This article makes the case that Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (FGND) were used on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center. In doing so, it discusses why the leading theory of Nano-Thermite proposed by many influential leaders in the 9/11 Truth Movement does not go the whole distance and is therefore wrong. This work demonstrates evolution in the beliefs of the author when presented with new information, although much of this article's content has been published previously.
Certain quotations reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
1. Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices & 9/11
The official fabel about the World Trade Center (WTC) towers' destruction on 9/11 claims (1) that the building stories above the impact levels became massive pile drivers that acted solely under the forces of gravity to pulverize the underlying structures to the ground and (2) that no extra energy was added from unknown sources.
However, many videos of the destruction of the WTC towers expose anomalies in the form of (1) destruction at free-fall speeds, (2) content pulverization, and (3) content ejection that defy physics, unless energy was added from other sources.
Assuming the damage and fires from the impacting planes could have initiated the collapses of the towers (for which they were designed), the structure underneath the falling upper stories would have and should have resisted & slowed the destruction wave, if the collapse wasn't arrest completely well above ground level.
The pulverization of content and the ejection of content are energy sinks that take away from the kinetic energy of a "pile driver" and logically would have further slowed the destruction from free-fall speeds. Moreover, as observed in many videos and discussed by physics teacher David Chandler, the "pile driver" of upper stories accordianed in on themselves and weren't a cohesive mass anymore by the time the wave of destruction progressed below the levels where the airplanes impacted.
From "BEYOND MISINFORMATION What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7":
A number of papers ... have measured the fall of WTC 1’s upper section and have observed that it never slowed down in the four seconds before it disappeared from view. Rather, its acceleration remained constant, at approximately 64 percent of free fall, and there was never an observable deceleration, which would be required if the upper section had impacted and crushed the lower structure. A lack of deceleration would indicate with absolute certainty that the lower structure was destroyed by another force before the upper section reached it. ... One of the most noticeable features of the two buildings’ destruction was the near-total pulverization of... approximately 8.8 million square feet of 5.5-inch-thick lightweight concrete flooring. ... [T]he buildings’ steel structures were almost entirely dismembered... [V]irtually all of their steel skeletons were broken up into small pieces, with the core structures separated into individual members and the exterior columns broken up into three-story, prefabricated sections. ... As the concrete was being pulverized and the structures were being dismembered, a large percentage of the buildings’ materials was ejected upwards and laterally in an arclike manner far beyond the perimeters of the buildings... as far as 400 to 500 feet from each tower’s base.
Thus, the official government & media version of 9/11 events pertaining to the WTC cannot be true.
The leading theories within the 9/11 Truth Movement (9/11TM) and promoted heavily by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE9/11) suggest that nano-thermite (NT) was the primary mechanism of destruction at the WTC. This article doesn't dispute that NT might have been involved, but does dispute that NT could have been the primary mechanism of destruction.
Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (FGND) are more likely sources for the WTC destruction. This truth leaks out of all (government) reports, out of all objective analysis of the evidence, out of numerous "disinformation" sources, and out of the ongoing cover-up itself.
The above paragraph risks triggering "cognitive dissonance" with readers who may have been involved with the 9/11TM in small or large measure. However, if such readers are sincere seekers of truth at their core, then they owe it to truth & themselves to stifle the cognitive dissonance and to continue reading.
For the benefit of those with a belief in NT, it is addressed before the case is made for FGND.
2. Slaughtering the Nano-Thermite Sacred Cow
Prior to the demolition of the WTC buildings, the largest imploded building, Hudson’s Department Store was 2.2 million square feet with 33 levels and required 2,728 lbs of explosive. The WTC buildings were significantly stronger than the Hudson’s building. {Source.}
The major anomalies that call NT into question as the primary mechanism of WTC destruction are:
- Pulverization of content.
- Duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
- Horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies."
- Vehicle damage along West Broadway and the car park.
- Tritium and other evidence of nuclear involvement.
- Shoddy analysis of NT and nuclear alternatives.
If we assume briefly that NT was the main mechanism, how much would be required? Dr. Nils Harrit made some calculations to this end. He started with the analysis that the RJ Lee group did with dust from the lobby of a neighboring building, where they found 5.87% content of iron-rich spheres in the dust (see Table 3,p.28 in the 2003 Report). 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. ... 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.
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/207-news-media-events-danish-high-court-harrit.html
Hedegaard had earlier calculated, on his own, that at least 60 tons of thermite would have been needed to take down the Twin Towers, and on that basis he found it difficult to believe that controlled demolition had been used to level those two buildings.
3. Running the numbers on NT
NT is an incendiary, not an explosive. Therefore Dr. Steven Jones, who allegedly found energetic particles of NT in his dust samples, suggested that NT was mixed with something having more brisance, such as RDX.
Unfortunately on paper, RDX or similar explosives exasperate getting NT to explain the second anomaly of under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months. NT has a burn rate of ~1,100 feet per second (f/s). RDX has a burn-rate of ~31,000 f/s. Hot-spots were several and burned for many weeks. Simplify by considering only one hot-spot that burned 4 weeks = 28 days = 1,411,200 seconds. As but one configuration and so it doesn't burn-up all at once, consider this explosive/incendiary material packed into an imaginary garden hose whose diameter we can ignore for the moment. To sustain such a hot-spot, the fuse-like hose packed with pure NT implies a length of 226,000 miles, while RDX implies 7,510,000 miles. Thus, a mixture of NT with RDX (or equivalent) would still result in something many hundreds of thousand miles long.
Red flags should be going up at this point, because those triple zeros to the left of the decimal point are significant. If we assume "salting" of the material in the pile and grossly simplified it down to "n" thousand miles and a hose diameter of a mere 1/8", the volume of material required (for one hot-spot) is still massive! The answers are not trivial and represent significant logistics hurdles, if the search for 9/11 destructive sources is stopped at RDX/NT. Worst of all, this represents material that was unspent and left-over from its original task of pulverizing the towers. In other words, add this to the gross estimates already provided by Dr. Harrit.
4. Test the Samples
Mr. Scott Creighton tried numerous times to get the Dr. Steven Jones to test his independently acquired WTC dust samples for standard industry explosive residues.
Some Straight Forward Questions For Steven Jones on the Subject of his Research By Scott Creighton 2009-04-07.
Thermite and thermate would not be classified as a "high explosive" but rather a low-explosive. They are incendiary materials because though they burn at a relatively low rate of speed, the release a lot of energy when doing so.
That is why you keep seeing energy comparisons being made by Jones in his new paper - but that energy he mentions translates mainly to heat output, not to the potential of creating a shock wave. It's that shock wave that produces the "explosive" effect that could pulverize concrete floors or shoot multi-ton steel beams across 300 feet of lower New York City. And it is the detonation velocity that creates the shock wave.
...
At long last, after being told that they were really more interested in pushing for political or legal action, Greg Roberts told me something quite amazing in one of his last emails to me."However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it. Thus, the potential costs of doing what you're proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered." Roberts
The idea that you wouldn't run a scientific test that is standard investigative procedure when an explosive is suspected, for any reason, let alone for "potential P.R." consequences… was astounding to me.
...
Here we are, looking for some deep-secret governmental agency capable of producing some mystery explosive, that may or may not have even had the detonation velocity capable of destroying the concrete floors in the first place, while everyone makes a point to cover their asses in the case of a future investigation by clearly stating they never LOOKED for standard to the industry explosive residues in the WTC dust samples.
9/11 Truth Red Herring: Neoliberal BYU Has Financed, Staffed, and Peer-Reviewed Prof. Jones' Flawed Thermite Distraction Since Day One By Scott Creighton 2010-05-26
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.
5. Sleight of Hand
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/207-news-media-events-danish-high-court-harrit.html
In City Court, Villemoes had claimed that the WTC dust in the nano-thermite report could have been unauthentic. That charge gave Dr. Harrit a reason to submit the WTC dust as evidence to the High Court. In so doing, Dr. Harrit verified the authenticity of his dust samples by pointing to two photographs on page 24 in the nano-thermite report, which showed the same kind of iron microspheres found in the dust by RJ Lee Group in 2003 and by the US Geological Survey in 2005. He then held before Villemoes a plastic bag with his own sample of WTC dust, dragging a strong magnet along the side of the plastic, trying to make a little rim of black particles gather near the edges of the magnet. On the first attempt, Villemoes failed to see the black rim. But on the second try, he said he could see it, and Dr. Harrit told him that, since we all know that magnets attract iron, this was the iron microspheres being separated from the dust particles not containing iron. This was proof that a thermitic reaction had taken place on 9/11, Dr. Harrit told Villemoes.
Not necessarily.
Beyond Misinformation page 21
Along with the pulverization, dismemberment, and explosive ejection of the buildings’ materials, we observed what Kevin Ryan describes as “high velocity bursts of debris ejected from point-like sources.”15 According to Ryan, “[T]he demolition hypothesis suggests that these bursts of debris are the result of the detonation of explosive charges (squibs), placed at key points in the structure to facilitate the removal of resistance.”
Not necessarily. A thermitic reaction isn't the only way to create iron microspheres. The effects of FGNW depositing MeV neutron energy into the molecutes of steel is more than sufficient heat to create such microspheres. Source for this quote.}
[FGNW directed energy] will reach the target where they will heat the surface, which may melt or vaporize up to the point of launching a shock into it. Because that shock is produced directly on the target, it will be much stronger that if it have produced indirectly by means of a shock wave propagating through air, as well as much stronger that if it would have been produced by the expanding fireball hitting the target.
The main effect, however, will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material.
6. Maintaining the Under-Rubble Fires
In Dr. Steven Jones and Mr. Kevin Ryan' paper, "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials," they make a good case that such explosive material could account for six or so spikes in the release of dangerous gases. The omission in their paper is that NT used in any combination with conventional explosives cannot explain what maintained the under-rubble hot-spots between those spikes. In September of 2012, Dr. Jones wrote: "Something maintained those hot-spots (not just nano-thermite.)"
Nuclear devices are not without weaknesses. Used in tandem and when not aimed properly, their neutron emissions can cause neighboring devices to fail. Nuclear fizzle occurs when a nuclear device fails to meet its expected yield. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukishima are examples of uncontrolled nucleared reactions. The FGND of 9/11 had much smaller nuclear payloads but could still result in a fizzling situations in under-rubble hot-spots.
Let's take a brief one paragraph detour into perpetrator's agenda. External terrorists could have achieved their alleged goals with the plane hijackings and crashes into symbols of American power alone; destruction of said symbols would have been a lucky bonus. The same could be said about internal terrorists who just wanted to nudge the USA into war. When astute researchers "follow the money", they'll learn that destruction of the WTC wasn't a lucky bonus, but a design goal in order to carry out major financial hiests. (Ditto for the newly renovated wing of the Pentagon into which the Office of Naval Intelligence and their recorded moved.) The internal terrorists wanting to scape-goat external terrorists could have achieved the WTC destruction using conventional means in a more prudent, scaled-back manner that wasn't so overtly "OVERKILL" and a glaring red flag. They would have known in the planning how many explosives were needed for destruction versus pulverization, which correlate in a practical sense to logistics. The premise of this article is that the observed overkill pulverization wasn't a design goal, but was a side-effect of the energetic FGND chosen.
The case against NT as the primary mechanism of WTC destruction is already pretty solid with the above analysis from basic high school chemistry & math into NT quantities required for pulverization and maintenance of under-rubble hot-spots. "That dog don't hunt" for Occam Razor.
7. Horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies."
However, some additional evidence will be presented to further the case: horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies." David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored." The images in this section have not been explained by others.
The following are pictures of a core column that was bent into a horse shoe.
The following are pictures of bent beams.
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 horse shoe 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.
Some of the beams were named "arches" in Dr. Judy Wood's collection. However, this misrepresents their nature. These beams were heated end-to-end in a very short period of time by a heat source several orders of magnitude hotter than conventional or exotic chemical mechanisms. They didn't "arch" but instead "sagged" under the forces of gravity.
The external wall assemblies were composed of three 30' box columns connected by three spandrels, as observed in the following image.
However, what the above image (lower left-hand portion and on top of another intact wall assembly) and the ones below give away are wall assemblies that have been rolled up into "steel doobies."
In the image above, the steel doobie stands almost vertical as the first large chunk of building debris just left of center. This is Liberty Street, which means it got thrown out of the towers that distance as well.
What forces were at play that could get this wall assembly to wrap itself into a "steel doobie"? If NT were used, what configuration would result in these effects? This article suggests that NT in any combination with other conventional chemical explosives or incendiaries could not have produced these artifacts.
8. Controlling the Opposition
An aspect of all large psychological operations is the concerted effort to lead public thought away from the truth. Information about 9/11 (like JFK, RFK, MLK, etc. before it) has been well seeded with disinformation to confuse and frustrate the public into giving up.
Lenin wrote: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Such a strategy has been well known and followed for decades by various government agencies. 9/11 is no exception. Here are intial data points.
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; much of the operational information into the terrorist network was obtained through torture, was unreliable, and has been proven wrong. 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 that 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.
9. Efforts to Debunk 9/11 Nuclear Devices
The principle documents used to support the erroneous belief that no nuclear devices being used on 9/11/2001 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.
- "Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001" by The Paul Lioy et al.
- "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers" by Dr. Steven Jones.
10. Report 1: Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center
Many reports pertaining to 9/11 exhibit the "unscientific method" of adopting a conclusion and manipulating efforts & information to fit that conclusion. For example, the security clamp-down of the WTC site prevented fire investigators for doing their job, and they rightfully complained. FEMA's investigators were not granted access to the site until the week of October 7. Part of the rationale (cover-up) went: "We already know that airplanes damaged the towers and started fires, so we already know what caused the WTC destruction. Therefore, the efforts of fire investigators aren't needed."
Along those same lines, when the cover-up team knew what the true sources of destruction were, they could be pro-active in steering analysis about anomalous features. An excellent example of this is: "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams. This 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."
Tritium is a common feature in nearly all fourth generation nuclear devices (FGND). In order to prevent speculation from going to FGND, the study was "scope limited" to attribute tritium to RL devices that might already be in the contents of the WTC complex.
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... 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.
Further, because the authors weren't looking at nuclear weapons as being the source for tritium or the destruction, (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.
Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen that ready binds with hydroxyl radicals to form tritiated water, (HTO or heavy water). It is thus diluted by water. 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.
Sampling for tritium took place on 9/13 and 9/21. These delays are noteworthy because with this the study implies that tritium levels from 9/21 -- after much dilution from rain and firefighting efforts -- would be representative of tritium levels from 9/11. Samples were only taken in run-off from WTC-6 and not from around any of the other buildings or hot-spots. They stopped taking additional samples when their analysis indicated levels well below the EPA threshold for what constitutes a health risk.
In addition to the shoddy sampling, the study re-defines "trace or background levels" to be 55 times greater than they were previously.(More details.)
The conclusion buries the fact that its mathematical modeling of the aircraft exit signs yielded an HTO deposition fraction that was too high in comparison with historical incidents involving fire and tritium, yet was still too small to account for the tritium measurements.
To fill the gap in tritium measured, they turn to a supposition about weapons' sights. Their modeling suggested a minimum of 120 so-equipped weapons were destroyed with leaking tritium. 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 (1) of how many total weapons needed to be accounted for, (2) of what weapons were recovered and with only minor damage, or (3) of where weapons were stored before the destruction and thereby being able to account for the tritium at the limited sampling locations. In other words, the extent that measured tritium came from weapons (and watches) becomes a big unsubstantiated assumption.
The conclusion is a bit forced but 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 of the study did an admirable job of supposing that tritium from consumer products (e.g., exit signs, weapons' sights) would leach into the water as HTO (tritiated or heavy water). Further, they succeeded in conveying the message that the lingering tritium was at benign levels with respect to human health.
However, readers of the report must assume (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.
The bigger issue caused by this study is when it is later re-purposed by Dr. Steven Jones as the final word on tritium at the WTC: unquestioned and unchallenged.
11. Report 2: Characterization of the Dust/Smoke by Paul Lioy et al
The premise "No Radiation = No Nukes" has been cited as a reason why 9/11 did ~not~ involve nuclear devices. The measurement of tritium at the WTC cancels the left-hand side of the equation, but let's set this aside for the sake of discussion.
The fiction in the 911TM about the WTC not having any radiation seems to come from the report: "Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001" by The Paul Lioy et al.
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.
The tritium study re-define "background levels", so this report might be following the same pattern. Except that this report provided neither the measured values nor the values of what they "background level".
It is significant when they write: "Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level." For the gravity-driven-pile-drivers that the government attributes to the WTC tower destruction, nothing radioactive elevated to twice background level should have existed at all. Likewise, chemical explosives and incendiaries are not known for releasing radiation, so even "slightly elevated beta activity" should not be left around as a signature if such were the only cause of destruction.
With regards to radiation, the argument is sometimes made that there is no proof of "measurable and verifiable radioactivity at ground zero". This has been proven wrong. On the flip side, 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 Lioy report characterizes the dust as:
[T]he particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-µm diameter) particles, not the fine (<2.5-µm diameter) or coarse (2.5-10-µm diameter)... Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a "star-wars" beam destroying the Towers).
This is a straw man created by splitting hairs with regards to the amount of these µm particles and by framing it as "near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke)".
First, Lioy does ~not~ state that there was ~no~ fine (<2.5-µm diameter) or coarse (2.5-10-µm diameter) particles generated in the WTC destruction, because indeed there was and indeed this still represents a massive energy sink even if the greatest abundance of dust particles were supercoarse (>10-µm diameter). It takes much energy to make even the unregulated supercoarse dust particles.
Second, they make no effort to describe "mini-nuke" correctly for the observed outcomes. They allow the imagination of the readers, formed by many years of nuclear weapons PR hype, to fill in the blanks.
The USGS collected dozens of dust samples with a methodolgy more rigorous and systematic than those of the tritium study, the Lioy report, or Dr. Jones.
A 2-person USGS crew collected grab samples from 35 localities within a 0.5 - 1 km radius circle centered on the World trade Center site on the evenings of September 17 and 18, 2001. ... Many of the streets bordering the collection locations were cleaned or were in the process of being cleaned at the time of sample collection. Given this limitation, collection of dust samples was restricted to undisturbed window ledges, car windshields, flower pots, protected areas in door entry ways, and steps. Occasionally, samples were collected from the sidewalk adjacent to walls that were afforded some degree of protection from the elements and cleanup process.
The USGS samples had Thorium, Lanthanum, and Yttrium, which Lioy et al do not tabulate. Mr. Jeff Prager subsequently reviewed this USGS data in 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.
Unfortunately, the Lioy report seems to fit the trend line of many other government reports. Rational thinkers have no basis for trusting it at face value.
12. Report 3: Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers
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 his letter: "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers" (2007).
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.
As discussed in the preceding section, this study achieved its scope-limited goals, but is deeply flawed in its shoddy sampling & analysis to be held up by Dr. Jones as the final authority on tritium at the WTC. The government study notes that they were "unable" to test at numerous places, especially deep underground where the high temperatures and molten steel were observed.
This should have been a red flag for Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones in his paper accepts this report unchallenged, re-iterates "trace" as the re-defined level, supports the contention of its negligent health effects, and the frames the discussion as a large thermonuclear (fusion) bomb by writing:
Many millions of curies of tritium are present in even a small thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb. (Note that tritium can be generated during the blast from the reaction of neutrons on lithium deuteride.) Yet the observed tritium levels at GZ were in the billionth of a curie range.
Dr. Jones also accepts unchallenged the Lioy report that characterizes the dust and smoke and does not even question its blatant flaws, such as sample size and location.
Dr. Jones then introduces a blatant logic error, best summarized as follows:
"Nuclear weapons of type X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures of A, B, and C. Radiation signature D was measured. Thus, the cause of the WTC destruction was not nuclear weapons of X, Y, or Z nor any other nuclear device."
In other words, he frames the discussion around certain types of nuclear weapons and legitimately states that the radiation signature did not match those. But rather than taking just those types off of the table, he takes all nuclear devices out of consideration. Other than airplane exit signs, police gun sights, and time pieces from the scope-limited tritium study, Dr. Jones does not speculate much into the radiation signature D (tritium), which is a signature of a fusion device.
The blatant omission is fourth generation nuclear devices (FGND).
Dr. Andre Gsponer, a Swiss physicist, has never written about 9/11 (to this author's knowledge), but he did write "The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, and the Quest for Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons" that was presented in 1997 and was in its seventh edition in September 2000. He also wrote the paper "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects" in 2005. Both were available before Dr. Jones' 2007 letter. These should have been included in his literature review.
Public and university libraries do not have their databases in Google. A person on site at just about any university's engineering, math, and physics library will be able to dig up mountains of more references -- books, technical journals, etc. -- that specify at the time of writing where various nuclear technologies were at and where research was heading. [These would be the public records, and not anything hidden behind "national security" labels.]
Yet seemingly Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Wood, and many others could be bothered to perform such research in their universities' libraries. Even a failed venture to find plausibility of nuclear means in the public space is a negative result worthy of publication and promotion, kind of like a hypothesis that testing disproved. However, this wasn't done, because the venture wouldn't have been a failure; it would have netted Andre Gsponer's work and that of many others.
Dr. Jones then goes on to challenge:
Can proponents of the WTC-mini-nuke hypothesis explain how large releases of tritium did NOT happen on 9/11/2001?
This question is malframed in many ways: the nature of the device, how the energy and radiation were directed, and that large releases of tritium supposedly did not happen.
13. High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions
Beyond Misinformation page 30
To guide our evaluation of the competing hypotheses, we will apply the third principle discussed earlier — "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored" — to the investigation of high-temperature chemical reactions.
"Chapter 23: Explosions" of NFPA 921, which is the national guideline for fire and explosion investigations, states: “All available fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until one fuel can be identified as meeting all the physical damage criteria as well as any other significant data.” On the potential use of exotic accelerants, including thermite, NFPA 921 advises: “Indicators of exotic accelerants include…melted steel or concrete.”
Included in "all available fuel sources" should have been nuclear options.
Beyond Misinformation page 32
Not only was molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2, dozens of eyewitnesses observed it in the debris of all three buildings. A small selection is presented below:
- Leslie Robertson, a lead engineer in the design of WTC 1 and WTC 2, told an audience: "We were down at the B-1 level and one of the firefighters said, 'I think you'd be interested in this.' And they pulled up a big block of concrete, and there was like a little river of steel flowing."2
- FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo recalled with other firefighters seated next to him: "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava." Other firefighters chimed in: "Like lava.""Like lava from a volcano."3
- Ken Holden, the Commissioner of the NYC Department of Design and Construction, testified before the 9/11 Commission: "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."4
...
[S]tructural steel does not begin to melt until about 1,482°C (2,700°F).
...
NIST assumes that the only possible cause of “melting steel” would have been “the jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers,” which is an implausible hypothesis on its face.
AE9/11 asssumes that the only possible cause of the "melting steel" would have been nano-thermitic chemical reactions.
In a New York Times article published in February 2002, James Glanz and Eric Lipton wrote:
Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected…from 7 World Trade Center…. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright…. A preliminary analysis at Worcester Polytechnic Institute [WPI]…suggests that sulfur released during the fires—no one knows from where — may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures.6
Beyond Misinformation page 34
Three scientific studies have documented evidence in the WTC dust that indicates extremely high temperatures during the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2 — and possibly WTC 7.
Released in May 2004, the RJ Lee report titled WTC Dust Signature identified “[s]pherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature” in the dust.
An earlier 2003 version of RJ Lee’s report observed:Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension…. Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in the WTC dust…but are not common in normal office dust.
The 2003 version also reported that while iron particles make up only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted 5.87 percent of the WTC dust.
Iron does not melt until 1,538°C (2,800°F), which, as discussed above, cannot be reached by diffuse hydrocarbon fires. Still, even higher temperatures than 1,538°C were indicated by another discovery documented in RJ Lee’s report:The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool.
The 2003 version also referred to temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization.” For such vaporization to occur, lead would need to have been heated to its boiling point of 1,749°C (3,180°F).
Released in 2005, a report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) titled Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust identified “trace to minor amounts” of “metal or metal oxides” in the WTC dust and presented micrographs of these particles, two of which were labeled “Iron-rich sphere.”
Beyond Misinformation page 35
Published by Dr. Steven Jones and seven other scientists in early 2008, the paper Extremely High Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction connected the dots between the earlier RJ Lee and USGS reports. It also provided new observations based on analysis of WTC dust samples obtained by Dr. Jones. According to the authors:
The formation of spherules in the dust implies the generation of materials somehow sprayed into the air so that surface tension draws the molten droplets into near-spherical shapes. The shape is retained as the droplet solidifies in the air.
In addition to observing spherules of iron and silicates, their study discussed the presence of molybdenum spherules documented by the USGS study but not included in its report. (This additional data from the USGS study was obtained through a FOIA request.) Molybdenum is known for its extremely high melting point of 2,623°C (4,754°F).
Jones’ study also discussed evidence of even higher temperatures contained in the RJ Lee report (quoting from the RJ Lee report):Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure having a Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation)….
These transformed materials include: spherical iron particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. Dr. Jones and his coauthors observed:
[I]f the “Swiss-cheese appearance” is indeed the result of “boiling and evaporation” of the material as the [RJ Lee] report suggests, we note the boiling temperature for aluminosilicate is approximately 2,760°C.
They then provided a table (see Table 6 at left) summarizing the temperatures needed to account for the various evidence of high temperatures in the World Trade Center destruction, which they contrasted with the much lower maximum temperatures associated with the fires on September 11.
...
Table 6: Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required
PROCESS AND MATERIAL °C °F To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel 1,000 1,832 To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) 1,450 2,652 To melt iron (spherule formation) 1,538 2,800 To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) 1,565 2,849 To vaporize lead 1,740 3,164 To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) 2,623 4,753 To vaporize aluminosilicates 2,760 5,000
14. FGND: Nuclear Paradigm Shift
{Source [or "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects"] for this section. Dr. Andre Gsponer CV}
From decades of PR and hype of nuclear weapons, the public has been indocrinated with a common paradigm that such weapons always aim for high yields, lots of destruction, and lots of radiation. The paradigm shift for fourth generation nuclear devices (FGND) inverts this premise. Being based on fusion, much lower yields (tactical) and much reduced radiological impact are possible.
FGND based on low-yield thermonuclear pellets triggered by compact non-fission primaries have yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, enhanced prompt radiation effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc. A FGND using only 25 mg of deuterium-tritium (DT) could have a 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency.
Different kinds of radiation can have a variety of effects, particularly for high-energy neutrons and gamma-rays that are very penetrating.
- Generate a fireball (in air or a material).
- Launch a shockwave (in air or in a material).
- Heat the surface of a material.
- Accelerate or compress a material.
- Transfer momentum to a material.
- Heat the volume of a material.
- Energize a working material.
- Forge and project missiles.
- Form and send high-velocity jets.
- Ablate a material and produce a shock wave in it. If surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material will vaporize (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction a large pressure will be exerted on it, launching a shock-wave into the material.
Words like "pulverization" and "dustification" were used to describe the towers' destruction.
Collateral effects of the above list of "mechanical" and "thermodynamical" effects are non-thermo-mechanical effects, such as an electromagetic pulse and prompt or delayed radiations.
Conventional explosives (and 1st and 2nd generation nuclear devices) couple their energy to the target by means of shock-waves propagating through an intervening medium, such as air, water, earth, rock, etc. FGND are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can product direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response.
Let us suppose that the yield from an idealized DT-based FGNW consists of about 20% in soft X-rays and 80% in 14 MeV neutrons. Let us also take into account that relative to a surface at some distance from the point of explosion, 50% of each of these radiations will flow forwards, and 50% backwards.
If we suppose that this weapon has a yield in the range of a few tons, and is detonated in air at a relatively short distance from a target, say a few meters, most of the forwards going X-rays will reach the target where they will heat the surface, which may melt or vaporize up to the point of launching a shock into it. Because that shock is produced directly on the target, it will be much stronger that if it have produced indirectly by means of a shock wave propagating through air, as well as much stronger that if it would have been produced by the expanding fireball hitting the target.
The main effect, however, will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material.
A first significant difference between DT-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast.
When Dr. Sunder of NIST was making his (faulty) case for a gravity-driven pile-driver, he made the valid argument against conventional explosives that the amount required would have resulted in a deafening audio signature.
Beyond Misinformation page 39
NIST concluded the following:
- [T]he minimum charge (lower bound) required to fail a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have produced a pressure wave that would have broken windows on the north and east faces of the building near Column 79. The visual evidence did not show such breakage....
- [T]he noise level at a distance of . mile would have been on the order of 130 dB to 140dB... People on the street would have heard 9 lb of RDX go off a mile away....
- Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the building without detection...1
{Source}
1. Linda Raisch-Lopez "The building was vibrating "
2. EMT RUSSELL HARRIS I looked at the building and it started vibrating
3. EMT JOHN ROTHMUND "The noise and the vibrations."
4. CHARLES WELLS "- a very strong vibration, shaking, and a loud noise like a subway train coming through a station at speed,"
5. LIEUTENANT DANIEL WILLIAMS "I heard a deep rumbling, and I felt vibrations."
6. FIREFIGHTER KEVIN MCCABE SOME SORT OF VIBRATION LIKE VRR VRR VRR GETTING LOUDER AND LOUDER
7. LIEUTENANT JAMES MCGLYNN "THAT VIBRATION THAT WE FELT WAS THE SOUTH TOWER" Hour Later Big Big Explosion
{Source}
Mineta Transportation Institute Reported 30 Seconds of vibrations
"People inside the South Tower felt the floor vibrate as if a small earthquake were occurring. Instinctively, they sought shelter behind the massive pillars in the lobby, then everything went black. The vibration lasted for about 30 seconds. The doors were knocked out, and a huge ball of flame created by the exploding diesel fuel from the building’s own supply tank shot from the elevator shaft and out the doors of the South Tower, consuming everything in its path."
Mineta Transportation Institute's 30 Seconds of vibrations BEFORE collapse clearly was not caused by 1. planes 2. fires or 3. falling debris. Therefore it's something else was used to help the building turn to dust.
{Source}
"You’re hearing the rumble and you don’t see a thing. Everything is shaking around you. building is pulling me in"
"Then all the sudden I get hit with a blast of heat like I was being burnt in an oven — like a sun’s rays just hitting you "
{Source}
"You’re hearing the rumble and you don’t see a thing. Everything is shaking around you. building is pulling me in"
"Then all the sudden I get hit with a blast of heat like I was being burnt in an oven — like a sun’s rays just hitting you "
When the directly coupled energy of FGNW is considered that does not use a shock-wave through air, one could expect its audio signature to be different, too, and much suppressed as observed.
15. Directed Energy
Disinformation needs to have a foundation of truth in order for the disinfo skew to be effective. Getting others to believe (for a time) the skew is a short-term goal whose success doesn't really matter. A more important long-term goal is for the disinformation vehicle to be exposed and discredited, which in turn can take the valid nuggets of truth in the vehicle out of consideration in a guilt-by-association manner.
The Anonymous Physicist once critisized Dr. Judy Wood for gathering together most of the evidence that 9/11 was nuclear and then associating this with "batshit crazy" theories: beams from space, DEW from hurricanes, the Hutchison Effect, etc. Dr. Judy Wood is credited by the 911TM for bringing awareness to directed energy weapons (DEW). Her work is often dismissed (with prejudice) as disinformation. It does have three main problems. (1) Dr. Wood was not specific enough. (2) Dr. Wood did not connect together information presented. (3) Dr. Wood did not do enough research, didn't address criticism, and consequently comes up short.
In classic straw-man fashion, detractors of DEW on 9/11 often framed the discussion around one type of DEW, proved that it wasn't applicable, and then extrapolated a conclusion that implied all types of DEW weren't applicable. Dr. Wood, her close associates, and many shallow internet followers / defenders did not correct the framing. Nor did they acknowledge the valid points of their critics so that research directions could be improved.
For example, anyone researching the information publicly available about DEW would quickly learn that lasers and high powered microwaves (HPM) are just manifestations of the same thing: the electromagnetic spectrum. Their wavelengths occupy different realms of that spectrum.
The interaction of radio waves -- {long part of the EM spectrum the covers wavelengths from a tenth of a centimeter [EHF, or extremely high frequency wves) down to waves over 100 kilometers in length [VLF, or very low frequency]} -- with matter is well known and has been documented for years. ... [W]aves of the electromanetic spectrum generally have to be the same size of the target or object ot cause any damage. In a simplified view, lasers burrow into solid material quite well because their wavelengths are about the same size as molecultes. Lasers can thus deposit their energy and "resonate" with the size of the solid material they hit, including metals.
On the other hand, although high-power microwaves can penetrate building walls and sirupt computers, they can't penetrate metals and don't do much damage to things like trucks or missiles. Instead, they interact with targets that are the same size of its wavelength (meters to millimeters), such as human skin and sires in electronics. This coupling, a measure of the amount of interaction, is greater for things that are the same size as an HPM wavelength.
This means that radio waves don't interact efficiently with targets unless they are the same size. And since radio waves are hundreds of meters to hundreds of kilometers long, they pass through most material and aren't much of a threat.
High-power microwave wavelengths are the longest part of the EM spectrum that can be used effectively as a weapon.
{Source for this section: "THE E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons Will change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought", Doug Beason, Ph.D., 2005.}
The above information about wavelengths is also applicable to optics and local results when beamed from space. Some wavelengths cannot get through atmospheric weather. Some disperse and spread their limited amount of energy over a larger surface area, reducing the impact. Plus, many DEW devices create their coherent energy from chemical reactions. Getting quantities of such chemicals to space is not trivial. Nuclear energy sources are possible. The true limiting factor in considering 9/11 beams from space is that such would interact with the structure top-down, but the observed destruction initiated from within.
Directed Energy (DE) encompasses a wide, cross-disciplinary field of science and engineering. It is nearly impossible to enumerate the many academic and technical disciplines that make up DE, as it includes fields as diverse as physics and engineering to psychology (for studying the Active Denial effect). The people who have advanced the research and development of DE are just as numerous.
...
DE research and development has been shrouded in a veil of secrecy. there are national security reasons for not revealing certain applications or vulnerabilities.
...
Largely shrouded in highly classified environment, directed energy weapons research is conducted by a cadre of closed-mouthed technical wizards.
16. The History of W-54
{Source for this section: VT Nuclear Education: History of Mini-Nukes By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor on September 3, 2014.}
Davy Crockett nukes – the early days
Among various other types of hydrogen bomb warheads, the W54 nuke was developed in 1961. The W54 was a micro-nuke that weighed 51 pounds and could be fired from a slightly modified ordinary bazooka. Different versions of the W54 ranged from .01 kt to 1 kt yield. Between the mid 1950’s and the mid 70’s both types (large yield dirty and small yield clean), of 2nd generation H-bombs were refined.
Focused nuclear explosions were envisioned in 1959. The mere directing of the yield was obviously known prior to 1959. Samuel Cohen has stated that a low yield neutron bomb may be tailored to direct yield and proposed the concept more than 35 years ago. An underground detonation causes shaping of the direction of yield as well.
Around 1960, the relatively pure H-bomb was modified for selective effects creating the first 3rd generation H-bomb – the Neutron bomb, Enhanced Radiation Warhead, or a mostly fusion bomb. The neutron bomb’s energy was mostly based on fusion using Deuterium/Tritium with only a small fission component to ignite the fusion reaction.
The neutron bombs are designed to release at least 80% of its yield as neutrons at the expense of blast and heat as compared to previous fission-fusion warheads.
It was during a trial regarding Chinese espionage that forced the revelation of the neutron bomb. Shortly thereafter, Reagan deployed the W70 (re-manufactured W-54’s) version with a yield range of 0.8 kt to 1.6 kt.
In November 1972, the following sentence was declassified: "The fact of existence of weapons with tailored outputs, e.g., enhanced x-ray, neutron or gamma-ray output, that we are hardening our weapons to enhanced weapon outputs and that high-Z materials are used in hardening nuclear weapons against high-energy x-rays." Note: the date is the declassification date, not the development date.
17. Blackmail of Bush 1 & 2: Sales of the W-54
The following passage can be read in full at its source, :
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/05/20/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/
Disclaimer: The following does not completely agree with other FGND premises given in this article. However, it has sufficient nugget of truth overlap for it to be of interest to readers.
According to a retired FXX agent specializing in Israeli counter intel: The type of nuclear devices used on 911 were a modified version of the W-54 nuclear artillery shells that were covertly provided to the Israelis between 1988 and 1998 from US surplus stockpiles illegally exported during the Bush/Clinton era.
Chemical analysis done by DOE Sandi was able to identify the chemical/radiation footprint or fingerprint of the warheads based on samples taken after 911 of the fallout at ground zero.
All plutonium based warheads have a chemical fingerprint that can identify the type of design and where the PU was made and how old it is. This was the 911 blackmail on Bush 1 and 2, the illegal transfer of surplus US nuclear weapons to the Israelis and why the continued cover up, along with the stolen gold and stock fraud that was going on Wall Street etc.
Only a 2 kiloton device was needed to drop the buildings. A 2 kiloton device will produce a fireball of apx 150 to 200 feet in diameter at over 4000 degrees Centigrade. Just large enough to melt the I beams of the central core of the building and drop them in place. The light flash would last less than 1 second and primarily be in the UV light range. Overpressure would only be at 60PSI max and directed upwards with the blast.
Fallout would be minimal and located to within ground zero range only. Radiation would drop to acceptable levels within 72 hrs. after the blast. Most fall out was trapped in the cement dust thus causing all of the recent cancer deaths that we are now seeing in NYC amongst first responders.
Melted steel and iron oxide or “nano thermite” is a byproduct of the very high gamma ray / Neutron flux induced into the central steel core. The radiation dissolves the steel into iron oxide consuming the carbon and silicone in the steel.
This explains the missing steel columns and the very important clue of the “vaporized’ 20 ton antenna tower atop the south tower. The upward blast of radiation literally vaporized it. Video evidence proves this to be true.
...
Illegal distribution of US nuclear material to foreign allies was not limited to Israel. Virtually all NATO allies were in on this scam too. Dick Cheney was the bad guy on this one. Bush2/Cheney traded nuclear pits to foreign country as IOU’s in order to get what they wanted. Tom Countryman a well-known Israeli operative is curiously now in charge of N.N.P. at the State Department under Obama.(?) He was put there by Ram Emanuel.
...
It appears that the weapon of choice for the Israelis were the W-54 and follow on series of nuclear pits taken from the Amarillo TX storage dump. This was what Carnaberry was working on for Bush senior in Houston.
A total of over 350 pits were transferred to the Israelis over a 10 to 20 year period of time. The W-54 type of pit design were the most desirable due to the 2 point implosion pit design. This is the easiest to re manufacture and modify as compared to other circular pit designs.
The pill shaped design of the W-54 type weapon contains over 1.5 times more plutonium than a standard pit. This would allow enough Plutonium to be recovered that was still of weapons grade use even after 32 plus years of age. Americium build up in the pit over time eventually makes the Pit unusable as a weapon so they have a limited shelf life based on how fast or slow the Plutonium was produce in the reactor at Stanford.
Usually it was about 150 days max. Irradiation time in the reactor during production determines the shelf life of the pit as weapons grade material. All of the micro nukes used by the Israelis are re-manufactured W-54 type series devices.
These devices were used in the Bali bombing and the London bombing and in Japan on their reactors. Also used in Damascus, Iraq and Afghanistan by the US.
These are stored in most Israelite embassies for ease of deployment. The one’s used on 911 were kept at the Israeli consulate in NYC until put in place. After 911 the FBI now checks all diplomatic pouches with a Geiger counter before entering or leaving the US. The South African weapons were also surplus W-54 artillery shells acquired from Israeli and final assembly and testing was done in South Africa with Israel assistance.
This was done because the Israelis needed a testing ground in order to make sure that there rebuilt weapons would work as designed. The North Korean weapons are also of the 155 mm artillery design as provided by Israel.
The Saudi’s also have a stash of W-54’s acquired from the US under Bush2. The Israelis have also provided them to India, Brazil, China, Taiwan, Japan, North and South Korea etc.
...
On the W-54 pit design it is pill shaped and it is only about 4 inches in diameter and weighs about 24 pounds. Most of the fuel is consumed in the plasma fire ball when detonated so there is very little plutonium fallout left to escape. If it is salted with other materials the fallout can be even reduced to lower levels such as in an enhanced radiation device or the so called neutron bomb. This is what was used on 911.
The above quoted passage deviates from this article in the choice of nuclear materials: plutonium versus Deuterium-Tritium.
Mutual exclusivity of any destructive mechanism over another plays right into the hands of disinformation. Such a large operation with multiple targets and multiple devices would have redundancy and back-up plans.
The primary purpose of the nuclear weapon used on 911 was to produce a massive Gama ray / neutron flux that would vaporize about 150 to 300 feet of 6 inch thick steal I beams that constituted the central core of the WTC buildings. This created a free fall event as seen on TV that day.
The flash would be hidden from sight due to the underground detonation. Most of the light was in the non-visible light spectrum any way. Over pressure would be reduced to 6 psi due to the blast traveling up the central core and neutron radiation vaporizing the TV antenna at the top of the building as see on TV.
The fallout would be mainly vaporized concrete cement and iron oxide. This is why after 911 they told everyone on TV that the beta radiation burns that people were getting were due to the caustic cement dust and not due to the radiation effects from the radioactive cement fallout.
The iron oxide found all over the place was what was left of the steel I beams. This was the so called Nano Thermite that was found everywhere. Fallout was limited to a 1 mile area around down town NYC.
Radiation decay was reduced to safe low levels after 72 hrs., outside of ground zero its self. This is why the area was blocked off from the public for 3 days after the event, in order to let the radiation drop to safe levels.
The above passage makes a statement for underground detonation. Certainly, this is true for the last device in the series of FGND in use, but a sole underground device doesn't have to be the only destructive mechanism in play.
If the situation were -- Over pressure would be reduced to 6 psi due to the blast traveling up the central core and neutron radiation vaporizing the TV antenna at the top of the building --, much of the destruction "traveling up" would be observed on video. Instead, destruction happens at first near the impact levels.
18. The Dirt on That
Highly-energetic neutron radiation ejected from FGND energizes comparatively small amounts of short-lived alpha, beta, and gamma radiation in things they hit. One of the known radiation mitigation techniques is to spread fresh dirt over the contaminated area; allow it time to absorb alpha, beta, and gamma emissions; collect and dispose of the dirt; repeat. This page on Dr. Wood's website with pictures of radiation mitigation techniques being implemented.
Figure 89. Why would there be dirt sprinkled on top of the rubble pile?
Figure 97. This was the pedestrian walkway over West Street, between WFC3 and WTC6. Why would it have a huge amount of dirt in it?
Figure 91. Sprinkled with fresh dirt.
Figure 93. Clean wrinkled beams.
Figure 94. My favorite wrinkled beams now have dirt dumped on them!
Figure 98. If this amount of dirt had been contained in planting pots, there wouldn't have been room for pedestrians.
Figure 102. The four yellow dump trucks are heading south on West Street, toward the WTC complex. Each of the dump trucks carries a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.
Figure 103(a). This appears to be dirt being trucked away from the WTC complex. Why is so much dirt coming and going? The four trucks ahead of the green one carry a uniform load of what appears to be dirt.
Figure 103(b). The large truck headed south appears to be hauling dirt. This intersection is a block east of Church and Vesey, and the top of the photo is west. Broadway is the street from right to left. So, the big truck, which appears to be loaded down with landfill dirt, has driven south on Broadway, past the Vesey Street intersection. It didn't come to where it is from Vesey Street; there are no tracks on Vesey Street!
Figure 104(c). Then, yellow bulldozers appear to be scooping up and removing all of the dirt from in front of WFC1.
Figure 105. Looking east, through the core of WTC1, there is still fuming from the wet dirt.
Figure 106. Looking east, through the core of WTC1, there is still fuming from the wet dirt.
Figure 106. Why are they still hosing down the "pile" in March 2002? And why is there so much dirt, still?
Note the references to "still fuming from the wet dirt" and "still hosing down the 'pile' in March 2002", which are two other indications of nuclear fizzle.
Readers' attentions is called to figure 93 above, aptly titled "clean wrinkled beams" and is an external wall assembly. This is one example of a major anomalous phenomenon observable everywhere whereby protective coatings and paint have been "burned" off of the steel. Also, the wrinkling (not just the bending) would not have been possible without a massive heat source in its vicinity in the towers to make the steel pliable before a horizontal blast wave did the shaping.
Readers' attention is also called to figure 94 above, where Dr. Wood notes that wrinkled beams now have dirt on them. Only really makes sense for steel beams to be getting dirt piled on them if they somehow became slightly radioactive from their proximity to a neutron nuclear destructive mechanism.
19. Dr. Thomas Cahill and the Continually Regenerated Fine Particles
From October 2, 2001 until mid-December 2001, a volunteer research team from the DELTA Group monitored the levels of atmospheric particles and aerosols in the atmosphere of New York, following the collapse of the World Trade Center. Professor Thomas Cahill of the he UC Davis DELTA Group (Detection and Evaluation of Long-range Transport of Aerosols) described some of this finding on February 11, 2002. {Source with direct quotes from Dr. Cahill}
"The air from Ground Zero was laden with extremely high amounts of very small particles, probably associated with high temperatures in the underground debris pile. Normally, in New York City and in most of the world, situations like this just don’t exist."
"Even on the worst air days in Beijing, downwind from coal-fired power plants, or the Kuwait oil fires, we did not see these levels of very fine particulates."
The amounts of very fine particles, particularly very fine silicon, decreased sharply during the month of October.
"The US Davis DELTA Group’s ability to measure and analyze particle size, composition and time continuously, day and night, is unequalled. There were numerous events when bursts of wind lasting 6 to 8 hours carried unprecedented amounts of very fine particles to the sampling site. In the largest spike, the DELTA Group analysis found 58 micrograms per cubic meter of very fine particles in one 45-minute period – "an extremely high peak" Cahill said.
Many different metals were found in the samples of very fine particles, and some were found at the highest levels ever recorded in air in the United States.
Some of the metals for which there are no guidelines that were present in very fine particles in relatively high concentrations were Iron, Titanium (some associated with powdered concrete), Vanadium, Nickel (often associated with fuel-oil combustion), Copper and Zinc. Mercury was seen occasionally in fine particles but at low concentrations. Many of those metals are widely used in building construction, wiring and plumbing. Some are common in computers. The metal of the coarse particles is still being analyzed.
Very small particles are particularly dangerous since they can bypass the bodies natural defence mechanisms and if breathed in, enter directly into the bloodstream. They can also pass through HEPA filters, the finest grade of gas mask available and they can even enter the body through the skin. They are a serious hazard.
Anything with a diameter of less then 2.5 millionths of a meter is to be considered dangerous for these reasons.
The press release further states:
"There are no established safe limits for inhaled very fine particles. The closest reference is the US EPA "PM2.5" standard, which limits the allowable mass of airborne particles 2.5 micrometers to (0) Zero micrometers. That standard is based on health studies of typical air samples, in which very fine particles are a small fraction of the total mass. In contrast, in the World Trade Center dust samples analyzed at UC Davis, the very fine particles are a large fraction of the total mass."
So we can understand that Professor Cahill would want to draw attention to the fine particulates for health and safety reasons. But is there more to it?
Prof. Cahill also explained the meaning of the generation of the particles to reporters more clearly:
"The presence of coarse particles immediately after days of rain indicated that they were being continually re-generated from a dry, hot source, not re-suspended from roadways and other surfaces."
Cahills words. Continually Regenerated.
Is this another subtle hint by a man who can't speak his mind freely that a nuclear reaction occurred?
"The very fine particles were high in a number of species generally associated with combustion of fuel oil – such as Sulfur, Vanadium and Nickel, and incineration of plastics and other organic matter."
"There were also an unusual, very fine, silicon-containing aerosol. This latter type of aerosol can be produced only by very high temperatures, including vaporisation of soil and glass."
20. Decontamination and First Responder Ailments
Earlier in this article, the work of Lioy et al was mentioned. Buried in their work was their main focus of discussing the health impacts of 9/11 and to caste the blame on asbestos and pulverized gypsum dust. As was written by a supporter:
This stuff was a caustic as Drano. Asbestos can cause some types of lymphoma and the towers were full of it.
True. But the sudden onset of ailments and their kind is paralleled only by incidences of nuclear mishap. Acute radiation syndrome would have been experienced by few.
Acute radiation syndrome (ARS), also known as radiation poisoning, radiation sickness or radiation toxicity, is a constellation of health effects which present within 24 hours of exposure to high amounts of ionizing radiation, and may last for several months. ... Radiation exposure can also increase the probability of developing some other diseases, mainly different types of cancers. ... Radiation sickness is caused by exposure to a large dose of ionizing radiation (>~0.1 Gy) over a short period of time. ... Alpha and beta radiation have low penetrating power and are unlikely to affect vital internal organs from outside the body. Any type of ionizing radiation can cause burns, but alpha and beta radiation can only do so if radioactive contamination or nuclear fallout is deposited on the individual's skin or clothing. Gamma and neutron radiation can travel much further distances and penetrate the body easily, so whole-body irradiation generally causes ARS before skin effects are evident. Local gamma irradiation can cause skin effects without any sickness.
Ionizing radiation is radiation that produces immediate chemical effects on human tissue. X-rays, gamma rays, and particle bombardment (neutron beam, electron beam, protons, mesons, and others) give off ionizing radiation. ... Radiation exposure can also increase the probability of developing some other diseases, mainly cancer, tumors, and genetic damage.
From 9/11 NUKE DEMOLITION PROOF: Firefighters Radiation Cancers "Off the Scale" (2011-04-04):
Firefighters who recovered bodies at Ground Zero are developing cancer at a faster rate than those who worked before the atrocity, medical officials have revealed. ... A seven-year study by the New York Fire Department has claimed that there are "unusual rises" in the number of cancer cases among firefighters who worked in the aftermath of 9/11. Some types of cancer among 9/11 firefighters are even "bizarrely off the charts," according to sources who have seen the as-yet-undisclosed federal-funded study. ... Dr. David Prezant, the Fire Department's chief medical officer, has reportedly said that cancer cases across "all ranks" of the FDNY who worked at Ground Zero are "up significantly". ... The New York state Health Department has confirmed that 345 Ground Zero workers have died of various cancers as of June 2010.
From Prager Page 52: Part One Conclusions
1. Leukemia, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, three rare cancers, have increased dramatically and in an unprecedented number, frequency and rapidity in very young age groups never seen before.
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.
The magnitude of the disaster was unprecedented. The amount of people needing decontamination was enormous.
I had burn marks, not like you'd have from a fire, but my face was all red, my chest was red
UAlbany Alumna and 9/11 First Responder Dr. Terri Tobin:
Since 2001, Tobin has had surgery each year and had two-thirds of her teeth replaced.
9/11 First Responders Plagued by Health Problems From Toxic Dust and Debris
Those who worked at the WTC site seem to be at increased risk of cancer, especially thyroid cancer, melanoma and lymphoma. According to a study released of nearly 10,000 New York firefighters (half of whom worked at the WTC site), those from the site are 32 percent more likely to have cancer.
From On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist", that also critiques Dr. Jones:
It later became known that they found high levels of (asbestos, mercury and other) toxins shortly after 9/11, and yet told the world, and the responders, that "the "air was safe." They lied, for quite some time, about what they had found in this sense. Now if the EPA tested for, and found, significant radiation, and/or radionuclides, and failed to tell the responders this; it resulted in the responders not wearing radiation-shielding, protective clothing. This would then likely lead to cancer and other illnesses. I note that there has been cancers, in 9/11 responders, and people living nearby; and asbestos is known to usually take far longer for its victims to get cancer. Could these cancers be the result of radiation? Cancer can be caused by even the very lowest levels of radiation. The father of the field of health physics, Dr. Karl Ziegler Morgan, has so stated.
21. EMP and Electromagnetic Energy
An EMP (electromagnetic pulse) is one of the side-effects of a nuclear detonation. The EMP would have been mitigated by many factors, like
(1) the design of the device in terms of tactical yield,
(2) the placement of the device, like all of the steel surrounding at the core where they would have placed the devices plus the outer wall assemblies,
(3) debris,
(4) the distance from the detonation, and
(5) other buildings.
It is speculated that the FGNW 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 could have 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 magnitude of source, 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 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:
In a similar vein, is anyone foolish enough to trust a certain physicist's {Dr. Jones} 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.
22. Vehicle Damage
The pattern of vehicle fires was not chaotic. The vehicles affected were line-of-sight and some at quite some distance. It didn't affect shaded vehicles or those around corners, or lots of more easily combustible things, like flags, paper, leaves, trees, or people. The pattern to the burns on vehicles is notable, and just as important is the pattern of what combustible things were not torched (e.g., leaves, trees, flags, people).
Consider why cars were seemingly targeted; they contain sheet metal. Depending on magnitude, duration, & distance, electromagnetic energy can induce Eddy currents in metal, heating up the metal, causing its paint to burn, and torching rubber & plastic things affixed, touching, or adjacent to such.
Thereafter, the rest of the vehicle may or may not burn depending on other factors. Once one vehicle has flames, this can become the source for neighboring vehicles starting to burn. Dr. Wood presents More Toasted Cars to further your research.
Something of note from the fire damage exhibited in some of the images of torched vehicles in Dr. Wood's collection are the delineation of where certain burn patterns start and end. Some instances (like a police car 1 on West Broadway facing away from the WTC) seem to show its rear end having been burned by a line-of-sight EMP, but the fire did not progress beyond the natural boundary of the rear doors, as if the Eddy currents were generated there.
Police car 1
Police car 1 (another view)
Disclaimer: police car 1 was just behind a mail truck that was also on fire (seen below). More views from this police car, Figure 9(a). In this one instance, it could be argued that the proximity of a burning mail truck to the rear of the police car caused the fire damage on the police car. However, one is left with still explaining how the mail truck as well as vehicles not as close on the same side of the street and the other side of the street caught on fire, as seen in the image before WTC-7 came down. Plus, explanations for the other anomalous "pattern" fire damage from other vehicles are needed, which EMP does.
Police car 2
Police car 3. Car 2723 was towed here to the bridge. Other pictures exist of it at another location.
Police Pickup
Ambulance
FDNY car
Proximity of one flaming vehicle to another can and does determine whether or not the second vehicle will go up in flames. The issue is in accounting for the torching of, say, the first vehicle in a cluster.
A discussion opponent once wrote:
[Dr. Judy Wood's] "toasted cars" for example are simply cars that were exposed to the heat and damage of the explosives and/or pyroclastic flow generated by the explosives.
It is the "specificity" of the destruction that rules out "pyroclastic flow generated by explosives" and suggests that we look for another mechanism as the destruction source. For example, had there been a "hot" (or flaming) pyroclastic flow, it would have torched paper, leaves, trees, flags, humans, etc. in its path.
Instead, we see things like sheet metal in cars targeted and not always completely, as if of a directional nature and if shading or blocking occurred (like it slipped out through window slits). It suggests something of electrical-magnetic influences that could induce large Eddy currents in the metal that would heat the metal to an extent to ignite materials with lower ignition temperatures (e.g., car paint, seals, plastic gas caps, plastic door handles, etc.)
23. Hot and Spicy Thermitic Particulates and Cars
"Hot and spicy thermitic particulates blown from the disintegrating towers" has been brought up many times. Unfortunately, this pyroclastic cloud had a considerable distance -- a cooling one at that -- to locate the sheet-metal on vehicles along West Broadway and in the car park. Moreover, this pyroclastic cloud easily went around corners and into places much closer with more easily combustible materials, like neighboring buildings, without causing the expected fires, if the cloud had been so "hot and spicy."
Dr. Gregory S. 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. No doubt that serial-type burning of vehicles parked closely in the parking lot occurred to a degree. However, he makes light of the damage to the vehicles.
Dr. Jenkins speculates:
One mechanism which would ignite vehicles, buildings, paper, and other flammables in the vicinity of GZ is burning material ejected during the collapse of the towers. Also, it is well established that extremely hot metal and glass were ejected from the collapsing towers which could easily ignite flammable material.
If such ejaculations of hot metal and glass happened, the issues are: (a) Remnants of such items would have been present on the targets. They weren't, except for dust in cases. (b) The targets wouldn't have been just vehicles but would have been trees, leaves, paper, and humans.
Here's some nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood's website. They show the sequence of when fires started in the parking lot. The quotations are from Dr. Wood. She correctly asks why the "hot-and-spicy dust" does not catch paper, leaves, people, etc. on fire? The fires do not all originate in the engine/battery area [and I am presently stumped to speculate on where within a turned-off automobile a fire from conducting dust could be achieved other than right at the battery. Due to configuration of air conditioning vents, it would be a challenge for unfiltered, conductive dust to wind its way to the insides of the vehicle and then into the compartments of powered-portions of a turned-off vehicle (e.g., security system, clock) in order to short them into igniting a fire.]
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.
[Image20swamp.jpg] West Broadway with WTC-5 on fire at the end. You can see WTC-7.
[Image16.jpg] West Broadway looking the other direction; you can see the same torched bus.
081swamp.jpg
080.jpg
Very selective those burning particulates in the dust cloud.
When all four images are taken into consideration, only one tree looks charred mostly because of the overall darkness of the scene due to smoke clouding the sun and soot on the trees. When the same trees are observed several days later [after a rain storm that may have washed some of the soot away], the tree in the middle still has greenish leaves (not brown, black, or missing). The trunks of all of the trees show little in the way of fire damage from burning particulates in the dust clouds.
What caused the vehicles (line-of-sight) to get torched, and not other combustible things and things not line-of-sight (as shown by the reporter's video)?
There's a great video of WCBS reporter Vince Dimentri coming out from WTC-7 who didn't know really where he was [West Broadway and Barkley] but was commenting on the damage looking like a war zone.
Car after car after car and buses completely obliterated and burned down to the steel... That gaping hole? That's where one of the twin towers stood.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR0IL7K39v4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI10oG1Gzrg&feature=related
The timing of when images were taken can mislead. Certainly much paper debris came flowing in with the dust (although it wasn't flying in on fire). The amount of dust on paper can provide some indication of how long the paper might have been there. Possibly some [but not necessarily all] of the undamaged emergency vehicles near WTC-7 observed in the background of the reporter's piece may have arrived after the torching of vehicles on West Broadway but before the reporter. But some of the undamaged vehicles appear to have been ~not~ line-of-sight to where the towers were and may have been shielded by the Federal Building and WTC-7.
24. Conductive, Corrosive and Abrasive Dust and Vehicle Fires
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins made some statements in "Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics -DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence" relating to the vehicle damage (with author's emphasis added):
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.
[1] This is a highly speculative effort from Dr. Jenkins used to explain torched vehicles. And it doesn't match real world expectations. Farm/Ranch work is a very dusty endeavor. It takes a very long time for dust and environmental (e.g., humid) conditions to reach accumulation levels that would lead to shorting or other electrical problems in such equipment.
[2] More troubling to Dr. Jenkins speculative theory is that the vehicles were torched in certain cases seemingly from the outside-in or strange patterns that did not impact the engine/battery area. The vehicles were turned off and parked, which significantly limits the active electrical circuits & places within the engine/battery/starter area that could be shorted together to start a fire immediately: like between the two battery terminals. If you put a highly conductive metal screw driver across the battery terminals, you'll get a spark; you might even get the battery to explode; whether or not this will lead to fire in the engine compartment depends. Right across the battery terminals or at the starter are pretty damn near the only locations within the engine area that could possibly cause a fire, and the electrical conduction of the dust would have to be assured and not intermittent or flaky.
Dr. Jenkins drops a lot of innuendo about conductive elements measured within the dusts (true), but that doesn't measure up when talking "point A to point B conductivity" that would cause a fire igniting short. Dr. Jenkins seems to believe in "magic dust" that can wind its way under the hood and across the battery terminals (or starter terminals) in sufficient and conductive quantities, or that could wind its way through the air filters and into the passenger compartment behind the dash and into the cooling vent holes of constantly powered electrical devices (e.g., security systems, clocks, or stereos) to cause conductive-dust shorting leading to vehicle fires.
While dust can cause electric shorting in real-world dusty and humid environments, it is something that often takes significant time to happen.
[3] Dr. Jenkins speculative theory does not match the evidence of timing of the "spuriously ignited vehicle fires". He implies that a thicker layer of dust deposits may have been required to ignite the vehicles Vesey/West Street parking lot and West Broadway/Park Place. EMT Patricia Ondrovic's testimony, among others, discounts this view. The cars were "popping off" well before a "thicker layer of dust deposits" could work its way into the engine cavity and, say, short the battery. She also talks about a car door popping horizontally right out of its hinges and smacking her into a wall. It was not because the car was on fire, because it wasn't. [Refer to the section on "EMP and Electromagnetic Energy."]
Another Witness to EMP:
[Robert Ruiz, EMT] his utter incredulity at watching a car completely catch on fire for no discernible reason is clear…. Ruiz just barely escaped WTC 2 being destroyed. First he describes the ground near him shaking before the "collapse" starts. This could be evidence of an underground nuclear bomb going off before the top was brought down. He says, the ground shakes, then WTC 2 starts to come down, and he runs and survives under a nearby doorway. Ruiz then states, "I was trapped there. Like things weren't bad enough already, the car that's parked right on that corner catches on fire. I don't mean a little fire, the entire thing. Don't ask me how. The entire car caught on fire. You would think maybe just a motor part or just the engine part. But this entire car just goes up in fire."….
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.
25. 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, perhaps?
Embrittlement is a loss of ductility of a material, making it brittle. Various materials have different mechanisms of embrittlement. ... Metal-induced embrittlement (MIE) is the embrittlement caused by diffusion of atoms of metal, either solid or liquid, into the material. Neutron radiation causes embrittlement of some materials, neutron-induced swelling, and buildup of Wigner energy.
Is neutron radiation exposure always detrimental to metals (steels)?
We talk about radiation damage and environmental degradation of metals following radiation exposure. Indeed, there have been numerous conferences and symposia held and planned on this subject, which include research work and discussions with the central theme being the damage created in materials by neutron radiation exposure. Radiation embrittlement in metals is believed to be due mainly to (1) changes in flow properties because of the interaction of dislocations with irradiation-produced defects, and (2) precipitation of transmutation-produced gases and irradiation-induced segregation at grain boundaries which are potential fracture sites.
In other words, the Banker's Trust Building may have been torn down, because close inspection of the supporting steel may have discovered such "fracture sites" due to embrittlement by the neutron weapons used to destroy the WTC. Brittle supporting columns in a skyscraper are undesirable for their inability to flex without failure to wind loads. The building was hence probably deemed unsafe and demolished accordingly.
26. Cover-Up, Tight Security, and Destruction of Evidence
As New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton wrote:
[T]he investigation was financed and given its authority by [FEMA], with which [lead investigator Gene] Corley’s team had a shaky relationship from the start. For months after September 11, the investigators…were unable to persuade FEMA to obtain basic data like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed. Bureaucratic restrictions often kept the engineers from interviewing witnesses to the disaster, making forensic inspections at ground zero, or getting crucial information like recorded distress calls from people trapped in the buildings. For reasons that would remain known only to FEMA, the agency refused to let the team appeal to the public for photographs and videos of the towers that could help with the investigation.2
Beyond Misinformation page 12
Most detrimental to the team's ability to conduct forensic analysis was the City’s recycling of the buildings' steel, which continued despite requests from the investigators — and outcry among the victims' families and the fire safety community — for the steel to be saved.3 Although investigators were eventually granted access to the scrap yards, nearly all of the steel, including most of the steel from the upper floors of WTC 1 and WTC 2, was destroyed before it could be inspected.4
The WTC after 9/11 was ~not~ a place that just anyone could walk right into. From Kevin R. Ryan's Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects. [Use the endnote number to locate the exact position in the book.]
During the five-month cleanup effort, there were unprecedented measures taken to control access to the site. The site was restricted, and photographs were banned, by order of Rudy Giuliani. [808] Anthony Mann of E.J. Electric, one of the contractors for the WTC towers, said that "Security is unbelievable. It's really on a need-to-be-down-there basis."[809]
[808] Jim Hoffman, Access Restrictions: The Closure of Ground Zero to Investigators, 911Research.WTC7.net
[809] Amy Florence Fischbach, CEE News, September 20, 2001.
... Evidence Recovery Teams (ERTs) involved in the sorting process stole pieces of debris, and kept or disposed of them. This removal of debris was condoned and encouraged by the FBI agents in charge. ... The claim that these were merely souvenirs seemed unlikely considering the volume of materials stolen, and considering the WTC building 7 was the focus of much of the theft.
The restrictions on FEMA investigators and photographers and the extensive site security are all indications that something was being hidden.
... highly secure site, as well as the authority to hire suspected crime syndicate companies to perform the actual cleanup.
The above quotations sets the scene. If the outcome was as the official conspiracy theory spins, there would have been no reason for the unprecedented and tight security at Ground Zero. Pictures of a gravity collapse would not be damning to anyone.
On the other hand, if the truth is something else, pictures of anomalous would have to be controlled. And the ERTs (Evidence Recovery Teams) would have to purge damning pieces of evidence.
Another scene setting quote from Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia, a WTC responder and FEMA consultant:
They would tackle you and take your camera away. ... When we first got there, we were told where we could go and where we couldn't go. There were different places that you were not to go to. One of the things you were not to go to and they claimed it was for safety was down in the garages, the parking garages. They were very flooded. There were a lot of problems like that. All the apartments around there were all sealed off. A lot of things were very much sealed off. ... If you spoke to civilians, you actually were reprimanded by not being allowed to go back to the pile per hour, per occurrence. So if you talked to four people, they wouldn't say anything to you on the pile. But when you got back, to come back and got ready at the Port Authority, got showered, dressed and ready to return, they'd say, "Tartaglia, you have to hold up a second, we need to talk to you for a second." And then you would have nonsensical conversations for two or three hours. [Alex Jones: Now we know that by day two, they arrested anybody with cameras. They said no over-flights, no cameras.] First of all they didn't take cameras away from everybody. They took them away from people they couldn't control. ...
WTC steel cut and shipped off. Core columns I beams, outer box columns
Quotes from Kevin R. Ryan's "Another Nineteen".
... shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel -- including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns -- were gone. ... bargain price, the WTC debris was considered highly sensitive. ... The recycling of the most important steel evidence was done in a hurry, ... done so fast that the City took much less than market value for the scrap metal.
The WTC clean-up were in such a "hurry to remove evidence", they sold it as scrap at below-market (bargain) prices. Note the critical pieces that "were gone", either by removal and/or the demolition means.
From On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist":
Regarding 9/11, never forget that whatever radionuclides may have been created were sent to China, or otherwise were not allowed to be studied. This remarkable article states that before the steel was shipped to China, it was "first sent to be washed down" - a standard method of decreasing radiation levels! ... The same demolition expert said of the 1993 nuke - after he examined the basement of that tower: "The particular type of construction type micronuclear device is mostly radiologically clean." So, as I indicated in my WTC nuclear demolition article, recent nuclear devices can be designed to be "steered" towards blast capability, and away from any (significant) radiation release.
From Kevin R. Ryan's "Another Nineteen":
... {The response had the appearance of a} careful rescue operations. [802] But the facts also align with the hypothesis that authorities were actually in a hurry to remove evidence that pointed to the use of explosives.
[802] Suzanne Mattei, Pollution and Deception at Ground Zero: How the Bush Administration's Reckless Disregard of 9/11 Toxic Hazards Poses Long-Term Threats for New York City and the Nation, Sierra Club, http://www.gothamgazette.com/rebuilding_nyc/sierraclub_report.pdf
The above is one of many instances where Mr. Ryan frames the discussion to be "the use of explosives." However, remnants of nuclear devices (like multiple neutron nuclear DEW) would exhibit the same "hurry to remove evidence."
From Kevin R. Ryan's "Another Nineteen":
... hypothesis that unexplained explosive or incendiary events were occurring at the site during the cleanup efforts. The fires in the debris pile, which were violent and long-lasting, could not be extinguished even through extreme firefighting efforts, and indicated the presence of energetic materials. [901]
[901] Kevin R. Ryan, et al, Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center.
It isn't hard to agree that "unexplained explosive or incendiary events occurred at the site during the cleanup efforts." The cited paper notes a half dozen or so of these; spikes in the release of toxic gases. Yes, this indicates the presence of energetic materials (e.g., chemical explosives or incendiaries). The issue is that these spikes were different than what would be required to maintain the long-lasting nature of the fires.
If we're talking remnants of nuclear devices -- maybe even nuclear fizzling -- then this explains the ineffectual "extreme firefighting efforts" on the "violent and long-lasting" "fires in the debris pile" as well as the "unbelievable security."
27. Nuclear Scientific Research
The US Government took the position many decades ago to restrict the free-flow of operational details about things nuclear in what is made publicly available in publications, because publishing such could enable those with bad intentions against us. Those who wish to study, and have professions involving, nuclear science in the US eventually sign non-disclosure agreements with stiff penalties, or they are left out of all of the interesting research.
If the question is asked "where are all of the nuclear scientists who should be weighing in one way or another about 9/11 and who could clear up piles of misinformation?", the answer is that they know where their funding comes from, who pays the research bills, and what their non-disclosure agreements say. It benefits them in no way to come forward and correct the public record. And were they to be so bold, the retaliation from the "you are either with us or against us" crowd has proven to be very effective. (It is beyond the scope of this article to provided details into the authorship of the USA PATRIOT ACT and its lightning quick passage in Congress in a time period shortly after 9/11 that included Anthrax attacks against the House Majority Leader and a news media icon.)
If the US government wanted to steer the public's perceptions regarding nuclear involvement in 9/11, it could be achieved with a small group of PhDs and experts who balanced the requirements of the "message-controlling" assignment with their own personal ethics. The mistakes that they made might have been purposeful with the intent of being discovered, precisely so an article could raise public awareness to "what is really going and has been going on!"
Although most nuclear research does not get a wide public viewing, some of it does, particularly if it is only offering an overview, speculation, and omissions of details that would help others' implementation. The work of Dr. Andre Gsponer fits into such requirements. Noteworthy is also (A) nothing has been published over many years to contradict, discredit, or debunk Dr. Gsponer's "speculation" into where nuclear research was headed, and (B) Dr. Gsponer continually improved his work over many editions prior to 2001; then-current and re-enforcing information was gathered to refine the direction of his nuclear speculation.
Damning for 9/11 Truth and AE911Truth: the omission of Dr. Andre Gsponer's FGNW work from Dr. Steven Jones' peer-reviewed "letter" that repudiated 9/11 nuclear devices for the 9/11TM and the world at large. Of course, Dr. Judy Wood's work is guilty of the same omission.
Were a wide-spread public revelation come to fruition that the US Government (with the help of Israeli operatives) deployed nuclear weapons against its own US civilian population in a massive psychological operation & financial heist, the "figurative" nuclear fall-out in the elections & solvency of US leaders, institutions, & agencies from wide-spread public backlash could be earth-shattering to the status quo. This risk could be and was significantly reduced by controlling the messager's message away from themes nuclear, or into skewed nuclear variants that do not address the evidence correctly (e.g., deep underground nukes, beams from space) and are thus easily debunked in classic straw-man fashion.
28. Summary: Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices
A "standard" nuclear weapon typically has a heat wave, a blast wave, an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and radiation. All of these are features that can be tweaked or mitigated in the implementation (e.g., EMP inside a steel box). To be sure, an FGNW is designed with the trade-off of sacrificing much of its heat wave and blast wave in order to release energy at given wavelengths in a targeted fashion.
The multiple tactical FGNW 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 FGNW becoming misaligned in the destruction.]
The radiation signature of a FGNW? 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.
For additional reading on this topic, refer to this Veteran's Today article.
To be successful in this nuclear plan, the perpetrators would have to limit access to the WTC: no errant measuring devices or cameras. They would have to run out the clock as best they could in terms of keeping investigators and scientific researchers at bay while giving time for alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation to deplete and for tritium to dissipate. And then they would have to manage the reports. Meanwhile, though, they couldn't keep the first responders out, and like a canary-in-a-coalmine, the rapid onset of poor health of the 1st responders resembled that of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
29. 9/11 Tetris: The Theory Stack with the Fewest Gaps
David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
In the game of 9/11 Tetris, the pieces of evidence come down at weird intervals and angles and must be oriented into a "theory stack" that leaves the fewest and smallest gaps. A given piece of evidence might fit equally well in multiple theory stacks. However, all of the valid evidence must be accounted for in a reasonable manner. And to make the game more challenging, disinformation is part of the mix. A piece of evidence coming from a disinformation source is not invalidated by this association.
With regards to 9/11 and the shock-&-awe global agenda that 9/11 put into effect, one could argue that all sources of information are in some ways disinformation. Remember that in order to be credible and hence successful, all disinformation must have copious amounts of truth. Owing to this and that some truths are inconvenient to the agenda, some disinformation is fashioned as a straw-man, such that when the deceit of the disinformation vehicle is discovered or purposely exposed, all "Nuggets of Truth" contained therein might be knocked from the table in the hopes of no further public consideration. "All or nothing" is the charge given those with less discerning, meaning "either everything in a work is true, or nothing is true and it can be dismissed without further study... And trust the 2nd- and 3rd-hand accounts that label it disinformation, because it was a PhD who said so."
No! "Nuggets of Truth" must be actively mined, re-fined, and re-purposed from (dis)information sources, because often they are the only source of information. In a disinformation world, you must "distrust but verify."
The "theory stack" that supposes only chemical-based explosives and incendiaries for pulverizing the towers comes up short. It has glaring gaps out of which tritium stares and astronomical quantities of unspent explosive materials spill.
The "theory stack" for FGND orients the evidence with fewer and tighter gaps that can even explain concerted efforts to prevent the public from discovering that 9/11 was nuclear.
Evidence of "nuclear anything" has about the same PR stigma as a "toxic waste dump": nobody wants it in their backyard, their playground, their place of employment, or their commerce centers. Want to see a portion of NY city shrivel up & die as inhabitants and workers make their exits to greener, non-toxic pastures? Then let it slip out that "nuclear something" was involved. Even though the spectrum of "nuclear somethings" is very wide with respect to radiation signatures, their duration, and their impacts on human health, misconceptions will still run wild in the public sphere. The "Field of Dreams" message to Silverstein paraphrased: "If you re-build it, ain't nobody gonna come."
All over the internet, intelligent thinkers offer hints at much deeper causes, motives, and players to what is happening in the world. If any of that is given any credit as being valid with respect to the players and the nookies-and-cranies of all the arsenals of the world, then it seems rather contradictory that nuclear mechanisms get taken off the table so quickly with regards to 9/11. That was a showcase event with redundancies to their redundancies, but with shock-&-awe, baby, being first and foremost. They did not care WTF it looked like, because they were going to PR tell the masses what they wanted the masses to believe. And so it was.
The roots of government-controlled messaging are deep, but have been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions for well over a decade. A more recent embodiment of this is a 2008 Harvard paper co-written by Cass Sunstein now in the Obama administration who proposed that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites - as well as other activist groups - which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.
Mr. Daniel Noel wrote (2013-07-30):
Accordingly, the most dangerous 9/11 conspirators, contrary to what many 9/11 dissidents believe, are not the actual agents of terror, nor the much more numerous public servants who engineered their cover and protection, but the still more numerous watchdogs who have knowingly been sending for a decade their gullible supporters on wild goose chases - like ending the open-ended Afghan war - that 9/11 Truth would nullify.
The news and media have tried to advertise themselves as being one of those watchdogs, the fourth estate, right? The representatives of our local interests who should have been aware, or listening to their constituents (and as a result researching on their own) would be another. I guess it would be fair to say that this is a great example of how money in politics talked, because money for elective office was given by TPTB (the powers that be) through their tax-dodging 501(c)3 [or whatever IRS designation they got] to candidates who did ~not~ even speak of 9/11.
An excerpt from 9/11 - The Defining Line of Conscience:
The Litmus Test
It should go without saying that anyone who promotes the official story of 9/11; anyone who accepts the official story, who oppresses those who doubt the official story, who does not question the official story, is involved or stupid.
Any presidential candidate, senator, congressman, fireman, pilot, engineer, architect… anyone who, knowing the facts, does not dispute the official story is a traitor to their nation and a tool of those who accomplished the attack.
Whether you like it or not, whether you admit it or not, every violation of our basic rights we so docilely accept - TSA cavity searches, being forced to remove your shoes in order to board a flight, metal detectors and X-Ray scanners (even in hospitals), ID checks at every turn - they all came about because of 9/11. Everything that curtails, inhibits, or restricts your everyday life today is a direct or indirect result of 9/11. Think about it.
And every one of these violations of our personal freedoms is based on a lie.
Therefore, everyone in government, in the media, in entertainment, in organized religion, in the public eye and in the public who accepts and promotes the official story is either a traitor or a tool.
They have acted as part of 9/11 Censors against the fact that 9/11 was nuclear, which has its very own figuratively "nuclear" connotations with regards to how the public would, should, or could react with respect to the status quo, leadership, government, government institutions, banking institutions, etc. This is in addition to the literal "nuclear" connotations with regards to what the military reaction would, should, or could be with respect to nuclear responses to those framed as the aggressors. The spoils of war that they hoped to gain would go up in mushroom clouds. What profit $$$ is there in that?
I have no doubt that the PTB could have nuked us and blamed someone else in a very false-flag sense. They could have even kept with the meme of 19 Muslim extremists. And the nation and I would have been eager to believe that fairy-tale, too. I suspect that the PTB through its MIC institutions were squashing this -- "9/11 censorship" --, because the ground-swell from the FOX & CNN viewers to "nuke them into a parking lot because (according to the fairy-tell) them foreign rag-head SOBs done nuked us first" would be counter-productive with the war-profiteering.
In fairness with the nuclear theme, the USA did "nuke them foreign rag-head SOBs" with depleted uranium weapons against the better judgment of just about anybody. [My mocking of the sentiments of FOX-style Hawks is not mine; it is an indication of how "the enemy was de-humanized" in the PSYOPS perpetrated on us.] The USA instigated rendition, torture, enemy combatant legal limbo status, indefinite detention without trial, drone killings, and a host of other atrocities against our nation's laws, its Constitution, and its moral & religious underpinnings.
Nuking of Iraq and Afghanistan via depleted uranium is another one of those dots in the trend line that says, "if their morals & ethics permits them to nuke their alleged enemies, then a 9/11 nuclear Pearl Harbor event at the WTC isn't beneath them either," particularly if it furthers the PNAC goals.
A gem to be plucked from all of this is that the PTB nuked us, and then went to great effort to tell us via the media and lots of "authority figures" it was something else: gravity driven pancaking pile-driver. Jonesian Thermite and Woodsian DEW were back-stops to prevent full nuclear revelation and its subsequent "hair-on-fire panic." And I believe it is why lots of 9/11 Censors who were late to the game and should've (or did) known better but played ball anyway: to preserve status quo. And it was probably "personally incentivized" upon them as well in a "deal with the devil" sense. Those who didn't play didn't last very long in Congress.
Like Iceland before us, we the people in order to form a more perfect union must establish government anew. The house-cleaning will be deep; the re-organization significant, even down to the drawing of new regional borders; could make "the guvmint of Merika" and all its institutions obsolete.
The danger is that such radical talk, instead of carving Merika into several manageable regions of autonomy, might consolidate us into the NWO plan, thereby having us play directly into their hand like sheeple that we are.
30. Acknowledgements and Credits
This article relies on information and verbiage previously published in an article titled "Nuclear 2001-09-11" (as well as two predecessor and one derivative article.) The chief difference is that those earlier works speculated into neutron DEW or neutron devices. This article advances the discussion into actual Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices.
My thanks goes out to Craig McKee and Vatic Master for having places on the Internet that can talk about nuggets of truth objectively.
This article would not have been possible without the challenges regularly posed by William Whitten (aka Hybridrogue1 or "Mr. Rogue"), a staunch debate opponent on Truth & Shadows. He helped me coin the phrase "neu nookiedoo."
My deep, heart-felt gratitude is extended to him for his assistance in honing my argument, although he did so unknowingly, unwillingly, would deny supporting the contentions presented here, and probably truly despises me in every conceivable way.
I do not know Dr. Judy Wood or the Anonymous Physicist personally, and have never communicated with them directly (although I tried.) I have never championed their work 100%, and today deviate from their theories. Nonetheless, I must thank them for their contributions to the cause of truth. In particular, I am grateful for Dr. Judy Wood's 2010 textbook, "Where Did The Towers Go?" and her website. Yes, they have disinformation, but they also have the best collection of pictorial evidence and nuggets of truth that need to be addressed by any 9/11 theory-du-jour. Her book also proved to be an excellent objectivity test that many leaders of the 9/11TM failed. I speculate that some of her disinformation was forced upon her, which is why her crafty quote about "listening to the evidence" is important. A sneaky hint to objectively look at her collective evidence and not be distracted by what she puts around it.
To my knowledge, Dr. Andre Gsponer has never written anything about 9/11. However, his decades of effort into documenting the research directions of fourth generation nuclear devices is commendable.
Mr. Jeff Prager also deserves large amounts of praise for his Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB], and his two part eMagazine of a few hundred pages Part 1 [86MB] and Part 2 [56MB]. The 9/11TM was awaiting a thorough analysis of the dust that its resident (nuclear) physicists glaringly neglected.
Dr. Ed Ward deserves praise for the high school math calculations into what it takes for explosives and incendiaries to burn for long periods of time, and for discovering the re-definition of "background and trace levels" in the tritium reports.
Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11 By Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager
"Thank you for having the courage to look at the evidence."~Dr. Judy Wood
31. Enough to Alter Conclusions?
"When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" ~John Maynard Keynes
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.]
With properly applied science to all of the 9/11 evidence, I could easily be duped into believing something else and will henceforth issue a heartfelt & public apology for having led others astray. But as this work brings to light, much of what supports the non-nuclear beliefs of the 9/11TM does not stand up to deeper scrutiny. The above is my present understanding of 9/11 at the WTC.
//
61 comments:
Is Maxwell C. Bridges a blogger or scientist? When did Mr. Bridges read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? I read it five years ago and know when someone is posting disinformation. So then that means Mr. Bridges is a 9/11 liar for truth. Dr. Wood does not make any claims. Dr. Wood is not an Internet blogger tasked with the job of swaying public opinion like Mr. Bridges is doing. Dr. Wood is a forensic engineer and scientist. Dr. Wood conducts research and writes reports. That is what Dr. Wood does. Dr. Wood does not have a dog in this fight. If someone has not read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, they have no standing to dispute it. ;-) ♥
IRREFUTABLE
https://youtu.be/r51a2HnAXCQ
Now we know which side of the fence Mr. Bridges is on and it's on the the side of the perpetrators of 9/11 and he has no credibility. Move along, nothing to see here...
Dear Mr. Goldstein, (Part 1/4)
We have had discussions before, assuming you are one and the same who has been an active participant on Truth & Shadows and Facebook. My alias on T&S until recently was "Señor El Once", and its ownership is claimed all over this blog, not just this posting. Thus, through our direct interactions as well as those same interaction re-posted in other articles of this blog, you should already know the extent of my knowledge of Dr. Judy Wood's book and website. On T&S, I was its most effective champion, although in a left- and back-handed way... Until new evidence and research brought my understanding to a new level.
Regrettably on FB, a suspected agent (whose resume I have and whom I almost met in person) may have outed your true identity, Mr. Goldstein. I have no axe to grind with your identity, and will continue to respect your alias. It isn't important to our interactions.
Further, because your postings have been very cut-and-paste robotic and seemingly oblivious to earlier interactions from the same participant (me), "Emmanuel Goldstein" might be a team name (that the suspected agent wanted associated with a real person.)
Emmanuel Goldstein asked:
"Is Maxwell C. Bridges a blogger or scientist?"
Not relevant, and I'll not waste readers time bragging about my CV. Let's just say that I have enough science background to be a good researcher in knowing what is technically relevant and what isn't. I'm persistent enough to work below the surface of scientific bamboozlement frequently offered up to 9/11 truth seekers, seemingly from reputable & PhD'ed sources.
Emmanuel Goldstein asked:
"When did Mr. Bridges read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?"
Now that I clearly stated my alter egos, this is probably known. (See in the archives, an early [2011] feeble "Dr. Judy Wood and The Mister Honorific Banishment".)
Emmanuel Goldstein stated:
"I read it five years ago and know when someone is posting disinformation."
When you read Dr. Wood's book isn't important. If we were to use your reasoning, I read it before you did and therefore I know even better than you when someone is posting disinformation.
Emmanuel Goldstein stated:
"So then that means Mr. Bridges is a 9/11 liar for truth."
Mr. Goldstein, this is a classic "WTF?" moment. If you (1) don't point out specific passages from me and (2) don't substantiate what is not truthful in them, then your claims of me being a "liar" FAIL, fall into the category of ad hominem, and starts to hint about the reliability of you.
Emmanuel Goldstein stated:
"Dr. Wood does not make any claims."
Mr. Goldstein, you have hit paydirt with this very truthful claim! Dr. Wood does indeed ~not~ make any claims! I never said she did. And this proves to be a major weakness of her work: it can't be considered an end-station on our search for 9/11 Truth if it has no claims.
Therefore, this simple fact puts you into a bad light, Mr. Goldstein, for trying to usurp my newer work here (standing on Dr. Wood's shoulders) with her earlier & incomplete work.
// Part 1/4
Part 2/4
Emmanuel Goldstein stated:
"Dr. Wood is not an Internet blogger tasked with the job of swaying public opinion like Mr. Bridges is doing."
Mr. Goldstein, you forget that Dr. Wood has a website, has published a very handsome, expensive book, and has several persistent (if brain-dead) minions such as yourself who are active on blogs. Thus, it cannot be said that Dr. Wood has not been "tasked with the job of swaying public opinion." She has. The Anonymous Physicist called it right. (Expand All comments and search for him in my article.)
So this premise FAILS, too.
Emmanuel Goldstein stated:
"Dr. Wood is a forensic engineer and scientist. Dr. Wood conducts research and writes reports."
And my addition to this statement is that Dr. Wood conducts research very poorly and writes disjointed & unsubstantiative & non-concluding reports. My 2nd and 3rd pass through Dr. Wood's book began to unravel the buried deceit.
A layoff gave me more time in the spring & summer of 2015 to perform my own research into just the publicly available information on DEW and FGNW at my local institution of higher education and its operational state around 9/11/2001. This is where the deceit became clear.
Example 1. Had she done even half-assed research into DEW, she'd have discovered its limitations: namely optics and energy sources. She never should have been championing anything that could have been malframed as "beams from space."
Example 2. She never addressed public & valid criticism of her website, which she re-purposed almost verbatim into her glossy book.
Example 3. She doesn't mention Dr. Doug Beason's 2005 work "THE E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons Will change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought" or any equivalent work that even middling research efforts would bring to light.
Example 4. Her website several times starts down the path of nuclear means and then abruptly stops. The dirt as a radiation mitigation technique is a significant omission going from her website to her book. Her "research" into nuclear sources is hugely poor and stops abruptly. How could her nuclear research ~NOT~ come across the efforts of Dr. Andre Gsponer some of which pre-dates her website by a decade?
Given the antics of the "you-are-either-with-us-or-against-us" crowd and the heavy (employment / reputation) penalty already paid by Dr. Wood, I do not blame her for the non-claims of her book and tons of unconnected dangling innuendo.
But I do blame you, Mr. Goldstein, for not recognizing these factors when you come to my blog and try to school me about Dr. Wood's work. You're the one needing schooling. Dr. Wood has stated that her efforts were ~not~ intended as the END STATION of 9/11 understanding.
Yet you -- brain-dead disinfo warrior that you are -- are over eager to park 9/11 understanding into exactly such a cul de sac, dead end, limited hang-out.
// Part 2/4
Part 3/4
Emmanuel Goldstein stated:
"That is what Dr. Wood does. Dr. Wood does not have a dog in this fight. If someone has not read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, they have no standing to dispute it."
Because this blog and its re-purposed discussions pertaining to Dr. Wood's work demonstrates repeatedly that I have read and closely studied Dr. Wood's book, I am one of the few who does have standing to dispute it.
You out yourself as not having read my article, Mr. Goldstein, before making your comment.
Emmanuel Goldstein stated:
"Now we know which side of the fence Mr. Bridges is on and it's on the the side of the perpetrators of 9/11 and he has no credibility. Move along, nothing to see here..."
Oooh, too bad Mr. Goldstein. This is a major FAIL with regards to your attempted hypnotic suggestion.
You addressed ZERO points brought up in the actual article under which you comment.
If you were a sincere seeker of Truth, (1) you would acknowledge the true limitations of Dr. Wood's work -- she purposely & admittedly doesn't go the entire distance and "makes no claims" and (2) you would see that this work from me stands on the shoulder's of Dr. Wood's work, rescues the nuggets of truth from many disinfo sources (including Dr. Wood's), and takes understanding to the next level: fourth generation nuclear devices.
Emmanuel Goldstein stated:
"Dr. Wood is not an Internet blogger tasked with the job of swaying public opinion like Mr. Bridges is doing."
Mr. Goldstein, you forget that Dr. Wood has a website, has published a very handsome, expensive book, and has several persistent (if brain-dead) minions such as yourself who are active on blogs. Thus, it cannot be said that Dr. Wood has not been "tasked with the job of swaying public opinion." She has. The Anonymous Physicist called it right. (Expand All comments and search for him in my article.)
So this premise FAILS, too.
// Part 3/4
Part 4/4
I apologize for the copy-and-paste mistakes that ended up repeated passages and ended up needing this fourth part. This version should fix that.
// Part 4/4
Maxwell C. Bridges
ANATOMY OF A COVERUP
Dr. James Fetzer never destroys Dr. Steven Jones.
Dr. James Fetzer never destroys Mr. Richard Gage.
Mr. Richard Gage never destroys Dr. James Fetzer.
Dr. Steven Jones never destroys Dr. James Fetzer.
Mr. Richard Gage never destroys Dr. Steven Jones, but actually covers up for him.
None of the above characters destroy Mr. Bill Deagle, and Mr. Deagle never destroys them.
None of the above characters destroy Mr. Dimitri Khalezov, and Khalezov never destroys them.
There are many other names that go into the above category as well and NONE of them destroy each other, but ALL of them attempt to destroy Dr. Judy Wood…
It is widely known that the last time Dr. Judy Wood voluntarily spoke with Dr. James Fetzer or exchanged emails was February 2008. That is, it has been over eight years since Dr. Wood HAS NOT voluntarily spoken with Dr. Fetzer or emailed him. So why is Dr. Fetzer still so obsessed with Dr. Wood???
Dr. Wood has never spoken with Mr. Gage, yet Mr. Gage promotes disinformation about Dr. Wood at nearly every interview he does – if not every interview. Dr. Fetzer also promotes disinformation about Dr. Wood in nearly every interview he does. Yet none of them have ever refuted anything Dr. Wood has presented.
Yes, if you don’t like the lie behind door#1, they show you the lie behind door#2. Then, if you don’t like the lie behind door#2, they show you the lie behind door#3. Any lie is ok with them as long as it keeps people from looking at the evidence Dr. Wood presents. This is why “thermite” is ok with those promoting “mini-nukes,” and why “mini-nukes” is ok with those promoting “thermite,” etc. Even Dimitri Khalezov’s maxi-nukes or megga-nukes are ok with Mr. Gage and Dr. Fetzer.
WTC7 on 9/11/2001 https://youtu.be/j-uyuHPaniY
Mr. Richard Gage got a lotta splainin to do! No sound of explosives! – No explosives! What does this tell you about Richard Gage and his agenda?
Dr. Wood does not make any claims. Dr. Wood is not an Internet blogger tasked with the job of swaying public opinion like Richard Gage and his government run organization is doing. Dr. Wood is a forensic engineer and scientist. Dr. Wood conducts research and writes reports. That is what Dr. Wood does. Dr. Wood does not have a dog in this fight. If someone has not read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, they have no standing to dispute it.
IRREFUTABLE https://youtu.be/r51a2HnAXCQ
Dear Mr. Goldstein, Part 1/3
Thank you for your comments. I'll take them at face value, but will note that neither one of them addresses the FGNW topic, nor does your 2nd comment address any point from my response to your 1st comment. Both of your comments appear to have been authored for another goal / forum and were simply re-purposed here, where they are of interest but only marginally apply.
What bothers me from such border-line "bot-ish" behavior is that when you copy-and-paste from previous work, you & I are only marginally having a human-to-human conversation. As my comments earlier and below display, I sincerely consider your words and respond accordingly & uniquely (except as far as re-purposing well-authored snippets is proven applicable.) Pasting the entirety of your comments from other sources does not give my words equivalent sincerity or respect, because it is as if you never read them.
In direct response to your last comment, I'm having issues with the word "destroys" in both its literal and figurative meanings and the object being acted on, namely a person rather than "their work" or "their premise" when you wrote:
"Dr. X never destroys Dr. Y."
I don't think it should be the noble task of anyone to "destroy" literally or figuratively another person.
However, your point is well taken that their respective negative efforts against each other is small compared to what they apply to Dr. Judy Wood. I AGREE largely with the sentiments conveyed in your comment... except for [a] the videos that I haven't watched yet (so can't comment) and [b] the final paragraph, which is a copied snipped from your previous comment and already addressed by me in part 2/4 and part 3/4 above.
I spent many minutes trying to think of appropriate improvements:
"Dr. X never destroys the work of Dr. Y."
"Dr. X never reviews in detail the work of Dr. Y."
"Dr. X does not reviews in detail the work of Dr. Y."
While closer to the truth, all of the above have issues and do not apply equally to all persons and their review of others. This actually exposes a great weakness in the 9/11TM and dovetails nicely with your premise of a coordinated cover-up.
// Part 1/3
Part 2/3
In an academic setting, participants in a discussion and their premises are assumed to be sincere. When errors are discovered, they are acknowledged, and the premise is refined accordingly, or discarded. Failures can still educate and may have valid components worth keeping & studying.
In a PR setting liable to infiltration with disinformation, the assumption does not always hold about the sincerity of participants or their premises. Thus, when errors are discovered, they are not (or rarely) acknowledged; the premise is not (or rarely) refined accordingly in the copy-and-paste defenses. An agenda tactic of "opponents" isn't just to get the premise discarded, but to remove educational opportunities afforded by components of the premise worth studying, if not keeping.
Many of the PhD'ed participants (or leaders) of the 911TM give lip-service to the academic integrity of their pursuits, yet fall victim to (or purposely perpetuate) tactics of the disinformation game. Errors aren't acknowledged in their own work, while being quick about using errors in other premises to discard those premises as well as (valid) components that would otherwise be worth studying, if not keeping.
Dr. Judy Wood's book "WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?" illustrates this phenomenon quite handily. Not ever addressed A-to-Z and over eagerly dismissed at the first whiff of any component therein being deemed "inapplicable or wrong."
"If someone has not read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, they have no standing to dispute it... Dr. Wood does not make any claims."
I've read it, therefore I have standing to dispute it. I agree that Dr. Wood does not make any claims, which is simultaneously her book's strength as well as its weakness. Strength: crafty Dr. Wood tries to get readers to focus on the evidence that too many other theories ignore. Weakness: Dr. Wood's book, having no claims, is not the END STATION and therefore should not be promoted as if she were.
Part 3/3
Mr. Goldstein, to the larger point of your comment, there is some valid triangularization to be derived from the various 9/11TM base camps (of limited hangouts), which -- like laser-beams in mist or smoke -- reveals coordinated agendas to cover over truth.
Mr. Goldstein, you project the image that the work of Dr. Wood is a victim. (Paraphrased) "None of the other 9/11 base camps (e.g., NT or Nukes) has this book, much less is disputing, addressing, or incorporating specific elements." This is most certainly a red flag.
Unfortunately, a red flag must also be called on Dr. Wood's book.
[1] "Dr. Wood does not make any claims." I don't blame her; her personal cost has been high. It is enough to shed light on anomalous evidence. I've found several instances, though, of errors in her book that should have been corrected in the many years between being originally authored for the website and later being re-purposed in her book. Criticism of elements of her web content should have been addressed in her book as well. Her book needed a detailed review of the current state of DEW and Nukes. Dr. Andre Gsponer and FGNW are major omissions.
I'll put my money where my mouth is. Here is my Raw Nuclear DEW Research which goes a long way to providing a fuzzy picture of the capabilities of DEW, Nukes, and their hybrid-bastard-offspring FGNW at around the turn of the century. The last two references in Part 2 are the most important.
- Doug Beason, Ph.D : The E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy weapons Will Change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought 2005
- Andre Gsponer : Fourth Generation Nuclear Weaspons: Military effectivenss and collateral effects. 2008
If I could find it, why couldn't the educated Jones, Wood, Fetzer, Harrit, Legge, Ryan, Gage, etc.?
[2] Nuclear means are the natural growth path of (Dr. Wood's) DEW. DEW is the natural growth path of nukes. (Disinfo agent and publicity-hound Dimitri Khalezov's deep underground nukes don't even match the observed destruction and are framed wrong.) Sincere champions of both should be borrowing from one another and building a new paradigm: FGNW. Yet they seem to represent polar camps incapable of acknowledging truth and validity in components (but not entirety) of the other.
They didn't. But I do. "RTFM" (above): Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW).
I apologize in advance for any dings from this comment that make it back to Dr. Judy Wood, the person. IMHO Dr. Wood is the third leg (along with NT and Nukes) in the disinformation "stool" to keep the public from discovering (FGNW) nuclear involvement in 9/11 at the WTC. I suspect her work got too close resulting in a close colleague being killed under mysterious circumstances and the break-up of the Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. James Fetzer, and Dr. Judy Wood 9/11 three-some. As reflected on her website (but not her book), she may have been told to stop various avenues of research. She could live & publish whatever she wanted as long as "Dr. Wood does not make any claims" and does not come to any obvious (nuclear) conclusions. Furthermore, because she was a bit of a loose cannon, they kept her in line by personal attacks to frame her as "nutty, kooky, loony".
In conclusion, Mr. Goldstein, you should recognize how my FGNW efforts stand on the valid components of (disinformation) sources including Dr. Wood to take understanding of 9/11 to a new level.
Please compose fresh comments directly relevant to the FGNW discussion. Prove that you have read the work, and acknowledge the legitimate areas where Dr. Wood's work is (a) re-used and (b) not used. Please refrain from brain-dead copy-&-paste comments that continually try to park understanding at Dr. Wood's work that she herself says is not the end station.
// Part 3/3
Dear Mr. Bridges,
What unit of the United States Government do you work for or is that classified information Mr. Bridges? Covering-up DEW used on 9/11 appears to be your priority.
♥ The Miracle of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11 ♥
2015-09-26 2:19 By Tomfarrar Talley | Red Ice Creations
http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=34375
CONTROLLED EFFECTS
by Dr. William L. Baker*
"The effects can vary in the type of damage mechanism (e.g., blast/fragment, thermal, or ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE [c-DEW: been there, done that]) as well as the magnitude of the energy deposited on the target so that it will be just enough to defeat the target while minimizing collateral damage."
...
"Scientists will have to overcome technological hurdles, such as the production and storage of antimatter, the ability to propagate sensory information, OR THE ABILITY TO HARNESS AND EXTRACT ENERGY FROM THE ENVIRONMENT [Hurricane Erin 2001: been there, done that], before these sciencefiction concepts will become reality."
https://web.archive.org/web/20040608025356/http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Jun04/DE0401.html
*Dr. William L. Baker retired on 1/2/10 as the Chief Scientist of the Directed Energy Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. With an annual budget of more than $300 million, the directorate is responsible for all of the Air Force research and development of lasers, high-power microwave and advanced optical technologies. The directorate conducts advanced technology research to support major applications such as airborne lasers, large optical systems for space situational awareness, airborne high-power microwaves, long-range non-lethal weapons and improvised explosive device defeat. The Chief Scientist is the directorate's primary adviser on scientific and technical matters and the primary authority for the technical content and quality of the science and technology portfolio.
Dr. Baker was born in Columbus, Ohio. He received his doctorate in nuclear physics from The Ohio State University in 1969 and served four years on active duty in the Air Force as a nuclear research officer. In 1973 he became a civilian scientist at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory where he performed and led high-energy plasma and pulse power research to develop new techniques to simulate nuclear weapon effects. His work in directed energy weapon technology began with high-energy particle beam weapons. Dr. Baker led a joint effort to develop a unique accelerator and used it to demonstrate stable beam propagation in open air. He then created and led the Air Force high-power microwave weapon technology program. As Chief Scientist, he led research and development on high-energy laser weapons technology and the application of advanced optics to space situational awareness. He is a nationally recognized contributor and leader across the entire spectrum of directed energy technologies. He has been president of the Directed Energy Professional Society for the past two years.
Dr. Baker has written more than 50 publications in nuclear physics, plasma physics, pulsed power and directed energy.
https://web.archive.org/web/20131214121916/http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/107794/dr-william-l-baker.aspx
Dear Mr. Goldstein, Part 1/2
I'll start off by apologizing for the broken link in Part 3/3 of my last set of comments. The correct link is: Raw Nuclear DEW Research.
Thank you for the links to the articles The Miracle of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11 by Tomfarrar Talley. I was not aware of that evidence.
Also, thank you for the link to Long-Term Challenges by Dr. William L. Baker. Maybe because it is buried in the Internet way-back machine, I did not come across Dr. Baker's article when I was doing my research above. I ran across many more references that covered the same information, such as Dr. Doug Beason's work.
Directed energy weapons (DEW) comprise a broad spectrum of technology, almost as broad as the spectrum of EM energy being harnessed. The Air Force Research Laboratory's Directed Energy Directorate have their own goals and purposes (airborne weapons platforms), which then impose limitations on the DEW devices themselves such as portability and health of the weapons' operators. Further, optics and medium of energy travel (air) are huge considerations, because not all wavelengths of EM energy can be transmitted through the atmosphere without loss or dispersion. This, in turn, translates back into what energy sources (typically chemical reactions) produce coherent energy at useful wavelengths for efficient transmission through the atmosphere. If the source of the coherent energy is chemical reactions, this correlates then to specific quantities of the chemicals. With the exception of the ground-based lasers, the mobile platforms are limited by weight of the chemicals that then impose practical limitation on the energy discharge and duration.
It should be noted that the effectiveness of such mobile platforms' DEW often depend on the target. Targets such as aircraft, missiles, and even satillites have propulsion, weapons, or energy sources that are highly volitile and can be compromised by a focused energy beam there. The WTC didn't have this built-in weakness.
Three factors rule out these types of airborne mobile DEW devices from being deployed on 9/11 as the primary mechanism of destruction.
[1] The observed evidence. The WTC destruction initiated within the structures (80 floors up) and not at the roof. Mobile platform DEW would have been line of sight and initiating at the roof.
[2] The energy required for the observed outcome. The towers did not have "propulsion, weapons, or energy sources" within that could be comprised and aid their pulverization. The observed destruction energy can be extrapolated into beam energy or power (energy times time), which then can be translated into an exact amount of chemicals needed to produce the beam energy. Suffice it to say, the amounts of materials are significant and could not come from one such mobile platform.
[3] Optics and energy transfer. DEW planted within the structure would not have issues with atmosphere (e.g., optics) dispersing the energy beam and making it weaker.
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
Alas, Mr. Goldstein, I now turn to your lead-off paragraph: "What unit of the United States Government do you work for or is that classified information Mr. Bridges? Covering-up DEW used on 9/11 appears to be your priority."
El-Oh-El, Mr. Goldstein! You've posted three comments to this particular blog dedicated to a specific subject -- fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) -- and have yet to reference a single element from that article. You neither acknowledge what is correct nor point out what might be in error.
In a "WTF moment", Mr. Goldstein, you accuse me of "covering-up DEW used on 9/11."
This accusation alone proves that you (a) have not read my article, (b) do not understand it, (c) have disinformation purposes for making such ignorant and attacking statements and for parking discussion at disinfo Dr. Wood and/or airborne platforms, or (d) all of the above.
FGNW are by definition DEW devices.
Thus, no cover-up here on my part, Mr. Goldstein.
What type of person goes to an article about a specific theme, accuses the article of dastardly deeds without specifics, and makes copy&paste comments irrelevant to the theme, while also insulting its author?
Mr. Goldstein, maybe you should answer your own lead-off question: "What unit of the United States Government do you work for or is that classified information?"
// Part 2/2
Bruecke = Bridges
From The Miracle of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11 by Tomfarrar Talley 2015-09-26.
The following image shows "an open Bible fused to a hunk of steel wreckage, with some of the steel overlapping the pages after it was softened by extremely high heat, or some other process."
http://redicecreations.com/ul_img/343741.jpg
The following image shows "an icon of St. Spyridon. The silver around the icon had melted, but the paper icon had not been burnt."
http://redicecreations.com/ul_img/343745.jpg
According to the article:
- Melting point of silver is 1,763°F.
- Steel melts at 2,500°F.
- Auto-ignition point of paper has a range of from 440-470°F
Obviously, the official government theory about 9/11 cannot explain such evidence, and in fact does not even try.
The 9/11TM via AE9/11Truth also does not address this evidence, because NT (combined with any combination of other incendiaries / explosives) would indicate heat.
Whereas we have evidence (e.g., under-rubble hot-spots) of high heat at the WTC, the gist of the above is that high heat may not have been what caused such an anomaly. If the steel were softened or the silver melted, the temperatures involved would have ignited the paper.
Section 14. FGND: Nuclear Paradigm Shift begins to describe how this anomaly could have been created. If the FGND expelled neutrons with lots of energy, these would be highly penetrating into materials. The molecular structure of the materials can determine what effects it might have. For example, the atomic structure that makes metals better at conducting electricity (and paper no good at all) plays a role in how the material will react to neutron bombardment and/or expelled energy at EM wavelengths on the order of molecular distances.
Being the devil's advocate for a moment, further study of the first image does not indicate to me a fusion of the paper pages into the metal. Yes, the metal has been bent and indeed was softened by something. However, the metal has lots of "cake-y" residue on it. This is what the pages are fused with: not the metal. That "cake-y" residue is concrete and the aggregates in concrete. The energy source that penetrated the concrete and then turn it into this tough, residue (and in other cases "blobs") could be the very neutron energy described by my blog (and is in the category of DEW).
In summary, I disagree with the premise that the pages are fused with the steel. I believe that the concrete was dustified and hardened after it settled and captured this bible. The steel could bent by mechanical forces or softened by heating forces. However, when and how the steel was acted on does not have to equate to when the bible landed on it and got fused into the concrete caking the steel.
More interesting questions are: where was this bible originally before the destruction of the WTC? Was it in the church?
Thank you again, Mr. Goldstein, for bringing these two new pieces of evidence to my attention.
//
Section 22 Vehicle Damage
"The pattern of vehicle fires was not chaotic. The vehicles affected were line-of-sight and some at quite some distance. It didn't affect shaded vehicles or those around corners..."
There were cars on Barclay in the shadow of WTC7 that were torched. Some caught fire, others didn't. The Barclay Bank building sustained a direct hit from dust/debris being funneled up Washington Street, many windows were broken but no fires were started inside that structure.
Vehicles between Barclay and Vesey on West Broadway were not affected universally.
A pumper truck at the intersection of Barclay and Washington did not catch fire, while the one parked behind the SE corner of WTC7 was torched.
Dear Mr. Kawika (I assume),
Thank you for your contribution.
P.S. I have a life and am not always on-line. Comments are on moderation, but mostly so I don't miss any and can respond thoughtfully in due fashion on my schedule. I am fair and may publish most anything but blatant spam, but on my schedule. Don't take it personally when comments aren't instantaneously published and live.
// Bruecke = Bridges
You can remove this comment if it doesn't serve the purpose.
I'm a bit concerned that all of this great content is being mixed with Judy Wood. She is making some serious errors right out of the gate.
I'll be glad to share the evidence if you open a suitable channel. I prefer Skype.
Dear Mr. Kawika,
You wrote: "I'm a bit concerned that all of this great content is being mixed with Judy Wood."
I appreciate the worry, but your concerns are already addressed. How so?
For starters, a good portion "of this great content" came from Dr. Judy Wood's work; the mix has already happened. Off of the top of my head, the sections on vehicle damage and "The Dirt on That" have origins that can be traced to Dr. Wood. The acknowledgements section includes Dr. Wood, for whose efforts I am truly grateful.
Secondly, you'll note that my derivative FGNW effort does not accept or include everything from Dr. Wood's work. You wrote: "She is making some serious errors right out of the gate." My disagreement is of the split-hairs variety. Out of the gate, she comes on strong. It is the back stretch where she makes serious errors: not enough research into the publicly available information. She doesn't even make it to the home stretch, because -- as her die-hard fan, Mr. Goldstein, points out in a cut&paste way -- "Dr. Wood makes no claims."
The paradox of Dr. Wood's work is that (a) it has collected lots of great evidence that are not addressed by other mainstream 9/11 theories like NT, (b) it has niggly disinformation in framing and on where it stops or doesn't go, (c) it makes no claims [anymore] so can never be an end station [despite what her die-hard fans project], (d) despite inapplicable but interesting information, despite misinformation [niggly errors never corrected], despite maybe even disinformation [if pointed out, I'd probably agree],... despite all of this, Dr. Wood with DEW is closer to the truth than NT. My derivative FGNW is technically DEW, but not of the "beams from space" variety.
In section 29 9/11 Tetris I mention the issue briefly. "Nuggets of Truth" must be actively mined, re-fined, and re-purposed from (dis)information sources, because often they are the only source of information. In a disinformation world, you must "distrust but verify." In other words, if the public wants the truth from a rigged game that permits disinformation, sources of such should not be dismissed with prejudice without A-Z study and material classification for validity and applicability.
Thus, I won't unmix Dr. Wood's efforts out of the FGNW work, despit her work having issues.
You wrote: "I'll be glad to share the evidence if you open a suitable channel. I prefer Skype."
Don't let me rain on your parade, but this particular FGNW blog entry and its discussion isn't appropriate for more diversion into Dr. Wood than I have already given it. However, discussing Dr. Wood was the original purpose of this entry: Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices. Too bad my debate partners fumbled in a spectacular fashion. (I let you read the sorid tale of Mr. Ruff and his no-show debunking of either Dr. Wood or FGNW.)
I prefer online forums or email with a written medium not real-time, because I have more time to order my thoughts and convey them appropriately. My email address can be found hiding on this blog.
//
Judy Wood makes serious errors out of the gate. For this reason I scrutinize everything else that she says.
Major Error--Steel Was Dustified.
The steel was recycled. What did China and India buy ships full of? Dust?
See PDF page 40 for details
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11_Debris_An_Investigation_of_Ground_Zero_by_Matt_Nelson.pdf
Dear Mr. Kawika, (Part 1/2)
By all means and more power to you for scrutinizing everything that Dr. Wood writes. Like I always say about so labeled "disinformation sources" as paraphrased from President Reagan, you must "distrust but verify." Sure, the verification process might invalidate some aspects of it, but must be carried out for all aspects, lest any nuggets of truth not be seen, rescued, and re-purposed.
You said that a major error in Dr. Wood's work was: "Steel Was Dustified."
You then provide (excellent) references from Mr. Matt Nelson (that I have not finished reading yet.)
I don't want to be put into the position of defending Dr. Wood on this point, but feel compelled to demonstrate how I have championed her work in a back- and left-handed fashion.
Technically, if any steel at all was dustified by exotic means, such as my FGNW, then Dr. Wood's statement is true. The significant percentage of tiny iron spheres found in the dust samples from the lobby of an adjacent building by the RJ Lee group proves the point: steel was dustified. (AE9/11Truth attributes these iron spheres to the by-product of the NT chemical process, but mathematically suggests massive quantities. Instead of attributing the iron spheres to a chemical reaction, maybe they could calculate it to amount of steel dustified.)
Furthermore, in my studying the pictures of the debris pile and statements from those on site, missing from the rubbage were content from the middle of the building. Not just office furnishings, but the thinner steel beam assemblies supporting the steel pans (also missing) on which they pour concrete.
In my trips around the 9/11 block, I observed how the particular theme of "steel quantity" was misused by DEW opponents, but also by its chief champion, Dr. Wood. Dr. Greg Jenkins (part of Dr. Steven Jones' team) used the expression "Steel Was Dustified" to mean "ALL of the steel was dustified." He then (ball-park) estimated the total amount of steel in the towers and with the help of the temperature that steel vaporizes (turns to gas), calculated the amount of energy required to be huge, like on the order of magnitudes at the sun or something unreasonable, and then concluded dustification / vaporization was improbable. A blatant mischaracterization and purposeful malframing by Dr. Jenkins, because pictures of the debris pile clearly show many instances of the wall assemblies. Clearly, Dr. Wood knew this and had not been championing (to my knowledge) that "all" of the steel had been dustified; her most prominent example was actually of the WTC-2 "spire" that survived several seconds after the surrounding building fell, before it, too, seemingly turned to dust. Dr. Wood offered no rebuttal, no correct framing, and has not been correcting the meme to "SOME of the steel was dustified." It is as if each had roles to play in this disinformation theatre.
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
I do not doubt that much of steel was recovered and recycled. Scanning through your reference to Mr. Nelson's work, he writes: "No known record or chart accounts for all the steel actually measured by weight, beyond the details I could find here. As will be seen below in “Truckloads” and “Barges,” we
can only get an idea using final numbers of total debris amount, which I believe was largely
figured by volume projections based on the regular aerial mapping by LIDAR."
A curious way to twist this is: With all of their record keeping and GPS tracking, they cannot account for all of the steel. The high percentage of iron spheres in the dust indicates an energetic process. Therefore, plenty of room is available for the conclusion that: "SOME of the steel could have been dustified."
Of course, there is also room in the missing amounts and tight security & GPS control to conclude: some of the steel may have had lingering defects and necessitated being disappeared in the clean-up process. The fire-sale of scrap steel to other countries? I speculate that radioactivity and/or embrittlement effects (from neutron bombardment of the FGNW) made the steel second-rate. All the better at bargain-basement prices to quickly cut it up, ship it out of the country, and melt it down overseas.
Mr. Nelson's material deserves a more thorough ready from me.
// Part 2/2
When a person has a suspicion of FGNW on 9/11 and then reviews Mr. Matt Nelson's work, the collaborating evidence becomes glaring. Even when first responders talk about heat during the event, it makes more sense as emission from nuclear detonations.
Not completely sure where Mr. Nelson's work was headed (haven't read that far). Doesn't matter, because the nuggets of truth are what are essential.
Thanks you for bringing this to my attention. //
Feed my sheeple with disinformation? Who's God do you follow Mr. bridges?
Theory, speculation, and belief are not necessary to understand that a type of directed energy was used on 9/11, rather, only detailed study of the empirical evidence from 9/11 is necessary. Situations like this are rare in science, where there is so much empirical evidence that one can bypass theory and speculation to draw an irrefutable conclusion from the evidence. This also helps to illustrate a major difference between Dr. Judy Wood and other 9/11 researchers, as she did not start with theory or speculation and then begin researching to see if it was consistent with the evidence. Instead, Dr. Wood simply did what any objective, vigilant scientist would do, she gathered and studied as much of the empirical evidence from 9/11 as possible, assembling a monumental database of verifiable physical evidence that dwarfs the efforts of any other 9/11 "research", including the unscientific '9/11 Commission Report'. After gathering and studying all of this important evidence, Dr. Wood arrived at the only logical, inescapable conclusion that explains all of this empirical evidence, a general category of weapon technology known as 'directed energy weapons' (DEW). It would be theory or speculation to go beyond that by trying to name a specific weapon technology or location, because that is not what the evidence allows us to irrefutably conclude. This is why the term is left as a general one, because that is the only logical, conclusive, and irrefutable conclusion that the evidence allows us to make.
Whose God not who's God, sorry for the typo.
By reading WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, you know from the EVIDENCE that the Twin Towers turned to dust in mid-air never hitting the ground.
>Bombs don't do that.
>Thermite does not do that.
>Thermate does not do that.
>Nano-enhanced thermite does not do that.
>Nano-thermite does not do that.
>New-and-improved super-duper mini-micro-nano thermite does not do that.
>Firecrackers do not do that.
>Fire does not do that.
>Nukes do not do that.
>Megga nukes do not do that.
>Milli-nukes do not do that.
>Mini-nukes do not do that.
>Nano-nukes cannot do that.
>A wrecking ball cannot do that.
>A slingshot cannot do that.
>Missiles cannot do that.
We know this because we know those things above involve Kinetic Energy and/or Thermal Energy and we know that the "dustification" was done without Kinetic Energy and without Thermal Energy. That is, "dustification" was not done with high heat (Thermal Energy) nor with some form of Kinetic Energy (wrecking ball, projectile, gravity collapse). The building was not cooked to death nor was it beaten to death. So Kinetic Energy Weapons (KEW) did not destroy the buildings nor did Thermal Energy Weapons (TEW) destroy the buildings. But we know that Energy was Directed somehow (and controlled within fairly precise boundaries) to cause the building to turn to dust in mid air. That is, some kind of (cold) Directed Energy that was used as a weapon (cDEW) had to have done this. Energy was directed and manipulated within the material such that it came apart without involving high heat (fire, welding materials such as thermite) and without having something fly through the air and hit it (bullets, missile, bombs, wrecking ball, a giant hammer, or many micro hammers)
There is no dustification of steel. This would take an impossible quantity of energy. The dust (actually powder)is concrete, drywall and fireproofing.
If you insist on this dustification claim, then you need to identify where the energy input came from.
I have posted links to the steel recycling facts.
Judy Wood did not do any physical evidence collection.
Dear Mr. Goldstein, (Part 1/2)
I would welcome your participation here, except that you aren't being genuine. Exactly zero of your five comments were relevant to the FGNW article. They addressed nothing specific therein as being wrong (or right). Instead, your participation here has been copy&paste except for doing minor editing in the intro to aim attacks at me.
The following isn't even a comprehensive list of Google search results from all the OTHER places on the internet where you (or your minions) posted the EXACT SAME CONTENT as your last two comments here.
- July 24, 2014 at 6:45 am
- August 5, 2014 at 1:02 pm
- August 19, 2014 (?)
- Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 am
- September 10, 2014 at 9:48 AM
- 2014-09-11
- November 16, 2014 at 12:59 am
- November 18, 2014 at 12:26 pm
- November 29, 2014 at 8:58 AM
- March 20, 2015 at 1:16 pm
- March 21, 2016 at 2:45 AM
Repetition, dear Mr. Goldstein, does not make it right, particularly when the repetition demonstrates neither learning, nor growth, nor modification based on the posting effort and the responses generated.
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
Here is the real-world analogy. I was able to successfully defend Dr. Wood's 2010 book from nay-sayers, because they threw brain-dead copy&paste rebuttals based on Dr. Jenkins half-assed work from 2007. Before looking at the merits of their arguments, the debunkers come to bat with two strikes against them: (1) older work does not know about newer work, and (2) an incomplete review cannot debunk a complete work, particularly if disinformation might be at play.
Mr. Goldstein, your source material from 2014 knew nothing of what would be in this 2016 FGNW work. To be sure, your source content addresses nothing from FGNW and attempts the disinformation trick of malframing nuclear devices. Your deceit is becoming glaringly obvious.
- FGNW is DEW.
- FGNW is properly framed nuclear.
- Dr. Wood does not POWER her DEW speculation with anything real-world.
- Dr. Wood does a disinfo smear on nuclear devices by framing them improperly. Nuclear power sources are the most obvious sources of the massive energy required for "dustification".
I do not respect people who argue from a position of ignorance. Mr. Goldstein, you have not read the article above. Yet here you are, playing your copy&paste games thinking that your old shit is even relevant to new FGNW. You are being quite deceitful.
Here's a news flash: Dr. Wood's work is not the end station. It was not championed as such by Dr. Wood, and shouldn't be positioned or defended as such by you. Dr. Wood expected someone else to stand on her work's shoulders and advance understanding to the next level. FGNW is that next level.
Either make comments directly relevant to the FGNW article, or go away. I will not approve any more comments from you whose content (>70%) is found (via Google) to be copy&pasted from your previous spamming of internet forums and cannot be connected to FGNW or this discussion.
P.S. "I am a religious fanatic, but Truth is what I'm fanatical about."
// Part 2/2
Dear Mr. Kawika,
You wrote: "There is no dustification of steel. This would take an impossible quantity of energy. The dust (actually powder)is concrete, drywall and fireproofing."
"Dustification" might indeed be the wrong word. You should review Section 14. FGND: Nuclear Paradigm Shift (and its source) to learn what destructive outcomes are possible with FGND. As shown from my editing to make it relevant to 9/11, obviously I am very much partial to the designed outcome of "ablating": If surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material will vaporize (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction a large pressure will be exerted on it, launching a shock-wave into the material.
Further, my wild-ass speculation into the subject is that these FGND had two main outputs, (1) energy at a specific wavelength and (2) highly energetic neutrons, and dialed-back side-effects by design & implementation of (3) heat-wave, (4) blast-wave, and (5) EMP.
(1) If the specific wavelengths of emitted energy is on the order of molecular distances, any number of possible outcomes could be expected, including "dustification" in the sense that molecules might lose or have re-arranged bonds on a micro-level and therefore no longer represents the same recognizable, cohesive material on a macro-level.
(2) A similar argument can be made about neutron bombardment, except the energy being delivered is much higher and much more penetrating, leading to ablating.
I agree that most of the dust was concrete, drywall and fireproofing. This in itself is a large energy sink. However, all groups who sampled the dust found significant percentages of iron. The NT faction of the 9/11TM diverts us and says this is the resultant of NT reacting with steel. I disagree, because (a) this represents massive quantities of NT and (b) doesn't explain under-rubble hot-spots. On the other side, FGNW explains the iron spheres in the dust as ablatement.
I agree that, whether dustifying or ablating, massive amounts of energy are required, but are possible with the energy available in excess to FGND.
You wrote: "If you insist on this dustification claim, then you need to identify where the energy input came from."
Shit, Mr. Kawika! Are you guilty of the same offense as Mr. Goldstein of not reading the article that you are make comments under? I'll give you a pass this time and encourage you to read Section 14.
You wrote: "I have posted links to the steel recycling facts."
Indeed, and they were excellent. However, despite their anal retentive GPS bean-counting of all recovered steel, they do not account for it all. There's no denying the copious amounts of iron spheres in the dust. Plenty of room for some steel being ablated into tiny iron spheres.
You wrote: "Judy Wood did not do any physical evidence collection."
I agree. However, she did go there and take pictures. The dirt was an important contribution. Moreover, she did collect many many images of the destruction and correlated them to map positions, which greatly assisted being able to understand the extent of the destruction.
//
OK, I read #14, but can't make any comments one way or the other.
I guess a few questions might be in order here.
How many FGND devices would you think necessary to bring down one tower?
Where would they be located?
If located in the core, would they have the capability to eject the exterior sections, keeping in mind that they were either 35 or 60 feet of generally open office space away from the core. Also keep in mind that the exterior was mostly glass, so the pressure wave would have a limited surface to act upon.
I still maintain that Wood's main premise that the steel was dustified is false, because the recycling figures refute this.
The iron in the powder, I believe is explained by Jones/Harrit as the by product of the nanothermite reaction.
There are several examples of eroded steel (FEMA 403, Appendix C)but those erosions are fairly random, isolated to relatively small sections, while the rest of the member remains pristine.
Here is a report, pried loose by myself in 2013, which shows another WTC7 beam with severe erosion.
http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/wtc/502-WTC-Astaneh-PPT-containing-photos-shot-on--Oct-8-2001-Final-for-Archives.pdf
Was WTC7 attacked with a FGND also?
Dear Mr. Kawika, Part 1/2
You asked: "How many FGND devices would you think necessary to bring down one tower? Where would they be located?"
Wild-ass speculation. Video evidence and witness testimony had detonations "boom-boom-boom" at a cadence that could be counted. It wasn't every floor, but probably every 10th or 15th floor. Puts the the total per tower between 6 and 12.
They would have been placed along the core with a conical area of destruction aimed upwards. Aiming (neutrons) upwards would help prevent fracticide & nuclear fizzle in lower nuclear devices, which the under-rubble hot-spots prove were perfect. They were aimed away from the core, as was evident by the spire in WTC-1, but also to a lesser degree but still present in WTC-2. Final devices down low finished the spire off. They were aimed by-and-large away from the outer wall assemblies, except that a notable piece of evidence from the debris pile is that all wall assemblies were "steamed cleaned" of anything that was originally fixed to them. Videos, however, show much content absolutely smoking/steaming off of ejected wall assemblies as they fell.
You asked: "If located in the core, would they have the capability to eject the exterior sections, keeping in mind that they were either 35 or 60 feet of generally open office space away from the core. Also keep in mind that the exterior was mostly glass, so the pressure wave would have a limited surface to act upon."
If the shaped nuclear weapon had a conical destruction path, they would take out all metal pans supporting concrete and their supporting trusses. The "ablating" feature acting on this internal content (surface heated to the point of instant vaporization and causing a shock wave in the material) would be sufficient to launch wall assemblies, attached to the ablated content, outwards with great force. Section 7 above shows evidence (collected by Dr. Wood) that chemical means cannot explain; only the energy of FGNW and their instantaneous heat can.
Speaking of the glass in the exterior. First responders don't talk about tons of glass shards. The glass in many cases was truly vaporized.
You wrote: "I still maintain that Wood's main premise that the steel was dustified is false, because the recycling figures refute this."
Sure, I'll bite and agree that Dr. Wood, disinfo agent that she is, purposely mischaracterized (or let it be mischaracterized) the amount of steel not present. Your references do not account for it all, though. And the significant percentage of iron spheres found in the dust (of the lobby of an adjacent building, no less) signifies that some metal was vaporized. We're talking sufficient quantities that the RJ Lee group and Dr. Harrit calculated at "11.6 kilo-tons of iron-rich spheres per tower."
You wrote: "The iron in the powder, I believe is explained by Jones/Harrit as the by product of the nanothermite reaction."
Just because Jones/Harrit explained as such, doesn't make it true. Look at Sections 2-4 where this is addressed. According to Dr. Harrit (via interview with Craig McKee), he believes that NT wasn't the primary cause. Dr. Jones admitted in 2012 that "something maintained the hotspots, not just NT." Dr. Jones couldn't get NT to account for pulverization unless something else was added to the mix (like RDX), because the brissance of NT by itself wasn't enough. He ever tested for anything else in his dust samples, though.
And none of the other groups ever found anything, either. Only Dr. Jones supposedly found "energetic materials." In reality, what the dust reveals (in all samples) is flakes of aluminum and iron that were a result of the corrosion between the aluminum cladding that covered the steel wall assemblies, and was issue #2 (next to issue #1 of asbestos) that made the towers a white elephant to fix and bring up to standards.
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
You wrote: "There are several examples of eroded steel (FEMA 403, Appendix C)but those erosions are fairly random, isolated to relatively small sections, while the rest of the member remains pristine."
Now look again at those samples with FGND glasses; easily explained. NT glasses don't explain squat.
Thank you for the PDF, which I hadn't seen before.
You asked: "Was WTC7 attacked with a FGND also?"
The answer to that is in the number of hot-spots attributed to WTC-7. WTC-7 is an example that the operation did not go without glitches; it should have been felled with the towers, not late in the day.
Ask yourself how NT would have been positioned within WTC-7 to account for the examples given in your PDF file? How could NT or anything chemical ever explain the pieces that look like arches, but are really "sags"? I speculate a very hot energy source that for beams further away, which these were, could still be heated end-to-end sufficiently to cause them to loose structural form and thus sag under the forces of gravity.
Even the beam (page 3) that was "corroded" to a thin area makes more sense from focused neutron / energy bombardment than from NT being planted there. (And why would NT be planted there, or close anyway? It is the middle of the beam!)
I'd go as far as to wild-ass speculate that the FGNW fizzled (e.g., didn't meet expected yields or in expected manner) in WTC-7 from fracticide by such devices in the towers. They enabled back-up plans to the back-up plans, which could have been a combination of working or new FGNW and other devices.
// Part 2/2
2016-04-08
Dear Mr. McKee, (Part 1/2) I do not dispute that the WTC was a victim of controlled demolition. Nor do I dispute the significant number of witnesses who reported hearing explosions. Nor do I dispute that conventional explosives could have played a (minor) role.
Conventional (chemical-based) explosives couple their energy to the target by means of shock-waves propagating through an intervening medium, such as air, water, earth, rock, etc.
If we assume conventional explosives were used at the WTC on 9/11 and try to deduce their placement from the evidence (videos plus eye- & ear-witnesses), the description of the explosion cadence suggests a rate slow enough to be counted -- "boom, boom, boom, boom..." -- like one every half second, or one every second. Given that the destruction of each tower happened in approximately 10 seconds, this would suggest one explosive event for every 5th to 10th floor or 20th floor. None describe an explosion cadence of 10 blasts a second, or 1 blast every 0.1 second, which is an explosive device every floor.
Now consider two anomalies. The first is that both towers, but most observable with WTC-1, had a "spire" or portion of the inner core remain standing briefly after seemingly the individual floors and outer wall assemblies were pulverized and fell or were ejected from around the spire.
The second anomaly is that survivors and witnesses at very close proximity did not report afterward damage to hearing from deafening explosions. While Dr. Shyam Sunder can be faulted for many issues with NIST's 9/11 reports, Dr. Sunder made valid statements: "Our analysis calculated that the minimum charge needed to make the critical column fail would have produced a huge 130-decibel sound, audible over half a mile away. None of the videos or witness reports provided any evidence of this."
Given the explosion cadence and the assumption of conventional explosives every 5th to 10th floor, their energy coupling to the targets (e.g., the concrete and contents of each floor) would have been shock-waves propagating through air. To achieve the observed pulverization, the shock-waves would have been large, which in turn calculates to deafening decibel levels to many survivors and witnesses close by.
Because deafening decibel levels were not the case on 9/11, the assumption does not have to hold that the primary mechanisms of destruction were conventional (chemical-based) explosives. Thus, sincere seekers of truth must continue their search for the another primary mechanisms of destruction.
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can produce direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response and observed outcomes. From Dr. Andre Gsponer:
"A first significant difference between DT-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast."
Furthermore for materials near the detonation point, surface heating can be sufficiently strong to ablate (e.g., "vaporize") and by reaction, a large pressure will be exerted on it, launching a shock-wave into the material.
"The main effect {of FGNW} will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material."
The bottom-line: FGNW have sufficient energy to produce explosive and even pulverizing effects. Because the shock-wave is directly within the material and not transmitted through the medium of air, the resulting audible explosions would be muted compared to conventional chemical explosives to achieve equivalent effects.
FGNW are directed energy devices. Speculation: they could have been mounted on alternating sides of what became the "spire" and aimed their energy in a conical area upwards. This would have resulted in the fountain-type effect of content ejection and pulverization (except for spire) as observed, and also would have mitigated to a certain degree nuclear fracticide or one device causing another to fail or fizzle and not meet its full nuclear potential. The duration of under-rubble hot-spots is a clue of nuclear fizzle and 9/11 not being a perfect operation.
Furthermore, other evidence in the aftermath (e.g., tiny iron spheres in the dust, tritium, heavy metals including Uranium in the dust) point at nuclear involvement. The cover-up also hints at it, both in what is considered solid evidence as well as what is considered disinformation, such as how nuclear devices are framed improperly.
// Part 2/2
Mr. Daniel M. Plesse sent to me an interesting video. I have not watched in its entirety and cannot vouch one way or another for all statements contained therein. However, it does have many curious points, such as the photos at 23:16.
9/11 Nobody Knows 2016 A New World Order 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ5VIlna_d4
This does show some anomalous evidence of light poles on fire. I believe that errantly aimed FGNW or escaping EMP from a FGNW could be applied to this to this.
+++ ADMINSTRATION NOTES +++
Emmanual Goldstein made a comment to this thread on March 31, 2016 at 4:08 AM. Plunking some text from that posting into Google reveals other locations where the same text was posted. As suspected, this thread was not the first or only place where it was posted:
- phahrenheit451: March 25, 2016 at 6:28 am
- WDTTG: 39d, 8h {= March 26, 2016}
- Thomas Potter: March 26, 2016
I took the comment seriously and addressed it respectfully (April 4, 2016 at 12:45 PM), as if it was posted for the first and only time on my blog.
However, the record shows that it was not uniquely authored for this blog's benefit. Surprisingly little of Mr. Goldstein's contribution to this article's comments represent unique efforts or address specific points in the article.
//
(Part 1/6) {mcb: Initial exchanges on Facebook.}
2016-05-02 Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, I used to be a regular participant on Truth & Shadows as "Senor El Once". I am presently in exile with subscription abilities, so I can follow what is going on. I had requested that Mr. McKee give you my email or send you to my blog. The article linked at the top level of this FB posting (going to my blog) is what I wanted to discuss with you.
I used to be T&S's resident defender of Dr. Judy Wood. Given that she herself never claimed to be the end-station on WTC destruction methods, I stood on her shoulders and that of the 9/11 nukers to come up with a viable hybrid hypothesis. This you will find in the article.
My goal is for a rational discussion -- convince me or let me convince you. I sort of have the upper-hand at the moment, what with the blog article and all. But that doesn't mean I'm not fair and reasonable.
If you're going to be a champion of Dr. Wood, you need to understand the validity of her efforts as well as the limits of the same.
//
++++++++++
2016-05-02 Roger Gloux
I also am a Dr. Judy Wood fan and I also have her book.
That's why I don't participate that much on T and S.
I receive the e-mails to see if there is new stuff, but they base everything on controlled demolition.
++++++++++
2016-05-02 Maxwell Bridges
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, I give Mr. Craig McKee some credit that he ~might~ be amiable to the idea of Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) were used at the WTC; he ~might~ be convinced of my case built up over years of discussion, primarily on T&S against Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff. (Alas, both in my books were discredited.)
However, Mr. McKee does not personally think it is important. He considers it a distraction. Controlled demolition, what ever the source, can be agreed on by earnest seekers of Truth. His goal is to bring more public awareness to 9/11 and its unholy offspring, and doesn't want discussion (for newbies) bogged down in minutia. His hobby horse is the Pentagon.
My premise is that Dr. Wood has many nuggets of truth. But because she purposely and admittedly does not go the full distance in her research and doesn't connect her premises together, SHE IS NOT THE END STATION. Her book even encourages readers to look at the evidence and not be distracted (e.g., by what she writes.)
At any rate, my blatant agenda here is -- if valid -- to move your understanding further and closer to what I believe is the end station: FGNW.
Please give it an earnest read.
//
++++++++++
2016-05-02 Roger Gloux
Maxwell Bridges I personally don't think it was controlled demolition done with explosives of any kind, including FGNW. I think Dr. Judy Wood "hit the nail on the head" and believes it was some kind of magnetic force that dissolves steel and other materials into powder.
If you read the book and dissect what she says, you can't come to the conclusion it was some kind of "nuke". I've read the book several times and have loaned it to others who agree with her views.
It appears you leafed through it like Craig Mckee did and really didn't see what she is getting at.
(// Part 1/6)
(Part 2A/6)
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, I will give you a pass on your characterization that I allegedly "leafed leafed through [Dr. Judy Wood's book] like Craig Mckee did and really didn't see what she is getting at." You don't know me and haven't researched me yet. FTR, I was the one who got Mr. McKee and Mr. Rogue their copies of Dr. Wood's book. ["Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!"]
Although rabbit-hole links were provided even with Mr. McKee's connecting introduction on T&S, although this FB discussion has further such links, and although I know for a fact that you have come across my writing (as Senor El Once = SEO) on T&S (because you responded to an old SEO comment in an old Wood thread), you get a pass today from not digging deeper into my writing and thereby fathoming my true familiarity of Dr. Judy Wood's book and website. I ain't one to be taken lightly.
Unfortunately, Mr. Gloux, I cannot give you a pass on your statements (re-arranged): "I think Dr. Judy Wood 'hit the nail on the head' and believes it was some kind of magnetic force that dissolves steel and other materials into powder. I personally don't think it was controlled demolition done with explosives of any kind, including FGNW."
Your statement indicates that you might not have read Dr. Wood's book very thoroughly.
(1) Dr. Wood does not power her premise with anything real-world operational.
(2) Dr. Wood drops a lot of innuendo -- some of it applicable, some of it not -- but purposely does not connect any dots, make any claims, or draw any conclusions. SHE IS NOT THE END STATION, never claims she was.
(3) Dr. Wood's research into DEW and nuclear devices falls way short of an engineering professor at a university or with access to a university's library. Case in point, she probably never should have framed her non-claim premise or let it get framed as "beams from space", because even half-assed research into DEW would identify two limiting factors as optics and energy sources. Another case is her giving nuclear sources the bum's rush.
For what it is worth, your phrase "magnetic force that dissolves steel and other materials into powder" completely mischaracterizes Dr. Wood's work ~and~ how real-world FGNW would achieve things. FGNW is the natural merged growth path for both DEW and Nukes.
Do yourself a favor and acknowledge up front this fact about Dr. Judy Wood's work: IT IS NOT THE END STATION.
This is critical. Forewarned is forearmed.
I'm a fair fellow. Failure to make such an acknowledgment of Dr. Wood's work NOT BEING THE END STATION? That will not reflect well on you, and I expose parts of my game plan in how any efforts from you to move understanding BACKWARDS to Dr. Wood will be defeated. Unlike others with whom you've had discussions, I have the goods to debunk Dr. Wood. In short, I accomplish it by accepting copious amounts of nuggets of truth from her work, and then bring up the three facts listed above. SHE IS NOT THE END STATION.
If you are a sincere truth seeker, making such a "NOT AN END STATION" acknowledgment won't be a hardship and puts you into the proper frame of mind to objectively review my derivative work that stands on Dr. Wood's shoulders.
(Part 2A/6)
(Part 2B/6)
Please avail yourself of the link to my blog article "Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW." Fair fellow that I am, if you want to disabuse me of FGNW, my case is made point-by-point. If I am in error, please correct me.
Please make sure you read the comments under the blog post, such as an interesting discussion with a brain-dead Dr. Wood supporter going by the name "Emmanuel Goldstein"(who has had participation on T&S in the past.)
As a further token of my fairness, that article gives you rabbit-hole links into the best of my meager 9/11 truth seeking efforts. El-oh-el, I do ~NOT~ encourage you to read any of it front-to-back or word-for-word, such a mind-numbing, repetitive, time-suck it is even for me! However, you could get clues into my religious fanatisicm (I'm fanatical about Truth), and more importantly into how our common discussion opponents (Mr. HybridRogue1 and Mr. Adam Ruff) were dispatched (on T&S)...
Mr. Gloux, naive and trusting that I am, I hope that now (or by the time you do your homework on my blog) you & I ought to be on the same page regarding Dr. Wood's interesting work: not an end station.
The purpose of my contacting you (even from T&S exile) is to advance understanding beyond Dr. Wood's "non claims" and to get to something real-world. My derivative efforts into FGNW are the natural extension of Dr. Wood's work.
//
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
(// Part 2B/6)
(Part 3A/6)
2016-05-05 Roger Gloux
Maxwell Bridges I will go through your post systematically and try to address everything you said.
Regarding Craig Mckee and most other guys who have a "forum", get the book or have it given to them but only look at some pictures and figure she is a nutcase and don't read what she found out. Instead they put her into the "space beam" area along with aliens.
In other words they don't think she is credible.
The reason why I paid $60.00 Canadian for the book, is because I figured she was on to something not seen before.
You said.... "(1) Dr. Wood does not power her premise with anything real-world operational."
I disagree with your perception. She tries hard not to say what she thinks it is, except to say a Directed Energy Weapon capable of aiming at a specific spot making "round holes" all over the complex. Similar to a microwave that will eventually burn something into a black crisp but not hurt the paper plate it sits on.
You said.... "(2) Dr. Wood drops a lot of innuendo -- some of it applicable, some of it not -- but purposely does not connect any dots, make any claims, or draw any conclusions. SHE IS NOT THE END STATION, never claims she was. "
I disagree again, though she does try she is not successful in just looking at what happened but ties it in with an electrical motor producing some kind of electrical discharge and also hooking into electrical storms for more energy like the hurricane off shore that very day.
(Part 3A/6)
(Part 3B/6)
2016-05-05 Roger Gloux
You said.... "(3) Dr. Wood's research into DEW and nuclear devices falls way short of an engineering professor at a university or with access to a university's library. Case in point, she probably never should have framed her non-claim premise or let it get framed as "beams from space", because even half-assed research into DEW would identify two limiting factors as optics and energy sources. Another case is her giving nuclear sources the bum's rush."
One reason she gives the nuclear sources a bums rush is there wasn't any radiation and there wasn't any explosion to register on the Richter scale. And the bathtub was not damaged by any explosions of any kind, otherwise Manhattan would have been flooded by having the River going down the train tunnels. There is no evidence of high heat whether from a big or small nuke.If it was a "nuke" then the paper wouldn't have survived and we all know it did. And not forgetting the survivors in the stairwell with sunshine on them when there was a 110 story building over them. They weren't cooked from heat or radiation. They actually walked out on their own strength and were conversing on their radios with the rescuers.
You said.... "Do yourself a favor and acknowledge up front this fact about Dr. Judy Wood's work: IT IS NOT THE END STATION."
I disagree again with your assertion because short of saying it was a high energy capable of being aimed like a crowd dispersal energy aimed at soldiers or rioters in the city streets, is what she is insinuating. She points out the circular areas after the pulverization, indicating something was aimed here. Not forgetting building Six and Five with huge holes inside the buildings leaving the outside wall with office furniture still in what's left of the offices, still standing all the way down to the main floor. If there was explosives here of any kind it would have blown these walls over and it didn't. This is why people have ridiculed her with this "beam" thing. I have read the book several times to make sure I was getting it straight so if you think you will defeat me your going to be in for a big surprise.
As for you saying she is "only" a Professor, you missed she specializes in a number of things and is why she came up with a different "lingo" to address the different phenomenon that occurred. If you actually read her book to see what she was getting at, I'm sure you know what I am talking about. But...... it seems you skipped through it and is the reason why you have said what you did.
You said you go into detail such as in your "religious fanaticism" as if your understanding is better then others. I don't know what your religious beliefs are and I don't care as I have my own views on these matters based on the details I found, much the same as reading what other people say about 9/11 and then making a decision on the information I find.
So far you haven't impressed me, nor do I like people mildly threatening me to making myself out to be a fool. I don't scare easy and I don't care what others think. I'm an "in your face" kind of guy and speak "straight from the shoulder" and say it like it is.
As for T& S I'm loosing interest very fast.
(// Part 3/6)
(Part 4/6)
Dear Mr. Gloux,
Except for what the "Gestapo" will serve up at our trials for voicing truth to power, Facebook has no permenance to lay people. FB tends to bury discussions and to constantly churn new noise "on top on top on top". So I make no excuses for my blatant manuever of re-locating discussion under the relevant FGNW article on my blog. [You are encourage to save the same exchanges yourself and re-purpose as you see fit (on your blog?)]
Thank you for your reply. As is my alleged OCD nature, I will endeavor to go through it point-by-point. Before I do so, allow me to highlight some irony in your response.
I made a lot of hay in past years by cornering Woodsian detractors with the simple fact that they were giving book (& website) reviews without ever having held it in their hands, opened it up, and smelled its crack [ah, the aroma of fresh multi-colored ink.] When this became a blocker to my attempts at an earnest, rational, reasoned discussion, I offered to sent copies of Dr. Wood's book to those detractors. Little did I know how much hay this would produce!
On the one hand, we have those who refused (Mr. Phil Jayhan, Mr. Simon Shack). On the other hand, we have those who accepted and then completely botched exhibiting any objectivity at all. [If you've got time to waste and want a good laugh, look at my re-posting of discussions from 2014 with Mr. hybridrogue1, Mr. Ruff, and assorted agents on Facebook.]
The irony here, Mr. Gloux, is that you, as a Woodsian follower, are now guilty of the same offense as the Woodsian detractors: making (book/blog) reviews & assessments without having read the source material.
I'll do you the favor of responding passage-by-passage, but it really should not have been necessary and you would not have made half the statements you made, if you simply would have "RTFM" before responding.
You wrote: "Regarding Craig Mckee and most other guys who have a "forum", get the book or have it given to them but only look at some pictures and figure she is a nutcase and don't read what she found out. Instead they put her into the "space beam" area along with aliens."
I know what you're saying, and have experienced it myself. However, I diagree with your assessment of Mr. McKee. He has permitted much rational discussion in the past, doesn't put Dr. Wood into the category of aliens.
I only have two complaints with Mr. McKee. (1) Mr. McKee doesn't consider question of how the WTC was destroyed interesting or productive beyond the agreement that they were pulverized by some form of controlled demolition [a category including Dr. Wood.] His interest is to get wider public awareness and not bogged down in rabbit holes. (2) Mr. McKee put me into exile not for anything that I did. His main concern was for the over-reaction, bad behavior, and antics of those who just couldn't seem to leave my infrequent, solo comments on deviant FGNW themes alone. [Mr. Willy Whitten = hybridrogue1; Mr. Adam Ruff]
You wrote: "In other words they don't think she is credible."
That's what they say on the surface, but then they get their hats handed to them when they are pressed for specifics. "Good, bad, & ugly" was a powerful tool in setting boundaries for the discussion. If a sincere reviewer cannot acknowledge items in each of the three categories, they get outed as not being objective and deceitful. Careful, though, because just as Woodsian detractors can be faulted for not acknowledging any "GOOD," brain-dead Woodsian followers can be faulted for not acknowledging any "BAD."
(// Part 4/6)
(Part 5/6)
Mr. Gloux wrote: "I disagree with your perception [that Dr. Wood does not power her premise with anything real-world operational]. She tries hard not to say what she thinks it is, except to say a Directed Energy Weapon capable of aiming at a specific spot making "round holes" all over the complex."
Mr. Gloux, surely you see the contradiction you've uttered. I fault Dr. Wood for not having real-world energy sources to provided adequate power to her DEW (land- or space-based) to achieve the observed effects on the ground. You said that you disagree with that and then admit that Dr. Wood "tries hard not to say what she thinks it is." In other words, you haven't countered my statement, but should be agreeing with it and acknowledging this as a "BAD" in Dr. Wood's work.
Allow me to break up my #2 into #2A and #2B. I wrote:
(2A) "Dr. Wood drops a lot of innuendo -- some of it applicable, some of it not..."
(2B) "[Dr. Wood] purposely does not connect any dots, make any claims, or draw any conclusions."
Your statements (addressed above) already underscore and validate my statement #2B. Therefore your response may be only applicable to #2A when you wrote: "I disagree again, though she does try she is not successful in just looking at what happened but ties it in with an electrical motor producing some kind of electrical discharge and also hooking into electrical storms for more energy like the hurricane off shore that very day."
This is the very definition of the innuendo that I was talking about Dr. Wood spreading. "Oh, maybe the energy from a hurricane could have been tapped." Nothing real-world or operational about it.
Regarding my #3 about Dr. Wood's shoddy research into both DEW and nuclear devices, you respond with: "(3A) there wasn't any radiation and (3B) there wasn't any explosion to register on the Richter scale."
Regarding #3A. I challenge you to go out and substantiate your claim of "no radiation." WARNING: This is a fool's errand, because you can't. You won't find a single report -- official or not -- that documents (a) prompt, (b) systematic, and (c)_ thorough sampling for radiation that shows all samples at or below background levels. (Refer to Section 11 above.) Moreover, tritium-tritium-tritium shoots holes in the notion of "no radiation."
Regarding #3B. You are completely malframing the nature of the nuclear devices that would be used, both in their radiation signature and output yield. Refer to Section 14 above. FGNW placed within the towers have the advantage of being able to deliver energy directly to the target. They don't require the medium of air to transmit their (destructive) shockwave effects, although the air does get heated.
Your other comments about the bathtub and survivors in the stairwell other underscores my FGMW premise. For the record, FGNW is DEW and vacuums up and repurposes a whole bunch of evidence collected by Dr. Wood. However, FGNW does what Dr. Wood could not do: PROVIDE A POWER SOURCE.
I repeated wrote: "Dr. Judy Wood's work is not the end station."
You responded with: I disagree again with your assertion...
You were asked to acknowledge my assertion. You didn't. You disagreed while contradicting yourself with your previous acknowledgment that Dr. Wood "tries hard not to say what she thinks it is." If Dr. Wood is going to be cagey about what caused the distruction, then you have no basis to adamently argue the opposite: "Dr. Wood's work ~IS~ the end station." Dr. Wood and every other brain-dead Woodsian troll with whom I've ever had the "pleasure" of engaging in discussion have always made the assertion "Dr. Wood makes no claims..." No claims, means no end station.
(// Part 5/6)
(Part 6A/6)
You then brought up (also from Dr. Wood) different types of DEW systems that employ different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum called Active Denial Systems. You need an education here. Please refer to Section 15 above, particularly the quoted passages from Dr. Doug Beason 2005.
To prove that I am not shooting with blanks when I criticize the research efforts of all the good PhD's on the side of the 9/11 Truth Movement (including Wood), I did some three-quarter-ass research of my own into the state of DEW/Nukes around the turn of the century. Just what was publicly available and not hidden behind "top-security" or other "national secrets" firewalls. I'm such a fair fellow in giving you a leg up, here's a rabbit-hole link to my Raw Nuclear DEW Research. Dr. Beason and Dr. Gsponer are two huge omissions from the work of the good doctors in the 9/11 Truth Movement.
You wrote: "She points out the circular areas after the pulverization, indicating something was aimed here."
Dr. Wood made the excellent quote in her introduction that was so important, it was put onto a sticker and placed on the inside cover of my edition of her book:
"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
In other words, don't get distracted by what Dr. Wood writes; listen to the evidence carefully.
Dr. Wood got many things wrong, such as the implication cars at the bridge were destroyed at the bridge. It led to faulty (non-) conclusions. Pieces of steel that she named "arches" is also something that misleads. They should have been called "sags". (Refer to Section 7 above.)
What you are indicating as "circular areas after the pulverization" in I assume WTC-5 and WTC-6? An aim-able FGNW device having a conical or semi-spherical energy release path would result in the same artifacts. (The intersection of a semi-sphere with the plane of a roof would be a circle.) More evidence in the aftermath points towards devices within the structure as opposed to "beams from space." (Refer to my Raw Nuclear DEW Research, because optics & power requirements are two limiting factors that shoot holes in "beams from space", if we ignore that WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 all were not destroyed tippy-top-down as dictated by "beams from space."
In describing WTC-5 and WTC-6, you wrote: "If there was explosives here of any kind it would have blown these walls over and it didn't."
Don't malframe FGNW into being what you expect from your misunderstanding of nuclear devices. "Ablating" is the effect that you should pay attention to in the above article. In a nutshell, between (design goal #1) energy at a wavelength and (design goal #2) neutron emissions, the target could receive instantly so much energy, that its surface "ablates" and turns instantly from solid into gas (or even plasma) which consequently creates a shockwave within the target to further decimate it.
(// Part 6A/6)
(Part 6B/6)
You boasted: "I have read the book several times to make sure I was getting it straight so if you think you will defeat me your going to be in for a big surprise."
My goal is not to "defeat" you. My goal is to advance understanding of 9/11 mechanisms and to get you to shift your position. You don't have to give up on Dr. Wood's work. But you do have to acknowledge her work's weaknesses: NOT AN END STATION. This alone dictates that your views have to shift to get closer to what truly is the END STATION (whether or not my FGNW is in play).
Don't screw this up, Mr. Gloux. If you are being a sincere and as honest in your search for truth as you try to project, this will be an easy & logical transition. If you aren't being sincere, well... you'll discredit yourself.
You must have me confused with someone else when you wrote: "As for you saying she is 'only' a Professor, you missed she specializes in a number of things... "
Instead I wrote that her "research into DEW and nuclear devices falls way short of an engineering professor at a university or with access to a university's library." I stand by this assessment and prove it with this blog article and the Raw Nuclear DEW Research.
Then from your ignorance about the above article & about me, you go on to insult me yet again with the tripe: "If you actually read her book to see what she was getting at, I'm sure you know what I am talking about. But...... it seems you skipped through it and is the reason why you have said what you did."
At the top (and bottom) of the above article are links for "Hide All / Expand All". Expand everything and then do a Ctrl+F using "Wood" as your search. Identify all of the material that I have re-purposed from Dr. Wood's work. In short, it would not have been possible without an intimate knowledge of her book/website.
You wrote: "[Mr. Bridges] you go into detail such as in your 'religious fanaticism' as if your understanding is better then others." Guess what. I win this round by default, because you haven't RTFM above. Further, you still haven't outright acknowledged the fact that Dr. Wood's work is not an end station and was craftily positioned to not be such. This exposes a glaring hole in your understanding.
You wrote: "So far you haven't impressed me..."
Oooo! Too bad I don't care if I, personally, impress you. What I care about is the Truth.
You wrote: "... nor do I like people mildly threatening me to making myself out to be a fool."
Mr. Gloux, I am doing everything in my power to help you avoid "making [yourself] out to be a fool" by giving you links, my raw research, and copious amounts of hints & advice. But you aren't assisting yourself by coming to the plate NOT HAVING READ THE SOURCE MATERIAL!
How about we correct this deficiency to your efforts in future communication, shall we?
You wrote: " I don't scare easy and I don't care what others think. I'm an 'in your face' kind of guy and speak 'straight from the shoulder' and say it like it is." You sound like you might be Mr. hybridrogue1's sockpuppet. He couldn't defeat Dr. Wood's work or my derivative FGNW in a head-on analysis (that he then turned-tail and ran out on), so maybe as his trolling brain-dead Woodsian following sockpuppet, he hopes to infiltrate & destroy from within by making BAD & ignorant arguments.
(// Part 6B/6)
Hey 9/11 Internet Acquaintances! (Part 1/2)
The above work addresses concerns raised by those (a) who say "no radiation = no nukes" and (b) who say "it was DEW" ala Dr. Judy Wood.
Common games in the concerted disinformation effort to keep public awareness from landing on FGNW were:
(1) Incomplete & malframed premises. Applies to Dimitri K.'s "deep under ground nuke" as well as Dr. Judy Wood's directed energy weapons (DEW) from "Where did the towers go?". The former doesn't match the observed destruction; the latter doesn't power DEW with anything real world and ignores wavelength optics through the atmosphere as a limiting factor. Applies to Dr. Jones & Dr. Wood with regards to how they frame nuclear devices: big yields, lots of radiation.
(2) Glaring omissions. Applies to Dr. Steven Jones in (a) his "no nukes" paper and (b) his nano-thermite (NT) premise. FGNW and work by Dr. Andre Gsponer were missing from the former; the latter doesn't provide the explanation for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. The math is missing that shows NT in any combination with conventional chemical based explosives implying huge quantities & a major logistics challenge to account for the observed overkill & unnecessary pulverization; but then becoming massively unrealistic & improbable quantities when getting the same to account for the duration of the hot-spots.
(3) Faulty assumptions and arguments. A chief error is assuming mutual exclusivity in destruction mechanisms. A related error is assuming one explanation for all observed destructive features & WTC buildings.
(4) Blatant unobjectivity & attempted book reports without having or reading the book. "Content" is probably more applicable than "book". A given is that, in order to succeed even for a short time, all disinformation has to have a solid foundation of truth before introducing the disinfo skew. The belligerent refusal to venture into the maw of disinformation sources to retrieve still valid nuggets of truth is a sign of unobjectivity in the participant, if not a disinfo agenda.
(5) Building on #3 and #4, the inability to form alliances and marry. Because Dr. Wood's DEW needs power (and because she stops short of make & model), the natural grow path for DEW is towards nuclear power sources. Likewise, the natural growth path for nuclear devices is towards DEW. In fact, all FGNW are technically classified as DEW. Yet do you see objective supporters of DEW or nuclear devices borrowing nuggets of truth from the other? Do you see them modifying their views based on new analysis and information? No.
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
I repeat: nearly all FGNW are technically DEW. FGNW are designed for tactical yields. Being fusion based and closely related to neutron devices, their radiation side-effects are short-lived. However, tritium is a signature trace element, and lo and behold the song-and-dance & stilted reports that lamely tried to explain away tritium being measured (even haphazardly) and necessitating redefinition of "trace levels" to be 55 times greater than previously.
Targeted neutron emissions from FGNW has a significantly higher & deeper coupling of energy to the target. Energy coupling is the reason why the WTC didn't have conventional chemical-based explosives (even mixed with nano-thermite) as the primary mechanism of destruction. Conventional controlled demolition uses shockwaves through the medium of air and such over-pressurization of air would be very LOUD, particularly for the observed pulverization. Didn't happen on 9/11. FGNDs do not have this problem, because the deeper & direct coupling of energy creates the shockwave within the material (target).
It has amazed me that the 9/11 nuclear camp and the 9/11 DEW camp have been unable to tie the knot and get married, and how no learned PhD's on the 9/11 TM payroll ever made the love connection, most of them insisting on parking understanding in the nano-thermite cul-de-sac that can't even go the distance on the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
The reason for such obstruction? The whiff of "nuclear anything" on 9/11 would have had, could have had, should have had massive figurative nuclear fall-out in our government and its institutions, as well as with the ill-got gains expected at home and abroad.
What you do with this is up to you. Such figurative nuclear fall-out from 9/11 nuclear revelations is still possible.
// Part 2/2
Good stuff Mr. Puentes, as usual.
Regarding the leftover "spire" that "turned into dust" according to Dr. Wood: It's my impression that said portion of steel columns collapsed in a way as if their base was removed. I do notice some dust being left over as it colapses, and it seems impossible for it to be dust from the collapsed building, as there is no time for it to heap up (considering how lightly it floats around after the "spire" collapses).Hence I haven't found yet an explanation for this event that makes sense to me. What's your personal take on it?
Quierdo Señor I.S.,
On the theme of the (WTC-1) spire, I have been consistent over the years in my waffling between "it was dustified" and "it fell and only the perspective makes it look dustified." Now that you corner me, I'll take the third option right down the middle and speculate both.
Here's the reasoning behind my speculation. Although focused attention on the spire was inpired largely from Dr. Wood's work, her work isn't without errors. An error that I believe she made here was in using only one camera perspective to make her "dustification" claim that she then allowed (or didn't object to others appropriating and malframing) into being "all of the steel in the towers was dustified", when clearly from her collection of photos most of the steel was not.
Dr. Wood had sufficient time between writing this on her website and re-purposing it in her book to locate other camera perspectives of the same spire, where the spire appears to fall over.
However, the manner in which the spire falls over and becomes disjointed, while not true dustification, does demonstrate a different set of energy acting on it from underneath, the final clean-up operation.
Assume that the FGNW could aim their emission: at least hemispherical, if not conical and up [my belief]. This would allow two or more tandem devices to be deployed without neutron emissions from one device causing others to not reach designed yields or to go into nuclear fizze. [9/11 wasn't perfect, and duration of hot-spots points to some nuclear fizzle in the overkill operation.] To give greater predictability to the destructive outcome, the FGNW may have been attached to structural elements that they planned would more or less remain fixed (and that later became "the spire.") A fixed base would be important if nuclear detonation wasn't instantaneous but had a duration of, say, so-many tens (or hundreds) of milliseconds. Otherwise without a fixed base, falling structure & debris could jostle & misalign a FGNW's orientation during its prolonged detonation and give unpredictable collateral damage. To further mitigate nuclear fizzle, the set of tandem devices might have been staggered on opposite sides of the spire every so-many floors. The result (as observed) would be pulverizing of content within the outer wall assemblies except for the spire itself.
You wrote:
I do notice some dust being left over as it colapses, and it seems impossible for it to be dust from the collapsed building, as there is no time for it to heap up...
Energy at certain wavelengths could be likened to a microwave oven. Residual water molecules in some content (from drywall, to concrete, to porcelain, to humans) could be excited instantaneously into steam, whose rapidly expanding volumetric pressure would contribute to inside-out "pulverization" of that content. The steel beams would have reacted differently to the energy at a wavelength, absorbing it but not necessarily changing its form. [The neutron penetration on that metal would have been a different story.]
If the plan was for FGNW to miss the core columns that made up the spire, then a certain amount of content (or fragments thereof) would also have been missed that was somehow attached to the spire. Think fireproofing, paint, drywall, etc. Therefore, when the clean-up FGNW was activated from the base to remove the spire, its energy hit & pulverized content that had been missed before. This then could have been the sudden "puffs" of dust observed appearing and hanging in the air, while the metal beams of the spire separated and fell to the ground through the dust. (This was more evident by the perspectives of the spire that Dr. Wood did not use.)
This is how my FGNW explains the spire and what appears to be its dustification.
//
9/11 Nuke Aftermath http://www.thepetitionsite.com/502/347/925/911-nuke-aftermath/
Dear Mr. Howard,
I followed your link as well as the rabbit hole (unlinked) references. Several were in the past sources for my understanding of 9/11 events... until new analysis and evidence prodded me to re-evaluate and modify my beliefs.
I stood on the shoulders of the Anonymous Physicist and Dr. Wood to take the nuclear & DEW theories to the next level. Fourth generation nuclear devices (FGND) is the result of that marriage.
Please read above. It is where they were heading but didn't quite get.
+++
Alas, some of the sources that you referenced have since unraveled to be disinformation, albeit choked full of nuggets of truth necessitating rescue. 122 Reasons Why I Am a No-Planer from May 2009 is an example. I was a planer until I became a no-planer and then became a planer again, so I know NPT inside out by now. NPT Carousel on FB "All Theories Welcome" and Debunking NPT@WTC will give you tons of detail to support my newer contention: NPT at the WTC is purposeful disinformation BECAUSE NPT at Shanksville and Pentagon is somewhat valid.
A major problem with the "122 Reasons" article is that it purposely conflates four different plane events together and implies all were the same. For example item #1 suggests the dearth of plane debris at all four crash sites. Correct for Shanksville & Pentagon, but wrong for the WTC. The WTC had plenty of debris including landing gear embedded in a wall assembly that was ripped out of the backside of WTC-1 and photographed on the ground in a car park before either towers came down; hard to fake.
Item #2 is about not matching of debris with serial numbers. This is true, but hints at both cover-up and that the WTC planes were not the alleged commercial aircraft. Real aircraft they were, though.
Item #4 is about no wings breaking off in 2nd video. This is a complete misunderstanding of physics that even I was duped by for awhile. I've addressed this in detail in the links above. In a nutshell, the effects to be observed on the wings depends on the energy involved which depends on a velocity squared term. At low velocities (autobahn to parking lot), we might expect in tact wing assemblies breaking off. At very high velocities, that velocity squared term delivers energy that overwhelms the structural energy of the materials making up the wing assembly. The wings shattered locally first before shards bounced or entered through window slits. Physic does not dictate that the wings remain and act as cohesive wholes or bounce off as cohesive wholes.
I could go on about why that 2009 NPT article has issues, but I won't. I already did. Please follow the links above. If you have issues with my destruction of NPT at the WTC, post your comments at those links.
Have a great weekend,
//
Part 1/4
[Bat-shit crazy speculation] One scenario for FGNW placement in the WTC towers as desired by other participants as a minimum requirement.
The FGNW in question are tactical and can have their energy targeted in the shape of a narrow cone fanning out upwards: a poster-child for directed energy weapons, or DEW. [For the sake of discussion, the "height" or "reach" of this inverted cone of energy was through 20 stories of material. Can be tweaked in the discussions.] The primary output is highly energetic neutrons, with reduced side effects of a blast wave, heat wave, and EMP.
Many videos of both towers' annihilation show momentarily a spire of structure from the inner core after most of the buildings content hit the ground. Therefore I speculate that FGNW devices were placed every 20 floors or so and staggered on either side of the spire structure and aimed upwards but away from the spire.
Aimed in this manner upwards and detonated top-most devices first, an upper FGNW is less likely to cause fracticide or fizzle with a neighboring FGNW. [Fracticide and fizzle did happen and is why the WTC had under-rubble hot-spots burning for months. Such may have saved the firemen. May have been the cause of WTC-7 not coming down as planned with the other structures.]
When a single FGNW ignites, it sends its highly energetic neutrons upwards in an inverted cone of energy. When these neutrons hit the leading layer of metal of, say, the steel pans that held the poured concrete, the layer vaporized so quickly that it caused a violent shockwave through the rest of the material that explosively tears it apart. Same for the concrete and building content in the path of the FGNW beam. [The debris piles had a lack of these metal pans and supports, and the concrete was turned to dust.]
When this inverted energy cone of energy hit more solid beams, such as other supports of the core, it was sufficient to cause volume heating end-to-end in these large pieces of steel, as if they had been in a foundary furnace and reducing their strength. [The debris pile had "arches/sags", horse-shoes, and what became known as "the meteor."]
The inverted energy cone was aimed to miss mostly the outer wall assemblies. Video show wall assemblies being ejected to the sides and streaming smoke, steam, and dust, as if they were heated so much that they burned off whatever had been painted or attached to them. The debris pile and area had examples of another anomaly that I call "steel doobies," which are the three beams of a wall assembly wrapped into a bundle (or joint, or doobie) and held together by their three spandrels. In other words, the spandrels were heated sufficiently to become pliable such that the destructive shock-wave forces could wrap the beams together. One of these "steel doobies" was augered into the ground and leaning against a building on Liberty street. The amount of augering and distance from the towers suggest its placement was high in the tower, and also that high heat and energetic lateral forces created it before it hit the ground. [The OCT doesn't explain this anomaly.]
// Part 1/4
Part 2/4
When David Chandler analyzed just the top 20 stories, he calculated that the roof fell at 65% gravitational acceleraton. This meant, the 20 story structure went from 100% resistance to gravity, to only 35%... suddenly, symmetrically. They appear to accordion in on itself before the destructive wave gets much below the level of impact from the plane.
WTC-1 upper 20 stories wasn't completely symmetric and started toppling over and out of the path of maximum resistance. Then suddenly, its angular momentum was halted and it accordioned in on itself. It was no longer a cohesive whole toppling to the side.
Then the FGNW positioned slightly lower in the towers were ignited. Video evidence depicts upward fountaining destruction of pulverized content from lower levels, despite some content from upper levels also falling on it. Some content may have passed multiple times into the path of lower FGNWs, thereby resulting in smaller and smaller pieces.
This sequence was continued with detonations staggered and lower on the spire, until at some point the final and clean-up FGNW knocked down the spire itself. You can see material formerly affixed to the spire suddenly turn to dust and linger in the air as the steel of the spire disappears downward.
The reason the firemen in the stairwell survived has to do with aiming or with malfunction of the device that would have decimated their corner.
Games have been played with the audio of many videos, maybe on purpose. Some video survives that have the boom-boom-boom, and first responders also report hearing such CD cadence. However, they don't describe it sounding like a machine gun, but at a countable cadence, once every 1/2 second to second, which would also underscore the idea of 6-12 devices (for the 110 stories.)
Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST, in debunking conventional chemical explosives, stated that were they used (and certainly to achieve pulverization), the explosions would have been deafening. Hearing loss was not one of the ailments of first-responder survivors. Furthermore, when conventional chemical devices are mounted on a structure, that's the location that gets zapped, but a shockwave is transmitted through the air as massive changes in air pressure that -- depending on goals/techniques -- violent destroys other content. Shockwave through air means "very loud." 9/11 booms were loud, but muted from chemical explosives. The detonation of a FGNW does not have to be extremely loud. Content ablating and being destroyed by shockwaves created deep within the content would have a different sound.
// Part 2/4
Part 3/4
Placement of FGNW in other buildings were different. WTC-6 crater shows really well how conical shaped FGNW spared the walls but couldn't help decimate all floors & roof AND content that supposedly fell onto it from WTC towers.
Aircraft was restricted from flying over the WTC, and directly over the towers. All cameras and helicopters were far away, owing to the danger from these devices being aimed upwards.
Electro-magnetic pulses (EMP) escaping through window slits and falling debris may have caused the vehicle damage along West Broadway and the car lot. It explains the experiences of an EMT who was running from WTC-6 (where the Feds had some sort of command center in the lobby) and was hit by the door of a parked car that popped out of its frame and off of its hinges to forcefully smack her into the wall.
Dr. Wood with her DEW theories are close, but in a disinformation bent don't connect dots and purposely avoid valid nuclear considerations. One thing her book does well is collect all of the imagery of 9/11 be a nuclear event.
// Part 3/4
Part 4/4
The above references the work of Dr. Andre Gsponer, who is a glaring omission from Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, and the entire 9/11 TM. Here is his relevant article on the Cornell University Library archives in physics.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
I mined material from his work in section 14.
I humbly and sincerely request that people review my work. I would be overjoyed to have it debunked, because I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot promoting it.
With kind regards, a sincere and earnest truth seeker.
// Part 4/4
Based on my analysis, the arguments and evidence presented do not conclusively prove the use of fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW) at the World Trade Center on 9/11. Here are some key issues:
1. The levels of radioactive contaminants like tritium measured at Ground Zero were very low, not indicative of nuclear explosions which would produce vastly higher amounts. The redefinition of "trace levels" is exaggerated - the increase proposed was still very low.
2. No convincing documentation is provided of radiation-related effects like neutron activation and induced radioactivity that would necessarily occur with nuclear explosions. Assertions of evidence tampering do not prove nuclear devices were used.
3. The theoretical capabilities described for FGNW are speculative and their existence as operational weapons is unverified. The sources cited are analyses of future potential capabilities, not confirmation of real covert weapons.
4. The proposed placement and effects of FGNW do not match observed collapse patterns. For example, the spire behavior is inconsistent with intended directional energy emission. Videos show pulverization originating from above, not precise directional sequences.
5. Conventional explosives or some other technological means could potentially account for the damage patterns cited as evidence for FGNW. Lack of deafening noise can also be explained by unconventional explosives directing energy into the building rather than air.
6. The arguments for nuclear devices rest on selective interpretation of evidence while ignoring issues that challenge the theory, such as lack of extreme heat, radiation, and shockwave effects. The theory relies heavily on hypothetical capabilities.
In summary, while the article assembles some circumstantial evidence, the overall case presented does not rise to the level of concrete proof when all evidence is objectively considered. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof for nuclear devices at the WTC is very high. The arguments may merit further investigation but fall short of scientific consensus or definitive conclusions. I would recommend submitting this thesis to scholarly peer review before asserting it as confirmed fact.
Dear Mr. Gene Laratonda, Thank you for taking the time to "consider" my FGNW premise and leaving your comment on "Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW".
You wrote: "Based on my analysis, the arguments and evidence presented do not conclusively prove the use of fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW) at the World Trade Center on 9/11."
I appreciate you pointing out the key issues that your conclusions. I will now point out the issues with "your issues" which should affect your conclusions.
You wrote: "1. The levels of radioactive contaminants like tritium measured at Ground Zero were very low, not indicative of nuclear explosions which would produce vastly higher amounts. The redefinition of "trace levels" is exaggerated - the increase proposed was still very low."
(a) "Very low" does not mean zero. Shoddy sampling in the methodology should not be confused with low amounts.
(b) Where did you get this "very low" characterization? Probably from a report like "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" that is taken apart in section 10 above, because the study was scope-limited from the onset to attribute any measured tritium to RL devices that may have already been in the content of the WTC complex. Because the authors weren't looking at nuclear weapons as being the source for tritium or the destruction, (1) 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 (2) nuclear weapons were beyond the scope of their explanation.
(c) The redefintion of "trace levels" to be 55 times greater than they were prior to 9/11 is not an exaggeration, even if "still very low." It is a fact. Worse, Dr. Steven Jones accepted that study at face value, unquestioned and unchallenged, and thus himself is guilty of perpetuating the deceit of "tritium only being at trace levels", when it was not.
(d) When you toss out the phrase "not indicative of nuclear explosions", you don't describe any nuclear devices to prove your point: not fission devices, not fusion devices, not neutron devices, not hybrid-fission-fusion devices, and not a word on any of the possible devices described by Dr. Andre Gsponer.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
(e) "Nuclear explosion" is a malframing from the onset. "Explosion" implies a "blast", or a sudden, violent, and large change in air pressure that destroys things. You should be talking in terms of "nuclear yield", whereby 80% was in the form of targeted highly energetic neutrons. The only "explosion" was the conventional chemical-based kick-starter charge required to initiate the fission stage wasn't designed for destruction or radiation, but to generate the heat required for fusion (which then output the neutrons). Only 20% of the nuclear yield was in the form of a head wave, blast wave, and EMP.
In your general language, you want to lump all them together, as if they all nuclear devices would have the same signature. Shame on you.
// Part 1/7
Part 2/7 You wrote: "2. No convincing documentation is provided of radiation-related effects like neutron activation and induced radioactivity that would necessarily occur with nuclear explosions. Assertions of evidence tampering do not prove nuclear devices were used."
Again with the malframing of discussion as "nuclear explosions."
"No convincing documentation"? Of course there's not.
Had you read section "8. Controlling the Opposition" above, you would examples of "no convincing documentation" in (a) The 9/11 Commission Report, (b) NIST Report on WTC-1/2, and (c) NIST Report on WTC-7.
"No convincing documentation" is par for the course. I assume you are referring to "Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001" by The Paul Lioy et al that had my criticism in section 11. 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.
In other words, you have "no convincing documentation" that 9/11 didn't have nuclear components.
// Part 2/7
Part 3/7 You wrote: "3. The theoretical capabilities described for FGNW are speculative and their existence as operational weapons is unverified. The sources cited are analyses of future potential capabilities, not confirmation of real covert weapons."
Indeed, the theoretical capabilities described for fourth generation nuclear devices (FGNW) is speculative, because they are assumed to be pure fusion. Getting a fusion reaction started is the hard part.
But "late-3rd/early-4th genreation nuclear weapons" are hybrid fission-fusion. The fission stage is needed to get the requisite heat for fusion.
So maybe it was lazy of me to simplify my language to "FGNW" instead of correctly stating "late-3rd/early-4th genreation nuclear weapons". However, you'd have to read and understand the source material from Dr. Andre Gsponer to be able to discover my laziness in naming things.
You mentioned: "Their (FGNW) existence as operational is unverified."
Who is going to verify it? Do they have non-disclosure agreements with stiff penalties stemming from charges of treason? Has the US not been very tight-lipped about keeping and maintaining nuclear secrets?
The questions above already invalidate your assertion.
Given Dr. Andre Gsponer's CV in Swiss nuclear physics; given that Dr. Andre Gsponer was writing & publishing about the state of nuclear weapons in the decade leading up to 9/11; given that he'd been publishing and refining those publications; given that they were peer-reviewed and published in reputable places; and given that nobody from the 1990's until today (2023) has come out against his descriptions of FGNW: the verification you seek is the agreeing silence of his colleagues and peers in the nuclear field.
// Part 3/7
Part 4/7 You wrote: "4. The proposed placement and effects of FGNW do not match observed collapse patterns. For example, the spire behavior is inconsistent with intended directional energy emission. Videos show pulverization originating from above, not precise directional sequences."
Your number 4 is all hypnotic suggestion, because the proposed placement and effects of FGNW do indeed match the observed collapsed patters. You mention the spire behavior as somehow being "inconsistent with intended energy emission." I disagree and say that the spire behavior is evidence of FGNW.
The configuration is 4 FGNW per detonation levels, and 6-20 detontation levels. Each device has a conventional chemical based explosive to kick-start the fission stage. The sole purpose of the fission stage is to generate the heat for the fusion stage, which then released its highly energetic neutrons in a targeted fashion, cone-shaped from ignition point.
There is room in this description for the FGNW to have a delay between trigger of the kick-starter charge to full nuclear yield, and for the nuclear yield to have a duration. A misaligned FGNW could cause nuclear fizzle in neighboring devices. Thus, a stable platform that was not going to be blown out from under a FGNW while it's outputting the desired nuclear yield.
I speculate that the spires (which the destruction of both towers had) was the stable portion of the outer walls of the inner-core where the FGNW were mounted. The cone-shaped output was aimed away from that spire.
The vanishing of the 9 stories of WTC-4 main building gives an idea of the range of the cone. Everything in neat lines from the ground floor through the ceiling of WTC-6 were vanished, but not the outer walls where the FGNW were mounted and aimed away from.
The videos do indeed show pulverization originating from above. [There were others, but this is a blatant clue that (a) you didn't read my premise, (b) this work is copy-pasted from somewhere else.]
I repeat: FGNW per detonation levels, and 6-20 detontation levels.
The first detonation level was probably below the airplane impact floor. The ignition of its devices dustified the upper 20 stories, got it accordioning in on itself at 2/3 gravitational acceleration, suddenly. It was needed, because in WTC-1 that upper block had angular momentum and was toppling over, but then a cohesive block gets decimated suddenly into dust and no more toppling.
// Part 4/7
Part 5/7 You wrote: "5. Conventional explosives or some other technological means could potentially account for the damage patterns cited as evidence for FGNW. Lack of deafening noise can also be explained by unconventional explosives directing energy into the building rather than air."
Wrong, conventional explosives or some other technological means can not potentially account for the damage patterns cited as evidence for FGNW. And after 20 years, if they could have accounted for it [e.g., Dr. Judy Wood's book], they would have already. They would have given us details on where it was mounted, how much was mounted, etc.
Now I'm confused, because you're saying the "lack of deafening noise can also be explained by unconventional explosives..."
Please do. What explosives are those?
I interrupted you: "... unconventional explosives directing energy into the building rather than air."
I assume you are not referring to "ignition outside building but output energy directed from outside into the building." This is Woodsian-DEW, and neither of us is championing that (in this instance.)
I assume you mean "ignition inside the building and from its mounting points directing its output into the structure of the building." By directing energy into the structure and not moving air in its explosions, it might lack a deafening noise as compared to a willy-nilly positioned conventional chemical-based weapon.
Alas, your unconventional weapons (still probably chemical-based) somehow needs to pulverize the concrete into powder (and vaporize the metal pans and trusses supporting it, as well as office content and people on those floors), because this is what the debris pile showed.
The logistics of installing unconventional (chemical-based) explosives that can pulverize concrete from all levels as one of its design features (because it was observed) is already unrealistic to implement, before we add the observed stipulations that overall decibel level is not deafening and that there are only about a dozen detonations (as describe by firefighters and others in a cadence you could count, so 1 every 10 or 20 floors of collapse wave).
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*!!! You get a prize!
You mentioned "an unconventional weapon" that could direct its energy, yet don't describe such a weapon; your research and that on whom you rely is lacking.
Guess what? FGNW are unconventional weapons in the category of DEW.
// Part 5/7
Part 6/7 You wrote: "6. The arguments for nuclear devices rest on selective interpretation of evidence while ignoring issues that challenge the theory, such as lack of extreme heat, radiation, and shockwave effects. The theory relies heavily on hypothetical capabilities."
Let me address the lie first. You suggest there was a lack of extreme heat in the 9/11 demolition. Can you say "arches/sags, horse-shoes, and steel doobies"? Can you say a high percentage of tiny iron spheres (found in the dust)?" Can you say "under-rubble hot-spots that burned for months"?
Extreme heat was present, but when the heat wave is well under 20% of the nuclear yield (with blast wave and EMP -- which did exist) of already tactical devices, then the heat wave is not going to match the larger nukes you're thinking about.
You suggest there was a lack of radiation. Yet, the reports already discussed prove this assertion wrong. Again, if fission isn't used for destructive purposes, and if neither fission nor fusion are designed for "nuclear blasts" that blow radiation everywhere, the nuclear fingerprints will not match the larger nukes you're thinking about.
You suggest there was a lack of shockwave effects. The nuclear ignition did have a shockwave, but it was with the heat wave and EMP in that 20% of the nuclear yield. Although I've stated often that kick-back from the conventional kick-starter charge was observed as squibs along the face of the building 10-20 stories ahead of the debris canopy, I'd be willing to amend my opinion that the squibs were the directed blast wave from individual FGNW.
However, where your statement about "lack of shockwave effect" is really off, is that when highly energetic neutrons pass through material and leave energy behind deep and throughout the molecular structure (typically in the form of heat), sometimes the leading edge (of say, metal) vaporizes so quickly that it causes a shockwave within the rest of the material that blows the material apart.
The missing office furnishings, concrete floors, metal pans and trusses, from the debris pile is telling. Pulverization of all that concrete alone is a huge energy sink. FGNW have energy to spare, and overkill dustification comes about as a side-effect of the nuclear devices. Remember, NT (mixed with whatever you want) would necessitate equavalent overkill implementation and overkill logistics, so overkill that sufficient unspent quantities could burn under the rubble for weeks.
To the degree that my arguments "rest on selective interpretation of evidence", your arguments -- your NT premise that triggered this exchange -- rest on ignoring the evidence.
No, your brief rebuttal relies on hypothetical capabilities that all nuclear devices are created equal.
// Part 6/7
Part 7/7 You wrote: "In summary, while the article assembles some circumstantial evidence, the overall case presented does not rise to the level of concrete proof when all evidence is objectively considered. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof for nuclear devices at the WTC is very high. The arguments may merit further investigation but fall short of scientific consensus or definitive conclusions. I would recommend submitting this thesis to scholarly peer review before asserting it as confirmed fact."
Each of the six points in the canned rebuttal used to justify the conclusion (of no form 9/11 nuclear involvement) were rebutted and proven non-gating. Thus, the conclusion is invalid.
The rebuttal acknowledges the assembly of "some circumstantial evidence." Thank you. They are nuggets of truth. FGNW tries to address them; NT does not and cannot. This "circumstantial evidence" is not going away.
Dr. David Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
You wrote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof for nuclear devices at the WTC is very high."
Very good hypnotic suggestion.
I'm not making "extraordinary claims." Nuclear devices should have been rationally and legitimately considered from the onset by e.v.e.r.y.b.o.d.y. alone from the energy sink of concrete pulverization through the path of greatest resistance at near gravitational acceleration while also energetically ejecting laterally large pieces of wall assembly structures.
But nuclear devices were not "rationally and legitimately considered." No, nuclear considerations were given "the black-hole treatment." And the few efforts made to address not even a portion of the assembled circumstantial evidence, were found with built-in self-discrediting flaws right in their limited-scopes.
The nuclear powers of the world had been improving nuclear devices for over half a century. Owing to national security, details went dark for the public. Really stiff NDA's with penalties including death for treason were signed by all who truly know, which is why they aren't here confirming or denying anything. But the DoD couldn't help itself but brag in many Hollywood movies that it provided technical advice and assistance.
You hypnotically suggest that the burden of proof for nuclear devices at the WTC should be very high. Wrong. The burden of proof, also known as addressing all of the evidence, is the same for all 9/11-theory-du-jour including the Official Conspiracy Theory of gravity pile-drivers and nanothermite.
You wrote: "The arguments may merit further investigation but fall short of scientific consensus or definitive conclusions."
Correction. The arguments do merit further investigation, because the circumstantial evidence must be addressed by any 9/11-theory-du-jour to be valid.
Of course I fall short of "scientific consensus", because of those aforementioned NDAs by those in science, politics, or military and nuclear credentials. But you under estimate Dr. Andre Gsponer's work and the scientific consensus that his speculative work leaks out.
Of course I fall short of "definitive conclusions," because I don't have the model numbers or actionable blue-prints of anything nuclear. I have no VPN access to nuclear research repositories. What I obtained was in the public domain through the library of my public institution of higher education, and available to anybody.
// Part 7/7
Part 8/8
Of course I fall short. I am a short, bald, old, white, male, lone, nut (Blues Brother on a mission from God) on a hobby-horse topic connecting obvious nuclear data points that he expected Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth to have done long ago, but finding instead the "black-hole treatment" for legitimate discussion of nuclear topics.
You wrote: "I would recommend submitting this thesis to scholarly peer review before asserting it as confirmed fact."
That is mighty fine advice that someone else very recently gave me, where upon I acted on it immediately and submitted the URL to my FGNW Prima Facie Case to a 9/11 Research Site for some scholarly peer review.
https://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2018/02/911-fgnw-prima-facie-case.html
https://ic911.org/debated-topics-forum
Who knows? Maybe if the review legitimately happens and the circumstantial evidence properly acknowledged [and other as-of-to-date explanations found lacking if not evasive], a figurative nuclear trigger will spark within the 9/11 Truth Movement and result in larger public knowledge of the 9/11 nuclear deceit and in figurative nuclear fall-out and massive (career) casualties.
// Part 8/8
Post a Comment