Maxwell C. Bridges: don't wave off the nuclear signatures

Señor El Once : don't wave-off the nuclear signatures

2012-06-25

Señor Agent Rogue wrote:

There are ZERO nuclear characteristics to the event itself.

Not true. The cascading pulverization of content could be pretty indicative of that. Specially tweaked nukes don't have to give off the tell-tale signatures of conventional nukes in the same manner (flash, bang, EMP, heat wave, blast wave, alpha radiation, beta radiation, gamma radiation, X-ray radiation, etc.) Unconventional nukes whose primary output is electromagnetic energy that is DEW targeted (like the X-Ray laser intended to take out missiles). An amped up microwave. It could turn residual water molecules in content into steam whose expanding volume pressure blew content apart.

The issue with your chemical explosives is that they BURN. Why so little flaming falling debris? In fact, therein lies a major piece of evidence from Dr. Wood's textbook. When you study images and videos of the destruction of the towers, you see pieces falling that seem to have smoke trails. Is it just smoke? Or is it primarily dust and steam? How did your chemical materials get materials turned to smoke without flames or red-hot metal? Why didn't burning particles from your plastmastic flow clouds ignite many office fires in adjacent buildings, yet at the persistence to attack metal in cars to make them pop-off?
Señor Rogue wrote:

SECOND, the aftermath: “the 1st responder ailments mirroring Nagasaki,” — they do not.

They do. Stop acting like a know-it-all. Do your homework. Look into what can cause teeth to fall out.

On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist"

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.
...

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? This is the same physicist whose alleged data shot down the whole field of cold fusion? ... 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. ... When he 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.
...
Also regarding the radiation issue, in this abstract of an article, a scientist, in 1969, published the following, “Nuclear device characteristics and the factors affecting radionuclide production and distribution are described along with some recent nuclear experiments conducted by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission for the purpose of providing technical data on cratering mechanisms and special emplacement techniques which could minimize the release of radioactivity to the atmosphere.” This shows, even back in 1969, that the govt experimented with using nukes to construct canals. It shows that they worked on having nukes with blast effect, and little or no radioactive elements created. The article’s abstract hints at two methods for obviating atmospheric release of radioactivity. 1. Steering the device towards low radionuclide production and 2. "special emplacement techniques" which means place it where you won't get much or any radiation released into the air. As this was back in 1969, they likely have perfected very low (or no) radiation nukes. There should be better, more recent articles on this topic, but I didn't find any so far. Maybe I know why?! Could it be because they perfected this, and classified this, as they knew they would be using this on the “home front,” such as on 9/11? Could small nukes to be used for “construction,” have morphed into nukes used for “destruction?”
...
Regarding 9/11, never forget that whatever radionuclides may have been created were sent to China, or otherwise were not allowed to be studied. This remarkable article states that before the steel was shipped to China, it was "first sent to be washed down"— a standard method of decreasing radiation levels! ... The same demolition expert said of the 1993 nuke— after he examined the basement of that tower: "The particular type of construction type micronuclear device is mostly radiologically clean." So, as I indicated in my WTC nuclear demolition article, recent nuclear devices can be designed to be “steered” towards blast capability, and away from any (significant) radiation release.

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.

Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia, a WTC responder, rescue worker, counselor, and FEMA consultant has made many remarkable statements related to the nuking of the WTC.

They would tackle you and take your camera away. ... When we first got there, we were told where we could go and where we couldn’t go. There were different places that you were not to go to. One of the things you were not to go to and they claimed it was for safety was down in the garages, the parking garages. They were very flooded. There were a lot of problems like that. All the apartments around there were all sealed off. A lot of things were very much sealed off. ... 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. ... If you spoke to civilians, you actually were reprimanded by not being allowed to go back to the pile per hour, per occurrence. So if you talked to four people, they wouldn’t say anything to you on the pile. But when you got back, to come back and got ready at the Port Authority, got showered, dressed and ready to return, they’d say, “Tartaglia, you have to hold up a second, we need to talk to you for a second.” And then you would have nonsensical conversations for two or three hours. [AJ: AJ: Now we know that by day two, they arrested anybody with cameras. They said no over-flights, no cameras.] First of all they didn’t take cameras away from everybody. They took them away from people they couldn’t control. ... 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.

Did NYC Residents’ Geiger Counters Prove the Case? And then did NYC Criminalize Geiger Counters?

Data on radiation taken at the WTC—with the exception of elevated tritium levels (which does arise from fission bombs)—has been tightly controlled by FEMA. Few responders had access to the deep underground regions that likely had the highest radiation readings.
But then I have also detailed some strange happenings in NYC concerning a proposed law to ban private NYC residents from owning Geiger Counters. Owning a Geiger Counter was to become a misdemeanor.
...
The alleged reason for this proposed foul legislation is that they claim many NYC residents had Geiger Counters that gave [allegedly] false positive readings! And then that local or more likely co-conspirating 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.

RADIATION CANCERS KILL 345 SO FAR (April 4, 2011)

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’.

From Thomas Pynchon: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."

Then you claim: “nuclear hazmat procedures”

Yep. They carted in fresh dirt, spread it around, let it absorb radiation, then scooped it together, and carted it off.

Yep. They put copious amounts of water on hot-spots, yet still they burned. They washed steel with water before shipping to China.

Here is how you wave-off the nuclear signatures:

There is one nuclear signature verified – tritium. It is inconsequential. It can be explained as is in the USGS report. It can also be explained as to leaching into the watertable from landfills, where regardless of laws against it, there are thousands of computers and other devices containing tritium.

Prove that the USGS report explains it.

Contrary to your assignment to steer this forum, the tritium nuclear signature was not inconsequential. It necessitated a dog & pony show of a report to discuss it and re-frame trace levels to be 55 times greater than it should have been. It necessitated a dog & pony show of a report from Dr. Jones for more skewing away from any considerations into anything nuclear.

The Final Word on The Tritium

“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.

...

the China Syndrome of great heat GENERATION from the remnants of the many fission bombs, as each used only about 1-6% of its fissile material. That is, pure fusion does not allow for the China Syndrome as any remnants of pure fusion components (such as deuterium or tritium) do not allow for this-- only Uranium or Plutonium fissioning can. Note that a fission-triggered fusion bomb could still allow for the China Syndrome. Only the pure fusion scenario does not. So it is curious that the Finn immediately went with pure fusion, and not with the possibility of fission-triggered fusion. And the Finn based this on the tritium finding, and either did not know about, or chose to ignore, all the evidence of massive heat generation at the WTC for 6 months, and also the following matter.

Now most fission reactions of Uranium or Plutonium are binary-- they yield TWO large “daughter elements” (e.g., Barium and Krypton, or Strontium and Xenon), plus 2-3 neutrons, plus energy in the form of gamma rays. But since 1959, it has been publicly known, via this article, that ternary fission yields TRITIUM, along with its THREE daughter elements, plus the excess neutrons, and energy. And thus with the numerous fission bombs that were detonated, and with the additional possible factors of redundancy and fratriciding that my articles have detailed, we can arrive at perhaps the most likely source of tritium in the rubble-- the fission nukes themselves. I have seen estimates for the percentage of tritium production from ternary fission ranging from 1% down to .005%. (There is the possibility of deliberate disinformation, in some matters of nuclear physics, so one cannot often trust public nuclear physics discussions.) Because of this, and not knowing what element(s) were fissioned, nor how much of each, it is impossible to know just how much tritium could have been produced by ternary fission in the numerous micro-nukes used to destroy the WTC. But it appears to be more than would occur from non-existent planes, or gun sightings; and the proven heat generation of the China Syndrome Aftermath belies the use of a mythical 4th generation pure fusion device.

The most likely type of nuclear bombs used, was the type that could be made the smallest, and was the simplest, and most proven/dependable (compared to the others). This was the “good old” pure fission form of nuclear bombs. As I have shown, they’re even backpackable. And in the final analysis-- given ternary fission-- there never was any basis for claiming that the nuke(s) used at the WTC had to be 4th generation pure fusion, nor even that there was any fusion at all at the WTC. ...

So any tritium found on 9/13/01 at the WTC, was most likely from ternary fission, not fusion. But if you want one more, perhaps crucial, plausibility argument, here it is. Fusion bombs have a history of having a yield larger than expected. And the perps strenuously wanted NOT to blow through the building in an obvious nuclear manner. A nuke having a yield larger than needed could not be risked. This would have been visible to thousands, perhaps millions; and such knowledge would have been difficult to contain. (Whereas radiation findings were controlled by FEMA, and the Gestapo regime need only scream “national security” to prevent release of such data-- including the tritium paper, if it had wanted to.) I have emphasized the need not to blow through the building in an obvious nuclear way, since my very first article herein. This is one reason why some conventional explosives may have been used during the destruction scenario, as I have also written.

What the nukes were mainly for, in my estimation, was to vaporize INSTANTLY, and definitively, the necessary core structure for the TOWERS’ ENSUING RAPID, APPROXIMATE, FREEFALL RATE OF COLLAPSE! The PTB apparently intended to later push the impossible “gravitational pancaking” ruse, even though it violates numerous laws of Physics, and we can see the outer structure being exploded outward, by the overpressure within. (You can compare what happens during an actual gravitational collapse by seeing this.) The PTB clearly wanted to shove a physically impossible, evidence-opposing destruction "mechanism" down the throats of the masses. They know what it does to many peoples’ psyches. It induces denial, fear, schizoid behavior, and hopelessness-- all good for the coming endless wars, and destruction of the American Constitution. Putting out a physically impossible and evidence-opposing “mechanism” for WTC destruction jibes with other events perpetrated by the American regime. With the American regime’s assassination of the Peace President, John Kennedy, the “official” scenario is that the fatal head shot was fired from behind, even though Kennedy’s body is slammed violently straight back--from the shot fired, from the front, by his Secret Service “protector”/driver. The ludicrous shot from behind violates the simple Law of Conservation of Momentum. As I have written, the WTC bogus scenario entails “pristine pancaking”-- violating Newton’s Laws of Motion. Similarly the JFK Assassination had (future) Senator Specter’s “pristine bullet” that smashed into 5 bones, made turns on its own, hung out for 2 seconds and looked virtually like new-- and violated the Momentum Conservation Law. The PTB want to put out these impossible “mechanisms” to dumb down, shock, or paralyze the people. Most people go into denial, and do not want to think about it, because their subconciousnesses know what is really involved. Those who can think and see, and have combatted the denial, are then further confounded with other limited hangouts put out by the Gestapo Regime’s hidden intel agents posing as “leaders” of the “truth movement.” These WTC hangouts included the evidence-free inanity of DEW, and the “thermite burns forever” impossibility. Both are easily demonstrated to be physically impossible to have caused the WTC destruction, and the CSA. All the regime’s hidden assets earlier inserted at the top of the “alternative” or conspiracy internet media, were then instructed to push these hangouts and avoid mention of the nuking and the China Syndrome Aftermath.

Returning now to the fission vs. fusion issue. Blowing through the outer structure of the building with unnecessary fusion--either as the hypothetical pure fusion, or as a fission-fusion bomb-- could not be risked, when pure fission micro-nukes were readily available. Fission nukes have a more "guaranteed" upper bound on their yields, and are more dependable as well, compared to either the alleged pure fusion or the fission-fusion bomb. In the final analysis, the release of the tritium data may have been a clever Intel Op to try to hide the China Syndrome Aftermath, and its nuclear fission cause. If there was tritium at the WTC, its most likely source was ternary fission.