Nuclear weapons were used on 9/11. The principle documents used to support the erroneous belief about 9/11/2001 ~not~ being nuclear are:
- "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.
- "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers" by Dr. Steven Jones.
- The Paul Lioy et al Report on the characterization of the Dust/Smoke seems to deliver the no radiation premise.
- Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
- 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.
- "Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics -DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence" by Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins
- "Where Did The Towers Go?" and website by Dr. Judy Wood.
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.
This article will prove the nuclear 9/11 premise by reaching into the maw of disinformation sources and preserving the nuggets of truth that made convincing the disinfo case. 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 in order to be complete.
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".
"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."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Faults in the Conclusion
Here are some interesting aspects from the study's conclusions highlighted:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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" and sampling.
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.
Dr. Jones' logic error is 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.
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 The Final Word on The Tritium to be as final as his title suggests, 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.
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:
- 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.
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.
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.
A 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:
[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.
From the Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan' paper, "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials":
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.
- 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
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.
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:
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pure RDX has a final flame temperature for absorption at 3062 K (~2788 C or ~5051 F). For comparison purposes, the sun has a surface temperature of 5778 k (~5504 C or ~9940 F).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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):
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.
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.
 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.
 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 near the only locations within the engine area that could possibly cause an electrical short type 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.
 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."]
[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."….
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.
Hot and Spicy Thermitic Particulates and Cars
To dissuade contemplation of nuclear methods, "hot and spicy thermitic particulates blown from the disintegrating towers" has been brought up many times within the 9/11TM. 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."
If there had 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.)
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?
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?
Pay attention to the trees and their leaves in the following four images.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Dr. Judy Wood's 2010 textbook, "Where Did The Towers Go?" and her website 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.
"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 Wood
It is speculated that some of her disinformation was forced upon Dr. Wood, 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.
Dr. Wood's website has ~not~ been thoroughly debunked. In order for it to be thoroughly debunked, the reviewer would have to go through page-by-page and image-by-image and state what is wrong, and more importantly what might be right and still valid. This, nobody has done. Some themes from her website are re-purposed in her book. So, if nobody or nothing old has debunked her website, then that same nothingness is incapable of addressing the overlap that is in her book. Her book proved to be an excellent objectivity test that many leaders of the 9/11TM failed.
This article will not go into details in debunking Dr. Wood's theories or those that many debunkers attribute to her. First and foremost, this article re-purposes nuggets of truth and select images from her work to drive towards nuclear means.
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 blast capabilities [e.g., 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.
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.
Brief Detour into 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 [ibid],
... 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.
9/11 did employ a neutron weapon, but not in the traditional sense for use on a battlefield.
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.]
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.
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. 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.
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
Officially 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.
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).
QUESTION: 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.
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.
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]:
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. Prager's conclusion from Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB], but is modified for this venue.
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.
Opponents to nuclear methods try to frame the discussion as: "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. 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 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.
Here is a picture of a core column that was bent into a 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.
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.
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.
The Steel Doobies
The Steel Doobies on Liberty Street
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.
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,
(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.
"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."
This is best explained by one or more EMPs passing through that area and causing wires or lighting fixtures to "pop."
From On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist", that also critiques Dr. Jones (a certain physicist):
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 has pictures of radiation mitigation techniques being implemented.
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 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 98. If this amount of dirt had been contained in planting pots, there wouldn't have been room for pedestrians.
The conclusion from NIST (via Wikipedia) said:
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.
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.
How many survivors and up-close witnesses suffered severe hearing loss on 9/11? Many first responders 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 chemical-based explosives (e.g., RDX) enhanced nano-thermite.
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.
True, this would have impacted health. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia, a WTC responder, rescue worker, counselor, and FEMA consultant has made many remarkable statements related to the nuking of the WTC.
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.
I had burn marks, not like you'd have from a fire, but my face was all red, my chest was red
Since 2001, Tobin has had surgery each year and had two-thirds of her teeth replaced.
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.
Among the drills happening on 9/11 were Apollo Guardian, Global Guardian, and Vigilant Guardian. From http://www.dod.mil/pubs/dswa/document.html
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?
The predominant belief within the 9/11 Truth movement suggests that nuclear devices were ~not~ used in the WTC destruction on 9/11/2001, and that conventional chemical based explosives and incendiaries, including some form of thermite, were the primary destructive mechanisms.
This article looked at the reports that substantiates those beliefs, found them untrustworthy, and pointed out the deliberate disinformation that has steered our understanding. The US Government, its agencies, and work sponsored by the same have deliberately limited the scope of such reports. The reports were proven incomplete in their data collection and in their analysis thereof. Worse, however, is that respected scholars within the 9/11 Truth Movement have utilized the entirety of these faulty works unchallenged and introduced skew and omissions of their own to steer the public away from considering nuclear methods being involved at the WTC.
This article brought up many pieces of evidence that have been ignored or incompletely considered. This includes an analysis of the dust, horseshoe beams, vehicle damage, obvious radiation mitigation techniques, the low decibel levels of the WTC destruction, and first responder ailments. It addressed the issue of what destructive force could have been employed to bring down the World Trade Center towers. It documented 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.
Much 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.]
"When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" ~John Maynard Keynes