:23:00 (and 1:44:00) The debris pile and surrounding area had examples of a "steel doobie" anomaly.[20]
[20]"Steel Doobies:" the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly are wrapped into a bundle (or doobie, or joint) and held together by their three spandrels. FGNW suggests sufficient volume heating of the sprandels (across three stories) that they became pliable. The shock wave in ablating materials had a lateral component in their destruction. Easily wraps the beams up by their own spandrels.
In the image, a man is climbing a steel beam underneath of which rests a "steel doobie".
1:27:00 Column smoothly bent into a C-shape and smoothly bent steel.
[Bent-Steel] In the non-nuclear real-world, many minutes in a blast furnace is normally required to heat structural steel beams sufficiently end-to-end in order to get it to bend.
1:39:00 and 1:57:00 Radiation affecting the video camera.
At about 0:52 the camera is over-run by the dust cloud. Suddenly the video camera, that worked perfectly before, starts registering small flashes in the dust cloud.
The technology of FEMA/NIST best video cameras betrayed the true nuclear evidence that those of us raised on the snowy broadcast television of last century might not notice.[21]
[21] As a side note to validate various cameras' susceptibility to radiation, applications for mobile phones exist that turn them into radioactivity counters. One such company is www.rdklein.de. Cover the lens of the camera with normal black tape which blocks the light while letting radioactive emissions penetrate. The application initiates a form of long-term exposure, collects the radioactive occurrences, and provides statistics and analysis on them.
The reader is given the assignment to browse their own collection of images and videos of 9/11 WTC destruction and postulate FGNW's abilities as being most likely to inflict such unique and anomalous damage.[22]
[22] Dr. Judy Wood book "Where Did The Towers Go?" and website contain many excellent WTC images of destruction that require explaining by any 9/11 conspiracy theory-du-jour, and which FGNW does explain.
Disclaimer: Dr. Wood's book is clever disinformation, and that makes it all the more worthy to study for the nuggets of truth, the evidence. Be warned that she drops lots of dangling innuendo, connects no dots, draws no conclusions, and provided shoddy research into nuclear considerations.
ABL (airborne lasers) and beams-from-space are real things, but the latter in particular has optic issues going through the atmosphere hampering frequencies suitable for energy transmission (to destroy the WTC in some manner). Both ABL and beams-from-space require a source for their energy (such as chemical-based lasers) that directly complicate logistics regarding quantities of source materials required to generate the observed energy at a distance. Unless the ABL or beams-from-space are nuclear powered. But why nuclear power the destruction from a distance when they can nuclear power right at the target a most unique decimation sequence?
When 9/11 is discussed, focus is often limited to the twin towers (or WTC-7) and destruction patterns and anomalies in the other buildings of the complex are ignored. "Nothing to see here, folk! Move it along, keep on walking!"
Each building in the complex (except maybe WTC-3) has evidence of FGNW usage.
The following image shows that the upper stories of WTC-2 at the initiation of the destruction had angular momentum, whereby as a cohesive whole that upper block should have toppled off to the side of the lower tower structure. Videos show that in the next moments, suddenly the upper block was no longer a cohesive whole as it accordions in on itself.
The destruction canopy of both towers had "squibs" visible exploding out of the middle of the towers' faces about 10-20 stories ahead of the canopy. This could be explained as either kick-back from the FGNW kickstarter charge, or the mitgated blast wave from the 20% nuclear yield (heat wave, blast wave, EMP) that isn't neutron emission.
The next images show another anomaly: large falling portions of the tower that had steamy, smoking trails following them. FGNW offers this explanation. The cone shape neutron emissions from their ignition point didn't reach the wall assemblies until they had passed through 10-20 stories of concrete, steel pans, and trusses (three things grossly missing from the debris pile other than in dust form.) The emission contained sufficient energy, though, to heat the wall assemblies top-to-bottom over three stories sufficiently to ignite and burn off things attached to them, like paint, plaster, drywall, asbestos, etc.
When David Chandler analyzed just the top 20 stories [Downward Acceleration of the North Tower], he calculated that the roof fell at a constant 64% gravitational acceleraton. This means that the 20 story structure SUDDENLY and SYMMETRICALLY went to 36% of its minimum strength needed to support itself. The pulverization is visible in the earliest moments of annihilation. There was no cohesive upper-block of stories to act as a pile-driver on lower and sturdier structure.
"What we actually see here, is the falling section of the building turning to dust before our eyes."~David Chandler at 2:30 in video.
A number of papers ... have measured the fall of WTC 1’s upper section and have observed that it never slowed down in the four seconds before it disappeared from view. Rather, its acceleration remained constant, at approximately 64 percent of free fall, and there was never an observable deceleration, which would be required if the upper section had impacted and crushed the lower structure. A lack of deceleration would indicate with absolute certainty that the lower structure was destroyed by another force before the upper section reached it. ... One of the most noticeable features of the two buildings’ destruction was the near-total pulverization of... approximately 8.8 million square feet of 5.5-inch-thick lightweight concrete flooring. ... [T]he buildings’ steel structures were almost entirely dismembered... [V]irtually all of their steel skeletons were broken up into small pieces, with the core structures separated into individual members and the exterior columns broken up into three-story, prefabricated sections. ... As the concrete was being pulverized and the structures were being dismembered, a large percentage of the buildings’ materials was ejected upwards and laterally in an arclike manner far beyond the perimeters of the buildings... as far as 400 to 500 feet from each tower’s base.
WTC-4 did not get a lot of press, nor follow-up to relevant questions. It had gold vaults in the basement that were in the process of being looted on 9/11.
"But engineers and recovery officials say that large parts of the underground perimeter are undamaged, even though the buildings above them are partly collapsed. One area is below 4 World Trade Center, where more than two decades ago, Swiss Bank built a huge vault and storage area. The vault was reached from the Swiss Bank offices by a private elevator. To reach the vaults, armored trucks would drive through what had once been the tunnels for the Hudson and Manhattan railroad, the predecessor of the PATH system. These tunnels had run as far east as Church Street, but were not needed when the trade center was built and the PATH terminal was set closer to the river."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/01/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-vault-below-ground-zero-silver-and-gold.html
"Large amounts of gold are stored in vaults in the massive basement below the WTC, and some of this is being transported through the basement this morning. Several weeks later, recovery workers will discover hundreds of ingots in a service tunnel below WTC 5, along with a ten-wheel lorry and some cars (which were, presumably, transporting the gold) (see (Mid-October-mid November 2001)). The lorry and cars had been crushed by falling steel, but no bodies will be reported found with them, so presumably they were abandoned before the first WTC collapse, at 9:59 a.m."
https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-gold-in-basement-of-World-Trade-Center-after-9-11-attacks-if-there-was-any
The following video is a mash-up about WTC-4 from Dr. Judy Wood's presentations. Disclaimer: Dr. Wood talks about the emissions coming from an outside source (ABL or beams-from-space), but I disagree and say the emissions came from an inside source (planted FGNW).
4:23 as WTC-2 comes down, dust from other buildings add
4:47 sound track, no explosions
5:17 after WTC-2 but before WTC-1, and WTC-4 not there
5:54 layout from above, within 33 seconds, 12 seconds to fall to roofline of WTC-4
13:13 precision cutting
13:58 WTC-6
15:10 wilting of WTC-5
The 9 stories of the WTC-4 main ediface were destroyed just as the WTC-2 destruction canopy arrived and contributed greatly to the clouds of dust. From images and video, the WTC-2 debris was lying at street level over the WTC-4 footprint and was insufficient in quantity to suggest crushing of all 9 stories thoroughly, symmetrically, and neatly at a line with the its North Annex. Those 9 stories were not founded crushed and layered beneath WTC-2 debris and/or pushed deeper into the ground.
When you look at the debris recognizable from the towers at WTC-4 main edifice and North Wing, the debris was equivalent yet the former was leveled to the ground while the later remained standing.
The next image is a view from Fulton Street looking across several streets including Church Street and shows WTC-5 on fire.
The next image is a top view of WTC-5 with Church Street at the bottom. Several near circular holes in the roof of WTC-5 are the anomaly needing explaining. FGNW suggests these resulted from the cone-shaped emissions within the building at a lower-level, aimed upwards. (Dr. Wood suggests these were generated from above.)
The next image is taken from West Broadway with WTC-5 on fire at the end. WTC-7 is on the right, and also emitting smoke.
The following image shows several anomalies. The WTC-1 spire is visible. The rising dust clouds to the left of WTC-7 are notable, because it it right about WTC-5 and WTC-6.
The next images is looking across the Vesey Street intersection at the remains of WTC-6.
A anomaly depicted in many of the images to note are the fumes from many hot-spots.
As with WTC-5, WTC-6 has similar anomalies of circular vertical holes cut through multiple floors. It should be noted that WTC-6, the US Customs House, also had basement vaults. A FEMA photographer confirmed that the vaults had been emptied prior to the destruction.
The roofs of WTC-6 and WTC-5 have lots of aluminum cladding but really insufficient solid WTC-1 debris to account for the larger WTC-6 crater that goes straight down or the seeming bore-holes in WTC-5.
The next image has a view over the dome of WFC-2. It shows the damage to WTC-6 in the center of the photo. To the left is the collapsed WTC-7. Its debris stack is at least five stories high. To the right of WTC-6 is the remaining north wall of WTC-1 which leans toward WTC-6. The tower's wall assemblies did not fall on WTC-6 or WTC-7.
WTC-5 is in the top of the photo and has a lattace of WTC-1 wall assembly seemingly cutting into WTC-5. A top-down photo of WTC-5 in the previous section disproves that notion, because the hole in the WTC-5 goes much deeper than the WTC-1 wall assembly debris could create.
Neither the roof nor the bottom of the WTC-6 crater have sufficient solid WTC-1 debris to account for this 8-story anomaly and where the roof punch-out holes are fairly consistent in diameter.
WTC-7 after 9/11, decimated neatly into its own footprint and still smoldering. It also has clear views onto the roofs of WTC-5 and WTC-6 and into WTC-6's crater, without any indication of a significant amount of WTC-1 debris that could have caused them.
The next image is from the West. To the right is WTC-7 still fuming. The water being sprayed on WTC-7 from the US Post Office is not creating steam; the fumes are coming from a different portion of WTC-7's pile.
The next image is from Barclay and West Broadway, showing the neat inward collapse of WTC-7 into its footprint, and with WTC-5 in the background.
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?
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.
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.
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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrittlement
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. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v308/n5954/abs/308051a0.html
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.
The vehicles that were torched near the WTC, particularly those near WTC-7 before it was destroyed, are an anomaly requiring an explanation.
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.
EMP was part of the left-over 20% nuclear yield from FGNW. EMP can be mitigated and contained somewhat by the metal floor pans and steel wall assemblies, but the window openings may have allowed EMP to escape.
The next image is the view south from the intersection of Barclay and West Broadway. WTC-7 is to the right. WTC-5 is the burning building on the left at the end of the street, with WTC-6 smoking to its right. The Postal Building is on the left. The Postal truck on the left side of the street nearest the camera appears fairly 'eaten up' on its left side, while the Postal truck on the right side of the street appears to be undamaged
Dr. David Ray Griffin, the patron saint of the 9/11 Truth Movement, describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
Most 9/11 theory-du-jours do not address the evidence, such as the mangled wall assemblies and steel beams filmed by FEMA and NIST (on cameras prone to radiation glitches).
Once open-minded and objective readers are seeded with the proper descriptions of "exotic" nuclear weapons (FGNW) that were available for 9/11, even their own collection of anomalous 9/11 evidence will water those nuclear seeds in their understanding. The wonkiness and coordination in the cover-up also becomes clear:
Any whiff in the public's nose of 9/11 nuclear involvement could result in US nuclear over-reaction abroad spoiling the desired gains (e.g., Iraqi oil, Afghani natural gas and heroin, permanent military presence in the Middle East).
To paraphrase from the "Fields of Dreams" movie for Silverstein: "If you rebuild over the nuked WTC complex, ain't nobody gonna come." NYC might have a mass exodus.
Rising public awareness into 9/11 nukes could have major figurative nuclear fallout on the credibility of all levels of government, their agencies & institutions, and corporate media: (1) for supposedly not knowing, not asking questions, when it was obvious; (2) for knowing but lying about it and promoting all of the evil spawns of the ruse.
Projection and Public Hypnosis
"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty." - George W. Bush, November 10, 2001, Bush's address to the UN
Writing under a pseudonym or pen name on political topics has a long and distinguished history going back to the Federalist Papers when Founders Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote under the pen name of Publius in the late 1700s.
I believe that from a speech standpoint a pseudonym provides accountability. A person writes under her pen name and if called on misuse of facts or making stuff up can’t hide behind the "I didn't say that" that anonymous blog commenters can.
So I don’t think using a pen name is itself bad for public discourse. ... Outing people is a form of Ad hominem attack to me. You don’t care about their facts or sources, you are arguing the writing shouldn’t be trusted because of the person hiding behind the pseudonyms.
In a few specialized cases, this could be legitimate. For example, it would be worthwhile to know that a blog purporting to be from an American Jihadi was in fact written by Dick Cheney to try and scare us. Or if a blog purporting to be that of a homeless man trying to get by on the streets of New York was actually being written by George Soros. But unless the outing is to show the writer isn’t in a position to know what he’s writing about, it’s not useful or conducive to public debate. ~ alaskanlibrarian Pseudonyms and Anonymous Sourcing
It is rash, uncharitable actions like the outing of Publius by Ed Whalen that prevents us all from enjoying the thoughts of countless folks who don’t blog because anonymity is prone to leak. This isn’t to say that anonymous blogging hasn’t any downsides, or that outing is wrong in all circumstances. In this case, however, the cost Mr. Whalen imposed on us all seems to come without any benefit to anyone save himself. I hope that the next time anyone decides to out an anonymous blogger, they’ve met a far higher threshold than is the case in this instance. ~ Conor Friedersdorf Against Outing (Most) Anonymous Bloggers
People who blog anonymously have a moral responsibility not to abuse their privilege by making nasty personal attacks against others from behind the mask of anonymity. If you do abuse that, I don't feel sorry for you if you're outed. On the other hand, I think bloggers who out pseudonymous bloggers are, as a general matter, doing us all a grave disservice, by making it harder for people who have interesting things to say but who cannot say them under their own name (for professional or personal reasons) to get their ideas into public conversation. Bottom line: if you are going to out an anonymous blogger, you'd better have a very, very good reason for doing so, because the damage you can do to that person's career, and to the online public square, can be real and irreversible." ~ Rod Dreber On outing anonymous bloggers
In "The Dark Knight Rises" movie, Batman gives some advice to the Police Officer (an orphan with middle name "Robin") that "the hero dons the mask not to protect himself but to protect those he cares about."
It is important that an author stand behind their words and be willing to defend those words, to admit error or uncertainty, and to change opinions, when new information necessitates such. This proves how genuine the person is. "Standing behind your words" can be accomplished in many ways, such as consistency in alias-usage forum-to-forum, a "home court" to consolidate words, or a revealing of identities at a time and choosing of the author (e.g., to a select audience.)
Doxing: the action or process of searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet, typically with malicious intent.
Don't be doxing the Bruce Wayne to Maxwell C. BridgesBatman / pseudonym / pen-name, bruh!
Maxwell C. Bridges has a two (2) decades long online legacy (http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com and website returning soon) that documents his sincere search for 9/11 Truth and evolution in understanding for his real-life Bruce Wayne: a mild-mannered, middle-class, (now) middle-aged, short, bald, white, male [married with two (2) teenagers, one (1) dog, and five (5) chickens, which itself is reason enough to use a pen-name] who is counting down on one hand the years until retirement and is also an active Free Mason.
Free Masonry's reverence for Truth as "a divine attribute and the foundation of every virtue" aligns with Truth as one of the seven (7) synonyms for God as taught in Christian Science. Maxwell C. Bridges is a religious fanatic: he's fanatical about Truth.
The Bruce Wayne for the Maxwell C. BridgesBatman does not have a doctorate's degree or a degree in nuclear physics. Nor does he have a security clearance or any form of access to any classified materials.
The Bruce Wayne for the Maxwell C. BridgesBatman from four (4) decades ago instead has:
Four (4) semesters of college physics for engineers deriving Newton's physics equations from calculus earning grades of C- or better.
One (1) semester in a small group independent study with the EE Professor of Lasers on the topic of nuclear weapons.
The Bruce Wayne for the Maxwell C. BridgesBatman has had library cards at his local institution of higher education, that in turn gave access to online subscriptions to lots of public repositories of information permitting research and analysis from a windowless Bat-cave in the basement of Bruce Wayne's mortgaged manor.
The Bruce Wayne for the Maxwell C. BridgesBatman has three (3) college degrees.
One (1) degree was in a foreign language, improved his native language skills, and played a role in choosing the countries for Bruce Wayne's career path.
One (1) degree along the way expected reading and writing proficiency in the now ancient languages of PASCAL and assembly language and recommended doping (of semiconductors) -- an EE course where Bruce Wayne earned one of his two (2) college D's and later employement at a semiconductor manufacturer for a career record high number of years.
One (1) degree required writing a researched, organized, referenced, technical thesis that made use of WordPerfect's cross-references, tables of authorities, and reveal codes, and had a topic that was OCD into state-of-the-art micro-processors, DSP's, Fourier mathematics, and spoken language recognition.
The Bruce Wayne for the Maxwell C. BridgesBatman has worked for fifteen (15) different high-tech employers (so far) in engineering support roles since high school graduation about two decades back into last century. Bruce Wayne's work today is described as "pushing buttons and watching TV" with some minimal expected proficiency in Perl, SQL, DITA, PHP, Javascript, CSS, and HTML.
The Maxwell C. BridgesBatman super-powers:
dogged persistence
written articulation
sincerity and truthfulness
consistency
reasoned, rational, logical
skills in technical research and analysis
naivety and trust of others (until given reason not to be)
Legacy (http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com and website returning soon) is what sets Maxwell C. Bridges apart from others. It proves he stands behind his words written at the time, to the point where he collected his words written in comments to other venues with the expressed intention of later re-purposing to venues that he controls. Even more so, this intention led to writing words from the onset that were worthy of preservation and taking the high-road formal approach to avoid reproach in other venues.
Of course, context is key. A knowledgable response to other discussion participants requires often accurately quoting sentences from them that your comment is addressing. Thus the words of others find themselves (with source URLs) preserved as fringes into the same legacy that, like a database, can be searched when later discussions with the same participants needs substantiation to prove charges of hypocricy or carousel spinning or bot-repeats.
The Bruce Wayne for the Maxwell C. BridgesBatman was born on the eleventh (11) day of the eleventh (11) month. Eleven (11) days later, assassin bullets violently departed President John F. Kennedy from this world. Conspiracy Truth were how the stars & planets were always going to align, with Nine-Eleven (2001-09-11) being a klaxon call for this Blues Brother on a mission from God: "Feed my sheep."
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.
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.
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.