This article makes the prima facie case that Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) were deployed in the annihilation of the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11. "A prima facie case is a cause of action or defense that is sufficiently established by a party's evidence to justify a verdict in his or her favor, provided such evidence is not rebutted by the other party."
Note: A 2016 version "Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW " has been circulated on various websites and Facebook groups catering toward 9/11 discussions. Neither those championing the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) nor those in various camps of 9/11 truth (e.g., nano-thermite, DEW) have disproved or rebutted FGNW. Many exhibit tactics & traits of a disinformationalist. Common features across many forums were mockery, game playing, and avoidance of objectively discussing any of the specifics presented in the establishment of the FGNW presumption, followed by eventual banishment from the forum.
Expand All Subsections / Hide All Subsections
1. Nuclear Publications
Many decades ago, various world governments led by the USA took the position to restrict the free-flow of operational details about things nuclear in what is made publicly available, because publishing such could "enable those with bad intentions." Although most nuclear research does not get a public viewing, some of it does, particularly if it is only offering an overview, speculation, and omissions of operational details that would help "arm the enemy terrorist with weapons of mass destruction."
The public work of Dr. Andre Gsponer met those nuclear publication requirements. Noteworthy is also (A) nothing has been published over many decades to contradict, discredit, or debunk Dr. Gsponer's "speculation" into where nuclear research was headed; (B) Dr. Gsponer continually improved his work over many editions [even prior to 2001], indicating assistance from those in the nuclear field.
Those who have professions involving nuclear science (or weapons) in the US eventually sign non-disclosure agreements with stiff penalties [involving charges of treason], or they are left out of all of the interesting research. Besides treason charges, many other penalties involving employment or health & well-being of the individual or family members can be leveraged to keep silent the well educated in science.
Directed Energy (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.
"THE E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons Will change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought", Doug Beason, Ph.D., 2005.
2. What is special about FGNW?
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. FGNW are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can product direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response.
FGNW 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 first significant difference between deuterium-tritium (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.
...
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.
"Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects" by Dr. Andre Gsponer
Depending on design goals, FGNW can have a variety of effects, particularly for high-energy neutrons and gamma-rays that are very penetrating. FGNW can:
- Generate a fireball (in air or a material).
- Launch a shockwave (in air or in a material).
- Heat the surface of a material.
- Accelerate or compress a material.
- Transfer momentum to a material.
- Heat the volume of a material.
- Energize a working material.
- Forge and project missiles.
- Form and send high-velocity jets.
- Ablate a material and produce a shock wave in it.
Collateral effects of the above list of "mechanical" and "thermodynamical" effects are non-thermo-mechanical effects, such as an electromagetic pulse (EMP) and prompt or delayed radiations.
Words like "pulverization" and "dustification" were used to describe the WTC towers' destruction. A more accurate word is "ablate". When the surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material will vaporize (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction a large pressure will be exerted, launching a shock-wave into the material.
3. Summary: FGNW Scenario for 9/11
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 the WTC. Can be tweaked.] 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. 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 or lower FGNW. [Fracticide and fizzle did happen and is why the WTC had under-rubble hot-spots burning for months.]
When a single FGNW ignites, it sends its highly energetic neutrons upwards in an inverted cone of energy. The towers' unique design had structural steel in the perimeter which became a type of Faraday cage to help contain the particle flux of the FGNW from damaging outside structures. Metal absorbs the energy of the radiation. Iron in particular can absorb neutrons and result in four stable isotypes (and three unstable), but the stable ones are more common.
When these neutrons of the beam hit the leading layer of metal of, say, the steel pans that held the poured concrete, the surface vaporized so quickly that it caused a violent shockwave in 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, steel-doobies, 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.
When David Chandler analyzed just the top 20 stories [Downward Acceleration of WTC1-the North Tower by David Chandler], he calculated that the roof fell at a constant 65% gravitational acceleraton. This means that the 20 story structure SUDDENLY and SYMMETRICALLY went to 35% of its minimum strength needed to support itself. The pulverization is visible in the earliest moments of annihilation.
"What we actually see here, is the falling section of the building turning to dust before our eyes."~David Chandler at 2:30 in video.
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. 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.
Electro-magnetic pulses (EMP) escaping through window slits and falling debris may have caused the vehicle damage along West Broadway and the car lot.
First responders and those on the scene said it was "boom-boom-boom": a cadence that could be counted onthe order of one every 1/2 second or more. (NIST proves for us that it wasn't chemical based explosives, because it would have been much louder and maybe more like a machine gun as detonations happened each level.) The cadence suggests a device or pulse every 10-20 levels.
Alternative to multiple FGNW: Pulsed FGNW.
The techniques available at the turn of the century for the TRIGA reactor to pulse neutrons could be applied to a FGNW. Put a single pulsing FGNW in the elevator shaft high in the towers just below the levels where the aircrafts are to precision impact. At the appropriate moment, ignite and let fall. A destructive pulse every 1/2 second aimed upwards would unzip the towers from the insides.
Mr. Heinz Pommer, an independent 9/11 researcher from Germany, mentions that particle interaction with cameras of Chopper 4 and Chopper 2 started one hour prior to the collapse.
Dr. Judy Wood's Chapter 3 "The Jumpers" (from "Where did the Towers Go?") makes note of the peculiar behavior of the WTC-1 victims trapped above the impact zone. She notes that people hanging out the windows appeared to be disrobing while hanging for their lives. Shortly after despite no fire or smoke emerging from some windows where people congregated, the victims began jumping. Firefighter John Malley estimated: "People started to jump with sucha [sic]-- it was maybe one jumper every five second [sic] at one point, every ten seconds. Then they just started jumping like one every second, two seconds. There were people just coming down like it was raining people." Firefigher Arthur Myers said: "... then you see live people jumping. This is the first time I've ever seen people jump like this in my whole career [20 years]."
Dr. Wood suggests it was as if an energy field within the walls of the building (similar to the microwaves of the Active Denial systems) were ramping up and necessitating an energetic leap out the window rather than stay and be cooked by radiation.
Placement of (non-pulsed) FGNW in WTC-6 spared the walls but couldn't help decimate all floors & roof AND content that supposedly fell onto it from WTC towers.
4. Evidence of High Heat
From 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.
From Kevin R. Ryan's "Another Nineteen":
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.
Remnants of nuclear devices -- maybe even nuclear fizzling -- explains the ineffectual "extreme firefighting efforts" on the "violent and long-lasting" "fires in the debris pile" as well as the "unbelievable security."
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
From 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."
From 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
Here are raw videos of the WTC recovery and debris removal, and shows lots of smoldering hot-spots.
5. Horse-Shoes, Arches, "Steel Doobies", and "the Meteor"
David Ray Griffin describes a third principle that is fundamental to the scientific method: "None of the relevant evidence should be ignored."
FGNW's instant volume heating from highly energetic neutron penetration easily explains the images in this section. Most of the other theories for 9/11 do not, nor can they suggest (a) how the chemical-based [NT] explosives were positioned or (b) why such anomalies resulted.
The debris pile and surrounding area had examples of a "steel doobie" anomaly, which are the three hollow box columns of a wall assembly wrapped into a bundle (or doobie, or joint) and held together by their three spandrels. FGNW suggests sufficient volume heating of the sprandels (across three stories) that they became pliable. The shock wave in ablating materials had a lateral component in their destruction. Easily wraps the beams up by their own spandrels.
The following image shows a "steel doobies" in the lower left-hand portion and on top of another intact wall assembly; it is perpendicular to the beam the man is climbing.
One of these "steel doobies" was augered into the ground and leaning against a building on Liberty street, shown in the following image just left of center. 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 following shows a steel doobie and other anomalous results.
This video at 36:00 shows some steel doobies augered into the ground and next to a neighboring building.
The following are pictures of a core column that was bent into a horse shoe.
The following are pictures of bent beams.
Here is a video of a wall assembly bent into smooth arches being loaded onto a flatbed.
The WTC Meteorite
The OCT has no explanation for the anomalies shown above. Offices fires don't get hot enough to weaken steel, and certainly wouldn't be sudden and symmetric.
Those who champion NT (or chemical explosives) don't explain positioning of NT that can achieve the horseshoes and arches anomalies of the large steel beams of the core. In the real world to create such arches, the steel beam has to be heated end-to-end in a blast furnace for a non-trivial period of time (e.g., longer than the office fires burned). Although NT burns hot, how much would be required to achieve volume heating in an instance of time? And why would that even have been an operational goal?
6. EMP and Vehicle Damage
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.
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 combustion in touching items: paint, rubber seals, plastic door handles. Once a portion of the car is on fire, it becomes easy for other combustible things on the car to burn.
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.
The pattern of vehicle fires was not chaotic. The vehicles affected were line-of-sight. 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 delineation of where certain burn patterns start and end is noteworthy. 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).
[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.
WCBS reporter Vince Dimentri came out from WTC-7 [West Broadway and Barkley] but commented 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.
7. Continually Regenerated Fine Particles
Although three weeks after the event 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."
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.
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?
8. Radiation => Nukes
The mantra "No Radiation = No Nukes" has been oft cited as a reason why 9/11 did ~not~ involve nuclear devices. However, the left-hand side of this simplistic equation is canceled by "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow et al.
Tritium is a common feature in nearly all FGNW. Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen that ready binds with hydroxyl radicals to form tritiated water, (HTO or heavy water).
In order to prevent speculation from going to FGNW, the study was "scope limited" to attribute tritium to RL devices that might already be in the contents of the WTC complex (emphasis added).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Aside from the tritium song-and-dance, the fiction of the WTC not having any radiation seemed to come from another shoddy 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 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 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. The USGS samples had Thorium, Lanthanum, and Yttrium, which Lioy et al do not tabulate.
The following image depicts how a nuclear reaction with Uranium creates other elements (Barium and Strontium) and that then decay quickly into other elements.
Source 1 (modified): http://www.nucleardemolition.com/
Source 2 (half lives): http://www.internetchemie.info/chemiewiki/index.php?title=Barium-Isotope
The tables in the USGS analysis of their WTC dust samples are noteworthy, because not only were these expected by-product elements and their decay elements measured in the dust, but also they are presented in the tables practically in the sequence of their decay. More importantly is the omission of any explanation for these elements in the dust. The first image of a table snippet documents the Barium and its decay elements as having been present in the dust.
Source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/WTCleachtable.html
The second image of a table snippet documents strontium and its decay elements as having been present in the dust.
Source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/WTCleachtable.html
Mr. Jeff Prager reviewed this USGS data in Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB] {mcb: Link no longer works.}
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.
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.
9. Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras
{mcb: new information and a different nuclear analysis.}
A startling discovering from Mr. Heinz Pommer's work (www.911history.de) was real-time evidence of radiation in the immediate after-effects of the towers' destruction. This evidence is in the form of camera scintillation (flashes or sparkles of light) as a result of radioactive particles in the dust cloud. At about 0:52 in the following video of the South Tower Dust Cloud, the camera is over-run by the dust cloud. Suddenly the video camera, that worked perfectly before, starts registering small flashes in the dust cloud.
Mr. Pommer discusses this camera scintillation at about 57:46 in 9/11: a nuclear war crime [Re-Upload; A&E logo removed] 2017-01-09.
Here is another example of camera scintillation, 9/11 - World Trade Center Recovery and debris removal part 4 of 6. At around 6:00 as the camera pans up and down, whenever it aims down, more scintillation appears in the lower half of the image that depicts the pulverized debris pile. Other instances in the video (such as around 12:00), the camera will have relatively few glitches, but as it pans over areas of the destruction, the lower portion of the image with the debris pile (and not the upper portion with standing structures) begin to have more white flashes or camera anomalies. When the camera pans over other areas of equipment and workers, not such scintillation.
Yet another example from Working at Ground Zero 3. NIST FOIA Release 10. Notice how it affects the lower portion of the image where the debris is piled up and not the structure in the upper portion.
As a side note to validate camera's susceptibility to radiation, applications for mobile phones exist that turn them into radioactivity counters. One such company is www.rdklein.de. Cover the lens of the camera with normal black tape which blocks the light while letting radioactive emissions penetrate. The application initiates a form of long-term exposure, collects the radioactive occurrences, and provides statistics and analysis on them.
10. First Responder Ailments
From 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 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.
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.
11. Audio Evidence
Games have been played with the audio of many videos of the WTC annihilation, maybe on purpose. Some video survives that have the boom-boom-boom, and first responders also report hearing such controlled demolition cadence. However, they don't describe it sounding like a machine gun which would be the case of explosions at every floor timed to go off at accelerations greater than gravity. No, the first responders describe the demolition at a countable cadence, such as once every 1/2 second and underscore the notion of 6-12 devices (for the 110 stories.)
Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST, in debunking conventional chemical explosives, stated that if they were used (and certainly to achieve observed pulverization), the explosions would have been deafening. Hearing loss was not one of the ailments of first-responder survivors.
NIST concluded the following:
- [T]he minimum charge (lower bound) required to fail a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have produced a pressure wave that would have broken windows on the north and east faces of the building near Column 79. The visual evidence did not show such breakage....
- [T]he noise level at a distance of 1/2 mile would have been on the order of 130 dB to 140dB... People on the street would have heard 9 lb of RDX go off a mile away....
- Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the building without detection...1
Beyond Misinformation page 39
When conventional chemical explosives (shaped-charges) 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 -- can violent destroy other structure and content. Shockwave through air means "very loud." 9/11 booms were loud, but muted from expectations about chemical explosives.
The detonation of a FGNW does not have to be extremely loud at its ignition point, because neutron emission is a different process compared to chemical reactions, is heating the air, but isn't generating massive changes in air pressure. Destroying shock waves originating in the materials from penetrating highly energetic neutrons would have a vastly different audio signature than shock waves transmitted through air and able to achieve the same destruction.
12. Video Evidence
Plenty of videos exist of the annihilations of WTC-1 and WTC-2. They demonstrate best of all that FGNW were deployed. Only a few representative videos are presented here.
WTC-1 North Tower Collapse
At the start of the video about the WTC-2, pay attention to the language used by the newscaster in the early days after 9/11: "large portions simply vaporized into the dust that rained down on New Yorkers immediately after the collapse. It was that powerful." This was before OCT messaging came down and all media began voicing the same unified messages.
WTC-2 South Tower Collapse
Also in the WTC-2 video (at about 0:22), observe how the upper stories began to tilt and had angular momentum that should have toppled them out of the path of greatest resistance. Instead, their angular momentum was arrested as they were turned to dust.
Consider number 4 of the 10 Demolitions Gone Wrong video (at 2:25). It is from Cankiri, Turkey 2009 and demonstrates what a cohesive upper-story block with angular momentum can do.
Theoretically, the leaning upper stories of WTC-2 -- particularly when OCT describe it as a "pile-driver" -- could have acted more as a cohesive block and rolled over and fallen onto other buildings.
9/11: getting the physics right; Part 1: [nuclear] yield & Silverstein's glacier formations
9/11: getting the physics right; Part 2: the nuclear 9/11 weapon's design (pulsed neutron bomb)
13. Debris Pile Evidence
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
Quotes from Kevin R. Ryan's "Another Nineteen".
... 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.
... 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 wall assemblies and core columns are well represented in the debris pile. What stymied the original OCT explanation of "pancaking" is that the steel pans and supporting truss beams that held the concrete floors were not stacked up like "pancakes" but were under-represented in the pile (in cohesive forms) and the concrete was pulverized.
14. Security and Controlling the Evidence
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.
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.
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. ...
15. Why Pulverization?
Gravity alone didn't pulverize the structure through its path of greatest resistance. Energy was added.
Was pulverization: an accidental side-effect? A goal of the operation? Both?
Whether we are talking (a) actual external terrorists or (b) patsy terrorists framed by the government, the alleged aims would have been achieved with airplane impacts alone. Destruction of towers would have been a nice bonus for actual terrorists. With the goal of destroying the towers -- actually, the whole WTC complex -- and under the ruse of framing patsy terrorists, the destruction could have been staged with conventional demolition techniques to make it look physics compliant and believable. Specifically: demolition not at constant acceleration, not in elapsed times close to free-fall, much less pulverization, large chunks falling outside the path of greatest resistance, more collateral damage to the WTC bathtub and outside the WTC, and large portions of the towers remaining standing.
New York City has gone through many eras of re-generation, when neighborhoods and areas had their old structures demolished and new & grander built in the space. Among the city planning lessons learned -- particularly as the skyline rose -- was the eventual end-of-life demolition needs to be considered at the beginning. Supposedly by the 1960's, construction permits for skyscrapers required not just building plans but also demolition plans. According to the Russian agent/defector (who promotes the disinformation of deep underground nukes at the WTC), Russian agents learned that the WTC demolition plan suggested whatever were state-of-the-art (low radiation) nuclear devices when their end came.
Dr. Wood's work provides a motivation for pulverization being a design goal. The "bathtub" is a massive concrete structure in the basin of the WTC complex that kept the Hudson River from flooding the underground parking structures and those of neighboring buildings connected by the subway lines. Large chunks of building (e.g., the structure in Cankiri, Turkey 2009) falling great distance would have sufficient energy to damage neighboring buildings but especially this critical bathtub, thereby extending the damage area well beyond the WTC. However, if decimated in the earliest phases, pulverized chunks of building falling great distances would reduce damage at ground level and to the bathtub.
Before Larry Silverstein acquired the entire WTC complex in the summer of 2001, the WTC towers were white elephants for two main reasons: asbestos and corrosion between the aluminum cladding and the underlying steel wall assemblies. [The latter resulted in aluminum-iron flakes in the dust; Dr. Jones uses these flakes to support his nano-thermite theory.] Both flaws would have been extremely expensive to remedy, and the presense of asbestos ruled out getting permission for conventional controlled demolition. Very prudent of Mr. Silverstein to immediately insure the complex against terrorist attacks, owing to the failed 1993 WTC bombing that showed just how tough and resiliant the structures were.
16. Manipulation of Public Perceptions
Philip Zelikow was executive director of the 9-11 Commission. According to Wikipedia:
"Prof. Zelikow’s area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, 'public myths' or 'public presumptions' which he defines as 'beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known with certainty) and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.' In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called 'searing' or 'molding' events (that) take on 'transcendent' importance and therefore retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. . . . He has noted that 'a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make the connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all.'"
(“Thinking about Political History”, Miller Center Report, Winter 1999, pp. 5-7)
In 1998, Philip Zelikow co-authored a Foreign Affairs article, "Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger," which warned of a possible catastrophic attack on the World Trade Center and accurately predicted the governmental aftermath of 9/11. Before he was selected as Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, he authored the Bush administration's National Security Strategy of the United States of America for 2002. This document for the first time asserted a national policy of pre-emptive war (the "Bush Doctrine"), and paved the way for the war on Iraq. [abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218157]
The 9/11 Commission Report could be viewed as Dr. Zelikow's crowning achievement in manipulating public perceptions.
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.
"A Return to Reason" by Chris Mooney states:
For eight long years, the Bush administration has trashed and politicized the government science agencies. How to kick out the hacks and flat-Earthers and let the geeks reign.
This also means that by assaulting the science infrastructure, you can hobble government itself, and during the Bush administration, science abuse has been not only epidemic, but endemic. ...
Nearly 100 EPA scientists surveyed by the UCS pointed the finger directly at the White House. As one scientist put it, 'They truly interfere and want to stamp the White House Agenda over every document that is sent to them for review. They have hired their own scientists and play the >>my scientist is better than yours<< game. The EPA has to accept a lot of shit from them to get any documents out.'
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 formerly 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.
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.
17. 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.
President Bush announced shortly after 9/11/2001, "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th." Its dual purpose was to shutdown alternative thinking about the 9/11 events and to kick sand into the eyes of those who would otherwise recognize that the official U.S. Government version of 9/11 is the most outrageous conspiracy of them all.
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.
Thus it was that the US government was able to steer the public's perceptions -- and particularly that of the 9/11 Truth Movement -- away from nuclear involvement in 9/11 with a small group of PhDs: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" composed of Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Judy Wood, and Dr. James Fetzer. [What a circus their nasty break-up was!]
All disinformation has two common traits: (1) a solid foundation of truth; (2) a self-destruct or self-discredit element for later, aimed at #1 to take valid truths out of further consideration.
To be fair, Dr. Fetzer (via Mr. Donald Fox) embraces today a version of nuclear involvement on 9/11. However, Dr. Fetzer is also prone to championing most conspiracy theories & dubious evidence that cross his plate, because this is his market branding that he capitalizes on, augments his retirement with, and gives him fame and notariety. To put it gently, the Dr. Fetzer persona has many discrediting elements across his stable of conspiracy theories from JFK through the moon landings to 9/11 to Sandy Hook and beyond. [Case in point: Dr. Fetzer's no plane theory (NPT) at the WTC relies on mal-framed physics of the towers & aircraft, video manipulation, poor understanding of camera frame rates, misinterpretting two sets of radar data, and unproven holograms at the scale required.]
Of the three scholars for 9/11 truth, Dr. Judy Wood has suffered the most consequences from employment to reputation. One of Dr. Wood's students, Michael Zubuhr, was killed in a mysterious manner in 2006. It is easy to speculate that she was "sent a message" that is reflected in her work in research avenues started but abruptly stopped that would have converged on nuclear sources, such as the radiation mitigation techniques involving soil. She doesn't give any ink to FGNW on her website or book [Where Did the Towers Go: The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology], even though Dr. Andre Gsponer has 15 years of public, published articles into FGNW before Dr. Wood's book publication in 2010, such as "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects" [2006].
More so than any individual or group inside or outside the 9/11 Truth Movement, Dr. Steven Jones, BYU professor of nuclear physics, has done the most to steer public thought away from 9/11 nuclear involvement. Damning for 9/11 Truth and AE9/11Truth: the omission of Dr. Andre Gsponer's FGNW work from Dr. Steven Jones' peer-reviewed "letter" ["Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers" (2007)] that supposedly explains why 9/11 was not nuclear. Too bad that his letter relied on shoddy and incomplete reports that he accepted unquestioned and unchallenged; too bad he frames the nuclear devices incorrectly in terms of yield and side-effects; too bad he later filled the energy void with nano-thermite that has never been proven capable of the pulverization of content or maintaining the duration of under-rubble hot-spots (without obscenely huge quantities that would have presented an insurmountable logistics challenge.) Unlike Dr. Wood, Dr. Jones was placed on paid leave and then later received full retirement benefits and all honors and access afforded institution retirees.
Dr. Wood with her DEW theories are closer to the truth than Dr. Jones with NT. But in a disinformation bent, Dr. Wood don't connect dots and purposely avoided valid detailed nuclear considerations. One thing her book does well is collect all of the imagery of 9/11 be a nuclear event.
Among the 9/11 researchers to write about a nuclear involvement:
- William Tahil: “Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the WTC” (2006). Tahil believes that two nuclear reactors-- not nuclear bombs-- were employed to demolish the two towers.
- A Finnish military expert. He believed a single nuclear bomb was used on each tower, via a focused, nuclear shape charge in the basement. It was a single, fission-free, 4th generation thermonuclear device.
- The Anonymous Physicist: The Nuclear Destruction of the World Trade Center and The China Syndrome Aftermath (2009). He believed that numerous mini- or micro-nukes were employed in the towers, and in all the other WTC buildings. He further highlighted that great redundancy was employed, and that numerous nukes either were sabotaged, fizzled on their own, or were impacted (without being triggered themselves), by other exploding nukes. And so many nukes did not go off as planned, and their unused fissile material later gave rise to the China Syndrome. Owing to ill-health as a result of murcury poisoning, he has not been active in defending and enhancing his theories.
- Dimitri Khalezov: He is a former Russian agent who proposed for each tower a single, deep underground nuclear device per tower creating what he calls. "Ground Zero – Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Center."
- Heinz Pommer: He enhanced the hypothesis of William Tahil by suggesting a neutron colliater, one per tower and deep underground. His Melting Pot topic also uses information from Mr. Khalezov.
Although there is evidence of underground explosions, the first ones were coordinated with the airplane impacts high in the towers. This work does not support the premise of deep underground nuclear devices (one per tower) and a nuclear chimney going up the elevator shafts, because destruction would have been observed starting either (a) low in the towers or (b) at all levels of the tower at once.
A "single shot" from the basement up the nuclear chimney has difficulties explaining why the top block of both towers "dissolved" first. The energetic neutrons from the basement would affect all levels at once and wouldn't be seen doing the top by itself first. If it was a single shot, we'd expect (a) a fountain effect possibly at the top, but more importantly (b) why would there be later phases [after the top has dissolved] where the fountain effects happen?
Further, Mr. Khalezov suggests that the glassy rock formation below WTC-4 is attributed to nuclear devices on 9/11 and hints it may have resulted from the devices used on the towers. This work disagrees.
The WTC-4 structure had a tiny overlap with the area covered by the slurry wall where it could have had deep basements. The other side took advantage of old subway lines. Two-thirds of WTC-4 were flattened at a neat line with its North Annex and where the hot-spots are in WTC-4.
"But engineers and recovery officials say that large parts of the underground perimeter are undamaged, even though the buildings above them are partly collapsed. One area is below 4 World Trade Center, where more than two decades ago, Swiss Bank built a huge vault and storage area. The vault was reached from the Swiss Bank offices by a private elevator. To reach the vaults, armored trucks would drive through what had once been the tunnels for the Hudson and Manhattan railroad, the predecessor of the PATH system. These tunnels had run as far east as Church Street, but were not needed when the trade center was built and the PATH terminal was set closer to the river."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/01/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-vault-below-ground-zero-silver-and-gold.html
"Large amounts of gold are stored in vaults in the massive basement below the WTC, and some of this is being transported through the basement this morning. Several weeks later, recovery workers will discover hundreds of ingots in a service tunnel below WTC 5, along with a ten-wheel lorry and some cars (which were, presumably, transporting the gold) (see (Mid-October-mid November 2001)). The lorry and cars had been crushed by falling steel, but no bodies will be reported found with them, so presumably they were abandoned before the first WTC collapse, at 9:59 a.m."
https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-gold-in-basement-of-World-Trade-Center-after-9-11-attacks-if-there-was-any
It has been proven from many angles that money was a huge motivator for 9/11. Mr. E. P. Heidner, a former employee of the DIA branch of the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) wrote "Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001" (2008) which connects a much longer money trail. With regards to finding the true perpetrators, it is important to Follow the Money, which the Corbett Report did and tied in Israeli involvement from other angles (not just bank-rolling President Trump.)
Owing to the vaults and that 9/11 had extensive monetary motivation, this work concludes that the glassy rock formation should be attributed to God millions of years ago, and isn't related to WTC-4's hot-spots or the towers' destruction.
18. Trump's 9/11
The following two videos (2017-09-10) do a great job of collecting Donald J. Trump's statements regarding 9/11. They also tie him to Israel and covering for Mossad after 9/11. It is rather curious how Trump's book predicts the 9/11 event. Certainly as the event unfolded, Trump was eager to step forward and for the most part toe the official 9/11 story-line. Although the 9/11 dancing Arabs were proven to be Israeli [and later Mossad agents tasked with documenting the 9/11 event that they knew would happen], Trump purposely called them "dancing Muslims" to further the disinformation about 9/11.
-
Donald Trump, 9/11, CASE CLOSED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl294zrYLzk. Of particular interest are 6:46 and 27:44 in the video. - Donald Trump, 9/11, CASE CLOSED 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d47oH8PS_QY
In is beyond the scope of this work to pursue all of the content of the two videos, except to point out that Trump, with his foreknowledge of 9/11 and championing the official story, is not completely innocent about 9/11. "You knew I was a snake before you took me in." [Trump reading the poem "The Snake" at his campaign rallies.]
Alarming are President Trump's statements before his State of the Union Address (2018-01-30):
I would love to be able to bring back our country into a great form of unity... Without a major event where people pull together, that’s hard to do. But I would like to do it without that major event because usually that major event is not a good thing."
19. Why? What is at stake?
If wide-spread public revelation were to come to fruition that the US Government (possibly 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 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.
13 comments:
Interesting perspective and let's make sure we blame Israel.
I know you have Dr, Judy Wood's book and I also know you didn't read it through, because in our last discussion you were oblivious of some of the things found in her book.
Also who can tolerate the heat of tons of supposed molten metal flowing in a stream down a steel channel in excess of 2,000 degrees, all the while not burning the paper in the building or the observers of this phenomenon. I'm not saying they didn't see some phenomenon, I'm saying they didn't know what it was and thought it was molten.
Why didn't the paper burn?
There were 14 people in Stairwell B that survived, that didn't experience any heat, nor felt any concussion, nor heard any sound of explosives except a "roar" and nothing fell on them. They walked out.
What caused the Scott Paks to explode in the Fire-trucks, before the Towers were destroyed?
What caused the cars and trucks to burst into flames but only part of some of the vehicles were burnt and others totally burnt outside of the eleven seconds it took to turn those Towers into dust?
What caused the round circles all over the complex including the sidewalk outside of the buildings foot print?
What caused the main floor upward to disappear while still leaving the light on in the level where the delivery vehicles used to deliver mail and parcels?
Building 6 pictures show the place never had any fire damage but the total interior disappeared right down to the main floor. What was left of the offices and their contents is still visible. The bare steel is totally rusted. Explosives of any kind can't accomplish that.
I think you did the same thing as Craig McKee, you thumb through the pages but didn't really read the book.
Explain why there is a circle in the sidewalk.
Part 1/3
Dear Mr. Gloux,
Got part way through the response below when I received the distinct impression that you are cranking another spin on a Woodsian carousel. You asked similar questions on FaceBook that I answered and have since re-purposed in Part 7: Miscellaneous Exchanges.
You wrote: "I know you have Dr, Judy Wood's book and I also know you didn't read it through, because in our last discussion you were oblivious of some of the things found in her book. ... I think you did the same thing as Craig McKee, you thumb through the pages but didn't really read the book."
Nice try at shifting the discussion to Dr. Wood's book, but I'll remind you that the topic is FGNW.
You complain that I supposedly didn't read her book just because I didn't recall certain specific things mentioned only once (e.g., Scott Paks)? Well, I'll see your unfounded complaint and raise you two founded complaints against you: (1) you didn't understand Dr. Wood's book, and (2) you didn't read thoroughly the above premise.
Regarding #1 and your poor reading comprehension: Dr. Wood drops a lot of dangling innuendo, but she does not connect dots or draw conclusions. She never claimed to be an end-station, and her book proves that. She doesn't describe the devices -- whether space-based or earth bound --, nor does she power it with anything real-world. Her valued contribution to 9/11 lore is in collecting together a good portion of the evidence that 9/11 at the WTC was nuclear and raises important questions. She accepted unquestioned and unchallenged several government reports that then skew her analysis. Her book carries over several errors from her website that should have been corrected. In at least one case (police car 2345 or whatever number it was), such an error has her propose gross misinformation by stating the device torched cars at the bridge; the police car was torched elsewhere and towed to the bridge. She doesn't address valid criticism of her web pages that she re-purposed in her book. She exposes various valid research branches (such as soil radiation mitigation techniques), and then stops short. She did very shoddy research into nuclear considerations, as evidence by (a) the cold fusion circus and (b) completely omitting fourth generation nuclear devices. How could she not have found Dr. Andre Gsponer's efforts if she was sincere in her nuclear research?
I'll go back to Dr. Wood's work not being an end-station. She wrote: "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." By that she mean, "Look at her collected evidence, but don't be distracted from what she is telling you."
Regarding #2, FGNW completes Dr. Wood's work. It stands on her shoulders and takes it to the next level. It provides answers to all of your nigly questions. Did you even note what content came from Dr. Wood's work?
// Part 1/3
Part 2/3
At this point, it is best to go through each paragraph of your comment one by one:
"Also who can tolerate the heat of tons of supposed molten metal flowing in a stream down a steel channel in excess of 2,000 degrees, all the while not burning the paper in the building or the observers of this phenomenon. I'm not saying they didn't see some phenomenon, I'm saying they didn't know what it was and thought it was molten. Why didn't the paper burn?"
Had you read my premise and understood it, it would be clear why paper didn't (seem to) burn. The tactical FGNW deployed already were designed sub-kiloton, but that is its total nuclear output. It is further subdivided into upwards of 80% of the energy being highly energetic neutrons. The remaining 20% of the aleady sub-kiloton device were heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. Things local to the ignition point could have been torched.
What effect would highly energetic neutrons have on paper? Very little. Not a significant enough atomic structure for paper to be effected. What happens to your cardboard Chinese take-out box when you put it into the microwave?
Concrete on the other hand? Its residual water would have expanded so rapidly into steam, the rest of the concrete was blown apart. Metal in the path of the energy beam would have faired different. Thick metal receiving the highly energetic neutrons could have exhibited instantly volume heating end-to-end, resulting in arches, horseshoes, and steel-doobies. Thin metal, like the pans and trusses that held the concrete, would have ablated.
Same for thin metal in filing cabinets, which among other office furnishings were grossly under-represented in the debris file: the thin metal in the FGNW beam was ablated. The papers enclosed by the cabinets? Some burned, but a good portion wasn't but was free to get blown around.
You wrote:
"There were 14 people in Stairwell B that survived, that didn't experience any heat, nor felt any concussion, nor heard any sound of explosives except a "roar" and nothing fell on them. They walked out."
The survivors did experience heat, and rather suddenly and acutely. What they didn't experience were flames or lots of smoke from a fire. They did her explosions but not explosives.
FGNW is in the category of DEW and explains this (a) as the survivors not being in a section that was directly targeted by the FGNW output and/or (b) a fizzling or failed FGNW.
// Part 2/3
Part 3/3
You wrote:
"What caused the Scott Paks to explode in the Fire-trucks, before the Towers were destroyed?"
Answered already. It should be pointed out from page 110, when they say they were "going off" and "exploding", it is unclear whether they mean "value exploded" or "tank exploded".
You wrote:
What caused the cars and trucks to burst into flames but only part of some of the vehicles were burnt and others totally burnt outside of the eleven seconds it took to turn those Towers into dust?
Ho-hum, Mr. Gloux. Did you not read "6. EMP and Vehicle Damage" above in the article under which you comment? For shame, for shame!
You wrote:
"What caused the round circles all over the complex including the sidewalk outside of the buildings foot print?"
I do not know what you are referring to. What reference do you have?
Be that as it may, how does Dr. Wood explain it? Probably applies to FGNW, too, because FGNW are the devices that Dr. Wood alludes to but doesn't ever mention.
Because I don't know exactly what you are referring to, I'm making another wild-ass speculation. The outside steel wall assemblies acted up to a point as a Faraday cage to keep contained neutron emission and EMP among other badness. But there were window slits. There were gaps in the debris falling. Through the jostling of the destruction, a misaligned FGNW could have had parts of its output escape. Just as the neutron output cones decimated concrete in the struction, they could have put holes in sidewalks.
You wrote:
"What caused the main floor upward to disappear while still leaving the light on in the level where the delivery vehicles used to deliver mail and parcels?"
Again, I don't know what you are referring to. What reference do you have?
You wrote:
"Building 6 pictures show the place never had any fire damage but the total interior disappeared right down to the main floor. What was left of the offices and their contents is still visible. The bare steel is totally rusted. Explosives of any kind can't accomplish that."
At this point, I suspect you are bot, Mr. Glous, or an idiot Woodsian supporter copying & pasting nonsense, but in any event is now definitely proven to not have read the article above. FGNW explain it. Look at Section 3, "Summary: FGNW Scenario for 9/11." Nowhere in the premise above does it talk about FGNW as being (chemical-based) explosives.
You wrote:
"Explain why there is a circle in the sidewalk."
No, Mr. Gloux. ~You~ explain why there is a cirlce in the sidewalk after first giving me some context and reference locations.
And just about anything you could did up from Dr. Wood's work to explain it, I'll probably turn around and say "FGNW can do that too, only better."
// mcb
// Part 3/3
Nearly 10,000 first responders and local residents have now been diagnosed with cancers linked to the nuking of the WTC on 9/11.
Great pictures of the nuclear smoldering.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/textfiles/48028443651/in/album-72157708997281912/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/textfiles/48028443651/in/album-72157708997281912/
The smoke is from Welders using plasma torches to cut steel.
The cancers are from exposure to known carcinogens in the dust and in the rubble
concrete dust causes silicosis the dust from wallboard causes the cancers that are showing up
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. 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.
Nope because WTC 6 was the customs house for the port authority and you MCB have zero clues about what you are typing or what TRITIUM ISOTOPES make a Fission device flat point the isotopes were present no fission no device at WTC 6 or under WTC 7 the basements of both buildings were intact. The mear fact that parts of WTC 1 were found inside WTC 6 indicates the auxiliary generators on the roof were hit and the fuel tanks ruptured causing the fire that burned WTC 6 But you will continue your speculative fiction that has been thoroughly debunked through actual physical evidence which you lack.
MCB what was the count of munitions and weapons ceased and held in evidence lockers? What type of explosives and RPGs was being held at the site? Was there also confiscated cargo there that would render your assumptions invalid? The answer is the source of Tritium was the seawater pumped into WTC 1 and 2 to put out hotspots. The NYFD described the basement parking garage and physical plant of WTC north as well as the Communication server fires in B1 2 and 3 of north and south towers They were not part of any Fission device detonation. They were secondary fires associated by the smell of Jet fuel burning and wiring from the utility cores burning as well. A speculative fictional portrayal of jumpers being hot from a DEW or anything other than fire is fiction Woods is a joke when it comes to Metallurgy and tour statement on Tritium levels is exaggerated as you do not understand that you are quoting rainwater runoff. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf that is the source you may want to quote from also try going on a reputable site like Quora you may actually be able to interact with Nuclear physicist and people that really do work with Fission Devices and real DEW. You nor Woods are competent enough to even make speculation about DEW or any FGNW devices because you both simply lack any competence in the related sciences this is shown by your own speculative fiction and has already been called out and exposed quite accurately. BTW: the vehicles were moved and have no EMP or EMF damage so your false portrayal of evidence invalidates your speculative fiction.
you entire blog should be taken down as it just shows how incompetent you are.
Dear Mr. Anonymous from July 21, 2019, I apologize for tardiness in noticing your comment and approving it.
You have a tendancy to accept the least reputation-damaging of the set of plausible explanations and are beholden to sophomoric "exclusive-OR" arguments that leaves no room for "all of the above".
Example 1, you wrote: "The smoke is from Welders using plasma torches to cut steel." I'm an objective and fair fellow, and will readily agree that on some days in some photos, the smoke was worsened by welder's torches. But given that they weren't welding under certain debris piles in various tower footprints that smoldered for weeks, your explanation falls short.
You wrote: "The cancers are from exposure to known carcinogens in the dust and in the rubble concrete dust causes silicosis the dust from wallboard causes the cancers that are showing up..."
Again being an objective and fair fellow, I will readily agree that the carcinogens you describe may have constituted the majority factor in first-responder illnesses. But such does not rule out radiation from low-radiation fourth generation nukes.
The discussion was about tritium that was found in quantities 55 times greater than it should in the run-off from WTC-6. Tritium is a common feature of nearly all fourth generation nuclear devices and is used in a fusion reaction. These however required a fission trigger, which is what the heavy metals and their decay elements in correlated quanties from the USGS proves.
You wrote: "Nope because WTC 6 was the customs house for the port authority..."
You are correct that WTC-6 was the customs house. It had vaults in the basements for confiscated weapons, money, and drugs. A FEMA photographer testifies that vaults were empty when they got to them, meaning prior to 9/11 and with foreknowledge. Funny thing is, the song and dance report about tritium suggested that aircraft exit signs and the gun sights on weapons cache attributed to the tritium measurement. Can't do that if the WTC-6 vaults were empty.
// Part 1/4
Part 2/4
You wrote: "you MCB have zero clues about what you are typing or what TRITIUM ISOTOPES make a Fission device flat point the isotopes were present no fission no device at WTC 6 or under WTC 7 the basements of both buildings were intact."
Au contraire. I've already explained it was fission-triggered-fusion with evidence of fission (Uranium and decay elements, Prager's work) and fusion (tritium) leaking out of all reports. AND the NIST night filming of the pile actively shows radiation to the discerning eye.
Your reference to intact basements of WTC-6 and WTC-7 does not rule out FGNW which fall into the category of DEW. They worked as designed, directing their energy where aimed, and decimated what they were aimed at (ceiling / floors above mounting point).
You would know this if you had read the article (blog posting) under which you made your comment. For shame.
You wrote: "The mear fact that parts of WTC 1 were found inside WTC 6 indicates the auxiliary generators on the roof were hit and the fuel tanks ruptured causing the fire that burned WTC 6..."
You have a vivid imagination that is unsupported by anything. Where does the 9/11 Commission Report or NIST talk about WTC-6?
// Part 2/4
Part 3/4
You wrote: "But you will continue your speculative fiction that has been thoroughly debunked through actual physical evidence which you lack."
I lack for nothing in physical evidence of FGNW. The energy sink represented by the pulverization of content is the most glaring. I also have the significant percentages of tiny iron spheres found in the dust, as well as Uranium and its decay elements. I have tritium. I have NIST videos. I have horseshoes, arches/ sags, and steel doobies. [If you're a 9/11 Truther and in the NT camp, what demolition configuration of NT would generate them?]
You wrote: "MCB what was the count of munitions and weapons ceased and held in evidence lockers? What type of explosives and RPGs was being held at the site?"
Don't be giving me your busy work. If you know the answer, state it and cite your sources. As further proof of my fair nature, I will let you know from my research that no report every provided before and after inventories; I look forward to your research that finds what I lack. Meanwhile, let us not forget that FEMA photographer has stated that the vaults were empty when they got there.
You wrote: "Was there also confiscated cargo there that would render your assumptions invalid?"
No. But you can prove me wrong.
You wrote: "The answer is the source of Tritium was the seawater pumped into WTC 1 and 2 to put out hotspots."
You make me laugh out loud. Why didn't the report on the WTC-6 tritium run-off measurments mention these seawater pumps? Instead, why did they go with the ludicrous aircraft exit signs and weapons sights?
You wrote: "The NYFD described the basement parking garage and physical plant of WTC north as well as the Communication server fires in B1 2 and 3 of north and south towers They were not part of any Fission device detonation."
Such hypnotic suggestion you utter. What part of the description of FGNW in the category of DEW would not be applicable to the description of the destruction.
You wrote: "They were secondary fires associated by the smell of Jet fuel burning and wiring from the utility cores burning as well."
The jet fuel burned up in the fire ball and within the first 10 minutes, according to NIST. The detonation point of FGNW would cause secondary fires locally, although most of the energy was released upwards and into the structure.
// Part 3/4
Part 4/4
You wrote: "A speculative fictional portrayal of jumpers being hot from a DEW or anything other than fire is fiction Woods is a joke when it comes to Metallurgy."
Good thing I'm not in Wood's camp.
You wrote: "... and tour statement on Tritium levels is exaggerated as you do not understand that you are quoting rainwater runoff."
Since when does rainwater have concentrations of tritium above the background levels? Who doesn't understand background levels.
You wrote: "https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf that is the source you may want to quote from..."
I already did, and completely gutted that report in the predecessor to the above blog article.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
You wrote: "Also try going on a reputable site like Quora you may actually be able to interact with Nuclear physicist and people that really do work with Fission Devices and real DEW."
Why don't you take your own advice?
I did my research. And I know that "Nuclear physicist and people that really do work with Fission Devices and real DEW" aren't allowed to talk about it, and have stiff treason penalties for violations thereof.
But you didn't read my work(s), so aren't in a position to invalidate my sources, which are reputable.
You wrote: "You nor Woods are competent enough to even make speculation about DEW or any FGNW devices because you both simply lack any competence in the related sciences this is shown by your own speculative fiction and has already been called out and exposed quite accurately."
Such wonderful hypnotic suggestion more fitting of your own personal weaknesses that you are trying to project and pawn off onto me: classic disinformation technique.
You wrote: "BTW: the vehicles were moved and have no EMP or EMF damage so your false portrayal of evidence invalidates your speculative fiction."
What vehicles are you referring to? Are you talking about those near WTC-7 before it came down? Those in the car park catti-corner from the towers?
You wrote: "you entire blog should be taken down as it just shows how incompetent you are."
Thank you for that glowing recommendation and vote of confidence in my work.
But given the glaring deficiencies in your reading abilities, your research, and your reasoning already exposed in my rebuttal, I will not be following your advice.
// Part 3/4
John jorgensen sez : Yes , of course Maxwell. 9 million degrees leaves an indelible footprint . Cheney's pre planning of the aircraft impacts is truly anti American . The energy required to turn all the construction mT
Post a Comment