Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

The following are pictures of a core column that was bent into a horse shoe.

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.

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.

- “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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.”

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.

What Is Radiation 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.

Source

The magnitude of the disaster was unprecedented. The amount of people needing decontamination was enormous.

Officer Sue Keane:

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.

(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.

Anonymous Physicist writes:

“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.

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.

[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.)

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.

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.

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.

The Massive Evidence of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) During WTC Destruction on 9/11, & Combating the Fetzer-Prager-Jones Op-Plan of Denying It

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.

[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. …

… 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.”

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.

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.

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

“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.