GPD is our General Posting Department whereby we share posts from other sources along with general information with our readers. It is managed by our Editorial Board

View Latest Posts >>>

911 Dust by Jeff Prager – Final Version

911 Dust : An Original Essay by Jeff Prager with new, never before seen references, specifically references 10, 11 and especially 12. Without question, no one has seen #12.


By Jeff Prager


In order to cause concrete and steel to turn to micron-sized dust particles at Ground Zero as presented by Dr. Thomas Cahill, UC Davis Delta Group, the speed of sound must be reached in those items. Dr. Cahill is one of the world’s premier atmospheric physicists.

The speed of sound for concrete is 3200-3600mps (meters per second) and for steel the speed of sound is 6100mps.[1] Based on statements by Dr. Stephen Jones he estimates the velocity for his aluminum and iron oxide energetic compound in a silica substrate at 300mps.

According to Lawrence Livermore Laboratories the maximum velocity for an energetic compound made of iron oxide and aluminum in a silica substrate is 895mps. Again, according to Lawrence Livermore the velocity can be increased to above 2000mps if copper is added.

We know that the energetic compound allegedly found by Dr. Jones did not have a copper component.

This energetic compound allegedly found by Dr. Jones is incapable of turning either steel or concrete into the micron sized particles found by Dr. Cahill.

Dr. Cahill set up his sophisticated atmospheric monitoring system on a rooftop adjacent to Ground Zero on or about October of 2001 and took air samples for close to 30 days.

Dr. Cahill stated, “soil and glass were boiling” at Ground Zero well after September 11th, 2001 and up to and including October 30, 2001 and beyond.[2][8]

To vaporize or boil soil and glass rather extraordinary temperatures must be reached and maintained. A fire of this magnitude must have something feeding it oxygen.

Underground fires, whether fed by nanothermite or other incendiaries, require oxygen. There is only ONE source of igniting and maintaining a fire without a constant feed of oxygen.

T. Mark Hightower has worked as an engineer for nearly 30 years, initially in the chemical industry, then in the space program, and currently in the environmental field. He is a member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). [3]

In 2011 Dr. Neils Harrit was asked in an email by T. Mark Hightower (and several others included in that email) to estimate the amount of Dr. Jones’ energetic compound that would be required to take the Twin Towers down.

Dr. Harrit proposed that a low of 29,000 metric tons and a high of 144,000 metric tons would be required, per tower.[4]

Using the low figure of 29,000 metric tons and assuming a single one-ton crate could be moved from a tractor trailer backed up to a loading dock in the basement area of the towers to its final destination within the towers every 15 minutes it would have required approximately 300 days, working 24/7, just to load the building.

Working in 8 hour day shifts it would have taken almost 3 years.

It would also have required, based on standard freight weights, over 1,500 tractor trailer loads delivered to each tower.

This is a preposterous and patently absurd scenario.

The rate of Multiple Myeloma, a very rare blood plasma cancer, across the general population is 3.0-9.0 per 100,000 people.

The average age of those afflicted with this disease is 71 with 99% of those afflicted being over the age of 65.

Based on a CDC report (see: CDC K25 Workers)[5] we do not know what causes Multiple Myeloma.

We do know that even the most minimal exposure to radioactivity causes a measurable increase in the incidence of Multiple Myeloma.

As of March 1st, 2011, the rate of Multiple Myeloma and death among Ground Zero First Responders was 18 per 100,000 with all of those afflicted being between the ages of 37 and 60.

Reggie Hillaire, a Ground Zero First Responder, was able to beat thyroid cancer only to contract Multiple Myeloma in late 2011.

Some First Responders have succumbed to not one, not two, but in some cases three rare cancers.

The cancer incidence among Ground Zero First Responders, while un-addressed in the mainstream media, is epidemic.

The incidence of Thyroid cancer, brain cancer, pancreatic cancer and many other cancers is significantly elevated among Ground Zero First Responders.

More profound is that never have we seen rapid onset cancers in asbestos workers or other industrial workers exposed to the wide variety of carcinogens found in the Ground Zero dust (see USGS report #01-0429 – Chemistry Table 1)[6]

We have only seen rapid onset cancers in those people exposed to radiation at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl.[7]

It should be noted that cancers were just recently covered by the US government for Ground Zero First Responders.

In mid-2012 I discussed my findings re: USGS report #01-0429 and the analysis of that reports Chemistry Table 1 which I published [9] to the CDC/NIOSH web site and the internet at large, with Dr. Christopher Busby.

Dr. Christopher Busby is a world renowned nuclear physicist specializing in nuclear demolition.

Dr. Busby is a director of Green Audit Limited, a private company, and scientific advisor to the Low Level Radiation Campaign (LLRC).

He is also a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and was the National Speaker on Science and Technology for the Green Party of England and Wales. Dr. Busby is respected worldwide.

That analysis[9], while wholly inadequate in explaining fully what occurred on 911, was, nevertheless, accurate in many cases as Dr. Busby points out. Yet Dr. Busby goes further and explains that he’s found similar elements at similarly high levels in craters in Fallujah, Iraq and other war torn areas of the globe.

Dr. Busby then offers an opinion as to what may have caused these anomalous levels of the elements in the various dust samples from Fallujah, Iraq, Ground Zero, NYC and other areas across the globe.

Excerpts from that email follow:

From: “” To: “jeff prager”


WTC trace elements arguments

Dear Jeff

I have briefly examined the paper presenting an argument on the basis of “trace element” concentrations in dust and on girder residues from the WTC that the buildings that they were destroyed by nuclear fission.

The arguments are incorrect for a number of reasons. However, the evidence is interesting and I will briefly discuss the issues.

  1. Barium and Strontium are not trace elements, they are common constituents of any material that contains Calcium (concrete) as they are in the same chemical group and occur together. I agree however that they are present in very much higher amounts than they should.
  2.  Both elements are toxic but not highly toxic
  3. A correlation between Ba and Ca would be expected in any sample since they occur together and with Ca because they are in Group II of the periodic table and share chemistry.
  4. But it is highly unusual to find such high levels of Barium
  5.  I also found high levels Barium and Strontium in war debris in Gaza, Fallujah Iraq and the Lebanon.
  6. You do not get high levels of Bariums and Strontium from nuclear fission. They are both fission products in the form Ba-140 and Sr-89 and Sr-90 but the quantities in grams are ridiculously low. You must not confuse activity (becquerels) with mass (grams). The whole of the Sr-90 releases from Fukushima or from Chernobyl amount to a few grams. A fission yield of a 2 Megaton Test (which would have destroyed New York entirely) would make only which 1014Bq of Sr-90 and represents 18grams. For Barium it is less than a gram. So this argument about too much Sr and Ba does not work. The argument is even more absurd when applied to Thorium (see below).
  7. C-14 is not formed by fission but by neutron activation.
  8. Although Thorium-234 is formed by fission or Uranium, the quantities are even smaller than Ba and Sr because the half-life of Th-234 is less than a month. So the amount of Th-234 made from 1 gram of U-239 is less than 1 x 10-11g.

The ratio of U to Th on this basis would be 1011.

OK let’s move on to what could have happened based on my deconstruction of the data from the war zones:

  1. The concentration of Uranium is a key. This is slightly too high in the dust and much too high in the girder coatings. The activities for 2.7, 3.2, 4.7 and 7.57 are 33, 40, 58 and 93Bq/kg. The graph shows that there is too much U on the girder coatings. Normal levels of U are about 12, at most 40Bq/kg
  2. My belief is that there is a cold fusion weapon or device of some sort. This employs Uranium and Deuterium. The output is neutrons, lots of heat, lots of energy, gamma radiation. The devise is the size of an apple or grapefruit but heavy (20-40kg). No radioactivity after the explosion except from Tritium H-3 which together with He-4 is the product and some short lived gamma radiation from neutron activations products (e.g. Ca-45 from the Ca in the concrete, Fe-55 from the steel). These would be radioactive for a few days only. [emphasis mine]
  3. You would thus expect to find too much Uranium and also Tritium. You find both. There is a paper showing high levels of Tritium in the water at WTC. We also see U levels are too high.
  4. Maybe the Barium is part of this mixture, and the Strontium. I have certainly found high levels of both in the war samples.

Regards, Chris Busby

My conclusions and assertions are as follows:

  1. Nano thermite is an incendiary. Explosives are classified as having velocities exceeding 3000mps. The incendiary nanothermite allegedly found by Dr. Stephen Jones is incapable of turning any component of the steel structured Twin Towers or the cement to micron sized particles or what is commonly referred to in scientific circles as ‘very fine particles’, as we all saw on 911 and as Dr. Thomas Cahill outlines.
  2. Nanothermite is incapable of maintaining underground, oxygen starved fires at the temperatures required to ‘boil soil and glass’ as Dr. Thomas Cahill stated.
  3. The chain of possession of the dust samples allegedly found at Ground Zero and controlled by Dr. Jones is highly suspect, unverifiable and unscientific. The chain of possession of the dust samples procured by the USGS on September 16th and 17th, 2001 at Ground Zero, NYC, is known and secure. The chain of possession followed standard scientific procedure as outlined in USGS Report #01-0429.[6] Nano thermite and energetic compound residue was not found in the USGS dust samples.
  4. The perpetrators of 911 spent far more time developing strategies to deal with public opinion after the event than they did on the event itself. Public opinion after the fact needed to be carefully managed and that management process was a critical component of the event.
  5. Dr. Stephen Jones spent a significant portion of his career at the Department Of Energy which is the government agency that is responsible for all nuclear research in the United States. He worked specifically with Muon Catalyzed Fusion, Cold Fusion, Deuterium, Lithium Deuteride and other elements of the cold fusion process. Dr. Jones is a knowledgeable and respected physicist.
  6. Dr. Stephen Jones refuses to discuss the issues raised in this essay and maintains adamantly that 911 had no nuclear component whatsoever.
  7. Dr. Christopher Busby states that the dust samples from 911 indicate a cold fusion process using deuterium which is precisely the science and elements Dr. Jones studied at the Department of Energy.
  8. I just as adamantly disagree with Dr. Stephen Jones. That 911 was a nuclear event is certain and anyone attempting to maintain that it was not is part of the cover-up being foisted upon the American people.
  9. Exposure to nuclear radiation is the most odious and repulsive event a human being can experience. That secret is being kept by those in the media spotlight in the 911 movement, to include Dr. Stephen Jones.

Why Use Nuclear Weapons?

Nuclear weapons, 4th generation or even more advanced weapons, are ideal because they are extremely small with very predictable profiles. After decades of underground nuclear testing this science has been refined to an extraordinary level of competence.

With nano-technology the various control systems necessary to a nuclear device are infinitesimally smaller than those we’re familiar with from the 1960s.

Advanced nuclear grenades, nuclear weapons the size of apples or grapefruits as Dr. Busby states, are the most secretive technological advancement in real world weapons systems. Nuclear devices as described herein were the only possible way to destroy the buildings without having enormous chunks of building debris fly all over NYC and smash down on dozens of surrounding buildings.

Theses enormous structures had to be turned to dust. Destruction was kept to a minimum although overall it was still quite devastating. It could have been monumentally worse had standard explosives been used:

Explosive velocities:

DDF – 10,000mps HMX – 9,100mps RDX – 8,750mps TNT – 6,900MPS Jones’ Thermite 300-895mps

The velocity of thermite is far too low yet the velocity of standard explosives is extraordinarily high and the total destruction would have been inconceivable.

Nuclear demolition – turns most of the structure to a fine dust in less than 600 milliseconds, micron sized particles, which could be and were then, carried away by the prevailing winds. The remaining dust settled across New York City and beyond with small portions of the remaining structure piling up in cratered areas of Ground Zero.[10][11][12]

Velocities achieved by a nuclear explosion would be rapidly exceeded by the molecular dissociation caused by the brief but very intense heat. Some structure would be ejected, as we saw, but far less than with conventional explosives.

Nuclear energy is the only type of demolition that carries the total energy budget required to turn 100s of 1000s of tons of material to micron sized very fine particles. While much of the towers were recovered, a substantial portion of the buildings can be seen in dozens of images of both dense pyroclastic clouds emanating from Ground Zero and spreading across the city and the enormous atmospheric clouds swept across the state and out to sea by the prevailing winds.


1. The Engineering Toolbox:

2. No Thermite by T. Mark Hightower, commentary by Jeff Prager:

3. Has Nanothermite Been Oversold To The 911 Truth Community by T. Mark Hightower:

4. Nanothermite: If It Doesn’t Fit You Must Acquit, Veterans Today:

5. Multiple Myeloma: A Study Of K25 Workers:

6. For access to this link you must Google: USGS Report #01-0429: the link does not work:

7. Ionizing Radiation 911 by Jeff Prager:

8. Aerosol Science and Technology • Volume 38, Issue 2, 2004, Analysis of Aerosols From The World Trade Center Collapse Site, New York, Detection and Evaluation of Long-Range Transport of Aerosols – (Delta Group) October 2 to October 30, 2001:

9. Excerpted from the book ‘Dust,’ pages 19-42, complete chemistry and physics analysis of USGS Report #01-0429 and Chemistry Table 1:

10. AVIRIS – TIN (Triangular Irregular Network) Constructed from LIDAR data:

11. 3D Model Rendered from Triangular Irregular Network data – Ground Zero in 3D showing visible craters at Twin Towers:

12. B2level CAD and Oct 18 2001 3D – Below ground view of Ground Zero showing crater depths at the Twin Towers and Building 7 at more than 60 feet deep:


Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on September 21, 2012, With 0 Reads, Filed under Of Interest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

FaceBook Comments

75 Responses to "911 Dust by Jeff Prager – Final Version"

  1. senorel  September 28, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Dear Mr. Prager,

    You work is being discussed in the comments section of Truth & Shadows:

    Ignorance trumps ideas during annual 9/11 ‘discussions’: a reluctant rant

    And then there was one: Supreme Court is the last hope for 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani

    Search on your “Prager” name to find instances where you come up.

    The way I see it, rational people in the 9/11 Truth Movement should have recognized that 9/11 was a nuclear event, but the “opposition was controlled.” The government’s paper on tritium level was the magician’s left-hand waving about in order to distract that companion reports were missing on other sources of radiation and nuclear analysis. BYU Physicist Dr. Steven Jones was called in to write his “no nukes” paper that had two blatant flaws that did not require a physicists to see.

    [1] Dr. Jones essentially said: “Nukes of type X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures A, B, and C. Because the measured radiation signature was D, then not only were nukes of type X, Y, and Z not used, but no nukes whatsoever were used…” And no rational speculation was provided as to what could account for radiation signature D (e.g., tritium).

    [2] Dr. Jones, like the tritium report he addresses, tries to frame the tritium levels as being “at background levels”, when simple math clearly shows them to be 55 times what 9/11/2001 background levels were.

    Dr. Jones then goes down in the history books for discovering super-duper nano-thermite in the dust. Dr. Jones allows the yeomen of 9/11 truth to extrapoloate nano-thermite into explaining things that it cannot, namely pulverization of content and duration of under-rubble fires. Yes, the chemical reaction of thermite working on steel extracts its oxygen from the steel and allows it to burn without “air” Oxygen sources. The problem is quantity. Dr. Jones purposely never estimated the amount of nano-thermite that would be required to account for even one hot-spot of four-weeks (when there were several, and were longer than that.) This is a massive quantity that is essentially “unspent” from, and over-and-above, its original purpose of tower decimation. Dr. Jones never estimated the quantities required for pulverization (assuming it could do that), which would also be a massive amount. Two massives do not add up to Occam Razor logistics in the few days of pre-9/11 holidays that bomb sniffing dogs at the towers took. This simple math can be applied to other faster explosives, and what ever large quantities you calculate for pulverization become ginormous when trying to account for hot-spot duration. (Plus, you kind of have to string it out like in an imaginary hose [or fuse] to prevent it from burning all at once. A burn rate of 3000 fps translates into a hose of over 600k miles to account for 4 weeks even before estimating its diameter and subsequently volume of material.)

    Here is something funny in this regard. The faster the explosive, the larger the shock wave. Shock waves produce sounds that can be measured in decibels. Dr. Sunder of NIST is not a politician or an actor. He said on camera with a straight face and no lying ticks that (paraphrased) “the decibel levels of the decimating towers were insufficient to be representative of controlled demolition or military explosives.” In other words, he debunks that other explosives were combined with super-duper nano-thermite to account for the towers’ decimation, because the destruction wasn’t loud enough. If it didn’t have some grain of truth — like him knowing the true nuclear cause –, I don’t think he would have used that argument.

    Another failing of Dr. Jones is to test for other accelerants (or explosives) in his dust, or if he did test, he didn’t publish his findings. (Maybe he truly didn’t find anything.) It turns out that A&E9/11 Truth also did not test for other things in the dust. When this was brought to their attention very late, their lame excuse from Gregg Roberts was (paraphrased): “Gee, it may be beyond the date when we can detect something. Therefore, should our results proved negative to what we test for, it’ll be used against us by the debunkers to say that it truly was gravity that did it. Better not to test and stick with thermite.”

    I think there was nothing else in the dust… except what the USGS measured and Mr. Prager correlated, a correlation we expected to have been performed by the “9/11 nuclear physicist” and wasn’t… just like the simple math into quantities wasn’t.

    At any rate, it should have been known that 9/11 was nuclear.

    On a tangent theme, the Anonymous Physicists charges Dr. Wood with grabbing all evidence that 9/11 was a nuclear event and packaging it under her crazy theories. I agree. And that is all the more reason why her excellent high quality textbook is worth study: to discover the nuclear evidence and gain nuggets of truth. Yes, disinfo is there (IMHO e.g., Hutchison Effects, discounting hot-spots, free Tesla energy from hurricanes), but so is lots of evidence that whatever theory-du-jour needs to address. Maybe to save herself from getting “suicided” is why she has so much “dangling innuendo” into far-fetched sources of energy [that conspicuously avoids anything nuclear], a compromise that allows the evidence to sneak out.

    A “shaped nuclear charge” isn’t really all that far removed from a “nuclear directed energy weapon”.

    When approached in this manner — nuggets of truth –, Dr. Wood’s textbook from the images alone is a worthy companion to Mr. Prager’s nuclear dust analysis.


  2. 12trees  September 26, 2012 at 9:26 am

    Comments on Jeff Prager’s dust hunch, final version:

    Something was bothering me about this post and now I know what it is. Nanothermite, directed energy, and underground nukes all imply conspiracies on a governmental scale. Mini-nukes, as Jeff describes it, could be pulled off by 19 Arab extremists, carrying grenades or suitcases instead of box cutters. For the Isaraelis, lying with impunity and criminal deceit are modus operandi. But so is ridicule as a way to deflect criticism without answering it directly. I see Jeff operating in Israeli information mode and doing a lot of suggestive armwaving about a concept that could let the Israelis off the hook. Time to put Jeff’s fee to the fire and keep them there because he could be what I call a QUISRAELI

    • 12trees  September 26, 2012 at 9:43 am

      Sorry, premature post disorder. Quisraeli = quisling (check wikipedia) + israeli.

      The reason that I keep pushing the CAD simulation is that intuitive concepts can be quite plausible but actually impossible. Take for example the shaped charge mininuke. Imagine something like a short cannon perhaps, blasting out one end. What would you expect in the way of recoil? The shaped nuke explosive is remarkably similar to a projectile with nuclear propulsion, kind of a Buck Rogers space ship in miniature. To prevent launch as a projectile you need to brace it against something that is massively immobile. Building components won’t do because the explosive force must be strong enough to vaporize the largest columns in the building. Only bedrock will do. So the idea of mini nukes with shaped charges distributed throughout the building, on closer examination, becomes nukes blasting upward only, from foundation level, a variant on the Khalezov concept. At least Dmitri is polite and civil and sketches things well on a big pad, which gives you — lines on paper, nothing more.

      Jeff, on the other hand, tossing off insults right and left, posing a theory that could let the Israelis off the hook, and suggesting physical impossibilities with no supporting documentation or references, still looks to me like a disinformation artist. A good one, not A grade perhaps or even B, but solidly into the B- to C+ territory. Lie often, lie big — with enough exposure Jeff could change the world, but maybe not in the way we here might hope for. We deserve truth. We have to fight to get it, line by deceptive line.

  3. russhallberg  September 25, 2012 at 1:36 am

    There won’t be a real investigation unless it forced. We already have enough evidence for criminal convictions of the primary perpetrators. What we need is a way to force a trial.

  4. davidmills  September 24, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    I hate to be a downer. But once again I must complain for the same reason that I did on Fetzer’s post a couple of weeks ago. You can have all the theory you want. But ultimately someone must do some science. Some real lab work. So far, Jones and Harrit are the only ones who have. Until someone else actually tests the dust and publishes findings on the dust as Jones and Harrit have done, then these theories will and should remain as theories proving nothing.

    Jones found carbon in the nanothermite chips. Carbon has the ability to form gases that rapidly expand and can reach explosive levels, so no one has ruled out nanothermite/carbon as the sole explosive source.

    I want to see some dust testing that implicates fission or fusion. Where are those tests? Surely some of Jones’ detractors can get some dust and test it to see if they find anything in the dust that implicates fission or fusion. There has to still be dust all over Manhattan. Detractors need to do the scientific thing. Get some dust and test it.

  5. this is too simple  September 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    I respect your honesty and simplicity. Im a 4 year Navy Vet with an AS in Geology. That iss all. My concern is not what could be evidence but what is evidence and why the citizens of NY are suffering as a result. Despite the concrete cloud moving in one direction, the entire city is a maze of tall buildings. As the buildings collapsed they spewed toxic fumes across miles of streets and made contact with the buildings and sat their until they were cleaned up. If Mr. Duff is correct,and all the nuclear isotopes were converted to other material, I’m guessing they more dangerous, and as easily identifiable as the concrete, iron, plastic, glass, fiberglass and any other material broken down to dust particles and easily inhaled by anyone within a 5 mile radius. There is your evidence of a nuclear explosion, the absolute decomposition of solid materials into inhaled dust particles the victims carried into the hospital. Blood tests reveal a lot of data and the Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer even more. Ill even guess their are still particles in relatively unused spaces in the city waiting to be collected if a proper authority were to investigate.

    • JS  September 25, 2012 at 6:18 am

      If you try blood tests for heavy metals, that won’t work for past exposure, except if it’s a “challenge” test, where you administer a chelating agent first, to flush the heavy metals out of the bones and tissues where they are hiding, and into the bloodstream. Such a challenge test would then be very worthwhile. Ditto for putting a clean hair sample into a mass spectrometer. I personally would do both hair and blood tests.

  6. Howard T.Lewis III  September 24, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    Always a joy and relief to hear from Prager, and Busby’s translation of bad news also provides a solid, vital foundation for further understanding.
    Having been in a street fight or two, I understand the predicament poor Dr. Steven Jones is in. He should dump that jackass school and go elsewhere.

    Although internet links are as far as I know, nonexistent, I can swear on a stack of Bibles that I actually did document the preset demolition systems per father’s orders back in 1969. The Seattle Times, The Seattle PI, The New York Times, Construction Quarterly(I think), a cement/concrete specialty journal, and a black and white training film(~5 minutes) on the spray-on application of thermite primer paint that was filmed at the WTCs during construction. I MUST EMPHASIZE that the paint crews DID NOT KNOW what the exact nature of the primer paint was that was going on.
    Numerous weekend phone calls came to our residence from Skilling and Associates personnel who were very distressed about the low quality construction going into these WTCs I and II that was being OKed by the Rockefeller owners AND the NJ/NYC Port Authority construction inspectors. This after the announcement that the preset demolition systems were going in some months after construction began. Coincidently, Kaiser aluminum had not been able to solve the aluminum/steel interface corrosion problem, which was a MAJOR point AND CLAUSE in the aluminum siding contract. The contract specified “alchemy” and not ‘metallurgy’, as the method to be explored to solve this ages old problemof aluminum/steel interfacing. Since then, this problem has been solved by metal doping techniques. Too late for the WTCs I and II, which were experiencing having acres of aluminum siding starting to peel off in the 1998-2001 time period. Not a pretty picture.
    This 9-11 incident served as a purposeful sacrifice to Molech. All subcontractors were jewish. Several participants each taking part for their own benefit. The WTCs required expert engineering to solve the problems created by such a massive undertaking. It was built to drop, methinks.

    “I will cut off from the midst of their people both him and all who follow after him in spiritual prostitution, to commit prostitution by worshiping Molech.” Leviticus 20:5. George H.W. Bush’s Skull and Bones nickname is “Molech”. Bush41 signed off on the nukes as ambassador to the UN overseeing the US/USSR cooperative effort in the installation of these nukes. Dimitri Khalazov provides a thorough, truthful overview of this process.

    • 12trees  September 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm

      Mr. Lewis,

      Your comment is certainly the most significant in the thread and probably far more important than the original article. Would you have the time and interest to expand what you’ve written here into a longer version? I think Gordon Duff would publish it. Your revelations are electrifying and it is a shame for them to be lost at the bottom of a comment thread.

      In any case many thanks for taking the time to offer this incomparable “inside information”.

  7. russhallberg  September 24, 2012 at 4:49 am

    Dr Jones played a pivotal role in destroying the cold fusion research of Pons and Fleishman. The story is in the “Heavy Watergate” video on youtube.

    The long history of technology suppression is available at and other free energy sites. Technology suppression may be the primary motive of Dr Jones using the nano-thermite scam. There may be a cheap, unlimited and cleaner source of energy involved. Release of free energy technology would make the overthrow of the 1% a done deal. Humanity would enjoy prosperity beyond our present narrow perspective.

  8. LC  September 23, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    Folks: what difference does it make with what kind of nuke New York was attached on 9/11?? It was NUKED damn it… Lets force the U.S. Secret Service arrest them and lock’m up without bail and put them on a Nuremberg Trial:

  9. JeffPrager  September 23, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    CORRECTION, Ternary fission, a rare and unusual type of fission.

    • JS  September 24, 2012 at 11:09 am

      Mr. Prager,
      Thank you! It’s a practical question, fission vs. fusion should be important to anyone who was in or near NYC on 9/11 or shortly after. The type of radiation, how quickly it dissipated, the radius from Ground Zero, etc. will tell you approximately how many people will die, and when.

      I also have a personal reason for asking. My favorite brother died on July 11, a few weeks ago, of MULTIPLE MYELOMA, the same type of rare cancer that many 9/11 first responders are dying of. He was diagnosed in July of last year, so he only made it one year.

      I believe that the first responders are the “canaries in the coal mine”. The PUBLIC is next.

    • JS  September 24, 2012 at 11:39 am

      I’d like to add that I and some friends have found and tried several “alternative” cancer cures over the years, all of them pretty cheap and very good. I won’t tout any particular one here, but I CAN recommend that people take a look at the Overview of the best treatments, at

      Sadly, my brother chose to go with “mainstream” treatment only, and he thought it was going well, until he suddenly died. MM’s cure rate is extremely low, but he had false hope.

  10. JS  September 23, 2012 at 7:30 am

    Mr. Prager,
    Would you be comfortable saying all of the weapons that brought down WTC 1 and 2 were fusion weapons?

    • JeffPrager  September 23, 2012 at 8:06 pm

      Not exactly, but I could be wrong and they may have been. I see ternary fusion, a rare and unusual type of fusion, in the dust. I believe the weapons were fusion triggered fission weapons with fusion accounting for most of the reaction. I believe uranium and deuterium or lithium deuteride were used. Again, this type of precise detail is speculation. I can make one clear claim. We see fission and fusion occurring in NYC on 911. Beyond that is speculation.

  11. juana  September 23, 2012 at 7:15 am

    Excellent article. When there’s a “real” investigation, research such as you’ve done will be the starting point. But Mr. Prager, don’t loose sight of the ball just to judge if it was a fastball or a curveball. Even if others are guilty of doing so, I can’t believe that the end goals are not the same….the punishment of guilty parties !

    For me personally, ever since I first saw the photographic evidence coupled with the concept of nuclear destruction, it was obvious, once I knew weapons such as this were in existence. That added to the prolonged underground heat from ground zero.

    Still, we all know that truth demands justice, and justice is, and should be paramount. Now the question is not “how” but “who” . And the even greater question of “when” will the justice system be allowed to punish those responsible ??? IMHO this will take the highest military authority to accomplish. The American people are in way over their heads. Thanks for your devotion.

    • robert  September 23, 2012 at 7:30 am

      Fantastic point juana

      How do we get the justice system to act and punish those responsible. Write to your representative and sign the 9/11 Truth movement petition and confront your friends and colleagues.

    • juana  September 23, 2012 at 8:48 am

      Robert – imho petitions to Congress are a waste of time. The whole Congress is bought out by aipac or the other domestic cartel. Just witness the vote about Iran in the Senate . 90 to one !! All you’re doing by signing a petition about 9/11 is signing up for a fema camp space.

      That’s why I said it will take the highest military authorities to bring these people to justice. And in fact , military justice has already been established as the tool for 9/11 justice. And besides the initial 3000 murders , and the murders of innocent foreign civilians, the American military has born the burden for these atrocities.I refer to Kevin Barrett’s article where he alludes to such moves already in place.

  12. John G.  September 22, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    Great work, Mr. Prager. Thank you for your efforts.

    I feel comfortable that things are going to change for the better come Dec. 21, and that the perpetrators will not be ascending, but will be making amends for a long, long time.

  13. lawrencedickerson  September 22, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    This essay is an example of what is needed by the 9-11 truth community so they can provide others with scientific reasoning.In my opinion we are all obligated to forward this information far and wide to include our elected officials.By letting them know that there is a great deal of interest even 10 years after the fact.

    I plan to attend political meetings where I can ask direct questions pertaining to this information so that they have to go on record with something even if it is a “go to hell”.If we sit on this and expect others to carry the message then we are guilty of concealing the crime ourselves.I would suspect that there is some fear in coming out mas not being satisfied with the orthodox government explanation of 9-11.That is a decision that each of us has to make but I can assure that Mr. Duff and Dean will not let it go silently if they find out that we have been detained or silenced.

    The government fears the people and a grassroots 9-11 advocacy movement lies with the people engaging in an active participation to get that truth out even if it demands a whole lot of harassment .Together we can be heard,individually we are but a nuisance to be eradicated or silenced would be a better word.

    • robert  September 23, 2012 at 4:08 am



      Finally someone has said what they will do about trying to pressure for a new independent investigation rather than trying to solve the mystery of the many theories of how it happened.

      If all the readers put their thinking caps on as to what they can contribute (much like your suggestions above) to bring pressure to bear we might have some success.

      As I have previously stated, continued argument as to what happened can only hurt the cause. There is enough evidence available already (in spades) to demand a full enquiry to bring those responsible to justice.

      Have the guts to talk to friends and colleagues about what you think. Sign the 9/11 Truth Movement petition calling for a new enquiry. It is shameful that about only 12000 signatures have been collected so far when so many people purport to really care yet sit on there bums and do nothing more than post comments.

  14. nuggets510  September 22, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    “Underground fires, whether fed by nanothermite or other incendiaries, require oxygen. There is only ONE source of igniting and maintaining a fire without a constant feed of oxygen.”

    Jeff, what is the source of the oxygen that sustained the fires for months? Or based on your statement above, what was able to sustain the fires if they weren’t oxygen based?

    have you had any response from any of the other authors of the thermite/dust paper such as Neils Harrit?

    • JeffPrager  September 22, 2012 at 5:18 pm

      Harrit, Jones, Wood and others related to them have all refused to answer my many emails.

      The only method of maintaining underground fires, oxygen starved, is by fission and fusion. Fission and fusion do not require any oxygen whatsoever.

    • livetobefree  September 23, 2012 at 8:16 pm

      “Underground fires, whether fed by nanothermite or other incendiaries, require oxygen. There is only ONE source of igniting and maintaining a fire without a constant feed of oxygen.”

      This is not entirely true information.
      From what I have read about thermite/nano thermite, it does not require an oxygen source as it contains its own supply, and is the reason it can be used in underwater welding.
      Nanothermite could therefore be considered as another source for the ‘burning” rubble piles at all 3 WTC building sites, that from what I understand, continued to burn at very high temps for at least 3 months, despite best efforts at extinguishing them, even resorting to thousands of gallons of Pyrocool, which would also suggest that
      indeed large amounts of it may have been laced throughout the WTC buildings, but keep in mind that
      once the initial “collapse” phase was initiated, gravity also assisted in the downward progression, so I don’t think ‘tons’ and tons of it may have been necessary either.
      But in something of this magnitude and importance to the perpetrators, you’d think they would err on using too much then too little of the stuff.
      Also to say that the independent scientists who tested for, and found this incendiary/explosive compound, are not credible because of questionable chain of custody of the samples, but we are somehow supposed to have more faith in the studies, and chain of custody in any government agency, who clearly have more of an agenda, and reason to lie, is suspect in and of itself.
      We who are searching for the truth are in conflict with “the” government and its agencies in almost anything relating to 9-11, and as history will attest, are the known, proven liars.
      Regardless, we at least know that the conservation of momentum calls for much slower collapse times then observed, and that in itself should be reason enough to know the OCT (official conspiracy theory) is flawed and in many instances fictitious. The demise of the WTC buildings were helped along with something else then just kerosene, office furnishings and gravity.

      “Although the reactants are stable at room temperature, they burn with an extremely intense exothermic reaction when they are heated to ignition temperature. The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached (up to 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) with iron(III) oxide)—although the actual temperature reached depends on how quickly heat can escape to the surrounding environment. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be easily extinguished with water, although enough water will remove heat and may stop the reaction.[16] Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction. Even so, thermite is used for welding underwater.[17]”

    • Gordon Duff  September 23, 2012 at 11:42 pm

      Heat from molten steel and granite can last for weeks. There were no signs of active flame but there were also no signs that oxygen sources had been cut off either.

    • livetobefree  September 26, 2012 at 6:49 pm

      Very true, it’s just that there were witnesses that of course NIST dismissed by denying they even heard of them, that saw ‘”molten pools of metal and flowing like lava” which kind of fits in with the nanothermate theory. Like the witnesses that heard the explosions going off one after the other around the towers, and many others.
      It is heart breaking to know that it seems so many we counted on were brought and paid for, perhaps blackmailed as well, and that this crime has been covered up to the extent it has, but reading story’s about it here, and the comments of others that aren’t asleep is somewhat reassuring.

      I sure do appreciate your coverage on topics like these and others that are of deep interest to those of us who love this country and are sick of the BS we have been fed all our lives. You guys are tops, and please keep up the good fight/work.

  15. ricohands  September 22, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    I have faith in articles such as this that the truth will eventually out.

  16. Andre in L.A.  September 22, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    I find two key statements in the comments to this article. Gordon says “newer weapons have NO residual radiation and a small initial burst of ionizing radiation.” Jeff says “Devices detonated sequentially top to bottom would create a top to bottom collapse.” My hurdle to accepting the multiple mini-nuke theory was that I was familiar with DOE modeling/testing of multiple detonations, temporally and physically close to one another (amazing what was behind unsecured portals in the mid-’90’s). The problem, if I recall correctly, was neutron flux, causing the first detonation to cause premature fission in those following, resulting in reduced yield. Gordon’s description of the mini-nukes allows me to bury this thesis. Now I can accept the sequential top to bottom destruction. The pyroclastic cloud is easy to understand. I worked in the concrete industry a few years. The concrete used on the floor pans of towers is “lightweight concrete, where the aggregate is pumice, cooked under pressure to expand it like popcorn. I watched a mechanic try to loosen up a load of this that had set up in a mixer, with a quarter stick of dynamite. A piece of the drum flew over my head, but a portion of that pumice (the major component) and cement was turned into choking dust.

    • JeffPrager  September 22, 2012 at 5:16 pm

      Newer devices can be easily shaped to detonate upwards only, as we see in the towers’ destruction. Shaped nuclear charges aren’t new.

      The concrete in the towers was light weight concrete, yes, however, it was compressed under 1000s of pounds of pressure which is how concrete floors are constructed in steel towers. The concrete was, therefore, extraordinarily hard as opposed to the softer concrete you reference.

    • JeffPrager  September 22, 2012 at 5:21 pm

      Dr. Christopher Busby, nuclear physicist, states that residual radiation lasts no more than 5-6 days with these types of devices and that it’s not easy to detect. Special detection equipment is needed other than standard Geiger Counters. Mr. Duff was referencing Busby’s statement.

  17. jonabrahamson  September 22, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    I’d say “ground Zero” explains it all.

    • JeffPrager  September 22, 2012 at 12:52 pm

      The first and most obvious incantation that we all missed.

  18. 12trees  September 22, 2012 at 9:26 am

    What software would be used to build a model of the effect of mini nukes on the twin towers? Who could create a credible simulation?

    After all these years we have a shortage of modeling. It should have been easy to settle the question of whether aircraft parts would have remained outside the buildings, for example (and in doing so get closer to identifying the aircraft). It should have been easy to prove that most of the aircraft fuel ignited and burned outside the buildings. A proper simulation would have shown that failure of the truss floor bolts would not in any way have caused columns to evaporate. If pancaking was even possible, it should have been easy to demonstrate in a model that it would not propagate quickly and symmetrically through truss bolt failures. And so on.

    Now we have debunked Steve Jones, and with the CAD profiles of ground contours, it seems that Dmitri Khalezov is thoroughly debunked as well. We are left with the same redistribution of molecules that Dr. Judy Wood calls attention to. She very wisely makes no claims about the real time dustification of the buildings because she has no model, and no way to make a model, that convincingly simulates, second by second, the position of building masses from start to finish of the disintegration. Jeff Prager, assisted by Dr. Busby, is no closer to having a dynamic model proving that mini nukes would create precisely the debris that occurred, and no other, over the exact time frame of the real events.

    So it is time for a full simulation, real science rather than squabbling and character assassinations. If no one can put together the requisite resources at this point, then everyone should shut up and go home — the bad guys have won.

    One other thing — argument from analysis of dust proves very little about specific buildings. There are also questions about what precisely went on at buildings 5 and 6. WTC 6 may have been far more central to the 911 agenda than anyone will admit, and I have seen video composites that claim to show the roof of building 5 blew off about 1.5 seconds before the first “plane” hit. Perhaps mini nukes were used on these lower buildings and directed energy was used on the tall ones, or maybe it was a matrix. Citing evidence in a suggestive way has gotten Dr. Wood into a lot of trouble and Jeff Prager deserves the same if he suggests an extrapolation from dust analysis to demolition processes.

    At this point I would like to see some real scientists and real engineers step forward and do some proper comparison of theories using CAD. Well done, this would place advocacy of a new investigation on much stronger footing. Otherwise we are just mired in academic feuding, which leaves me wanting a shower.

    Otherwise, nice work Jeff, as far as it goes. Which, regrettably, is not very far.

    • JeffPrager  September 22, 2012 at 12:50 pm

      12 Trees, you would be correct, except that physics and chemistry don’t lie, people do. I’m calling Dr. Wood and Dr. Jones sophisticated fabricators is light of the physics, chemistry and yes even the mathematics. Perhaps you failed to access the referenced citations in the essay above or perhaps science isn’t your thing. Yes, it’s extraordinarily complex but I honestly dumbed it down not just so that I would understand it but so that most others could as well. Have at it: (because this was written by chemists, mathematicians and physicists and merely published by me I’ll admit that I had to read it slowly about 10 times and that it wasn’t until I had read it close to 25 times that I could discuss it intelligently, but I did just that) Here ‘ya go, a short excerpt from one of my books:

    • 12trees  September 23, 2012 at 12:49 pm

      Thanks Jeff, I passed on your link because it required installation of software on my computer from an unknown source. How about a PDF instead.

      You have sidestepped my comments entirely. I’m assuming this means that you have no answers to any of my concerns. Which confirms my first impression that on fullest analysis, at this point, you have nothing substantive.

      The issue is not my scientific literacy. The issue is your ability to produce a CAD model to support your hunch (hardly a theory at this point). A proper CAD model would view the collapse of each building, for example on a per second basis, and account for the distribution of mass at each waypoint.

      The mathematics supporting this kind of dynamic simulation, collectively, constitute a theory. Anything short of that is just a hunch based on suggestive data interpretations.

      Dr. Busby should be able to compile an appropriate team to generate such a simulation. Anything short of that, which means anything that fails to establish a precise time based transition from steel/concrete/glass to dust (a cloud propagating at a rate precisely corresponding to what happened) is just distracting arm waving and hyperventilation. Neither you nor I, nor anyone else with an interest in truth, has time for that, right. Or are you actually interested in wasting people’s time for some undisclosed reason?

      I suggest that you forget about Steve Jones, Judy Wood, and character assassinations. You have more important work to do. Have you heard of finite element analysis? You can start there. You will be the first. And by the way, be sure that you explain all of the anomalous phenomena shown photographically in Judy Wood’s book, ok? In other words, as she did, become a comprehensive observer and documentarian of reality. Good luck!

    • JeffPrager  September 23, 2012 at 8:03 pm

      This is a PDF. It’s been downloaded 1,078 times as of this moment. It doesn’t require any software. It’s a web site called DataFileHost, a free web hosting site. Here’s the web link:

    • JeffPrager  September 23, 2012 at 8:10 pm

      12 Trees. Stop being childish, distracting, disingenuous and purposely argumentative. The link I provided requires NO INSTALLATION OF SOFTWARE and has been successfully downloaded by 1,078 people as of this very moment. So learn to use your computer properly because 1,078 people didn’t need to download anything and read the PDF I provided the link for which proves ternary fission in NYC on 911. Or just go away.

    • 12trees  September 24, 2012 at 2:06 pm


      Ok, I see in the linked window that there are two large colored clickable buttons, one marked PLAY NOW and the other DOWNLOAD NOW. Both of these lead to installation of an executable called ILIVID, which may be malicious. On the left, in very small plain type, is the single word “download”. This is the actual path to the PDF.

      Without insulting me you could have pointed out the above. The page is designed as a trick, to get people to install the software being promoted. This is probably why you got the free server location.
      Do you know who you are pimping for here, what company really owns ILIVID? Are you quite sure this isn’t a Mossad phishing operation, or worse? I think you owe me an apology.

      I find these issues with the PDF:

      1. Undated, no obvious authorship.
      2. Exact nature of dust samples is unspecified.
      3. Location of sampling is unspecified.
      4. Conclusions are drawn without any kind of order of magnitude reality check. Were the nuclear indicators explainable from medical materials in one of the buildings, or lab samples? Could a single tenant have had enough material for some purpose, to lead to dust samples of this nature? For example, could US Customs in building 6 have had nuclear materials on hand in order to do — what, could have been a secret?

      As noted in prior critique of you position, nothing in your presentation correlates order of magnitude of results with any particular cause. We have suggestive date, upon which one can build — a hunch. A hunch is not a theorem or a theory or a postulate or a proof. It is not science or engineering.

      My point is that now, these years later, we need more than hunches. We need mathematical modeling. This is what structural engineers do, with software designed for that purpose. Your hunch is that perhaps as few as 12 mini nukes, in shaped charges, 1 kt each, could bring down one of the twin towers. Fine. My point is that this hunch must lead to a mathematical statement about causal factors that can be used to set up a simulation which will to produce a dust cloud and rubble pile exactly matching what really occurred. Until then you have nothing.

      You know that, Jeff. In a world hungry for information you might be able to sell books and speaking engagements. But until you can demonstrate a plausible stream of causality, you are just like me — another lousy blog commenter with opinions.

      So I am telling you here how to save some face. First, be a gentleman. Jerks are a dime a dozen. Insults are too easy and scorn is basically a psyop technique, taught in schools funded by Mossad probably, and ‘our guys’ too. Opinions, on the web, are worthless.

      As another commenter noted, how do you (you Jeff) account for a blast that atomizes steel but leaves the glass cladding in place in a collapsing building (as seen in numerous videos). Where exactly is the blast force, Why doesn’t it blow the windows out? Shaped charge nukes you say — how about some diagrams and data on that. Vernacular and intuitive are simply not good enough. You need a CAD model. It could be done by a talented student team. Funding? Ask us all for $10, based on something more than an opinion.. Get Dr. Busby and the head of some engineering department somewhere to author a proposal for CAD modeling to be funded by the public.

      Instead of being negative about other people, put some positive energy into making that happen. You get to decide how to be Jeff. Do you want to continue to be the jerk who is calling other people names about things few members of the general public understand, or do you want to be the one who shows exactly what explosives, in what places, destroyed each building? You could change the world, and we would all thank you for it. But you can’t change the world by doing more of what you already have. You need to be better than yourself Jeff. I , for one, would bet money that you have what it takes to rise to the occasion.

  19. jamesjohnson  September 22, 2012 at 9:04 am

    Jeff, one element of support and three questions.
    1. wtc 1 2 floors were composed of 20 or 22 guage steel pans with 4 inches of poured concrete.
    one would expect to see large sections of steel and clinging concrete covering the collapse site. Not seen. this supports a high energy blast wave shattering floor pans to dust.
    there is a large format Australian published morning after 911 picture book that may contain evidence…cannot find it but it contains evidence for or against the Prager hypothesis
    2. If the blast wave micronized parts of the steel columns, one should see columns with irregular and filagreed ends. not so. either square cut or a few 45 degree cut. the original columns were 20 feet sections, plated and welded and rivited at the ends. the columns should fail at the joints, and the appearance of the columns in the debris should show twisting and breaking at those points. instead we see clean cuts.
    this is a puzzle. may be consistent with shaped steel cutting charges or the Prager hypotheses.\
    3. the vid of the building collapse shows pancake progression. if there were nukes in the basement, they had to go off after the collapse…because the elimination of column support in the basement, as in wtc7, would result in wtc 1 and 2 beginning an immediate and irregular fall from top to bottom. not seen in the vids. no blowout on the ground floor is observed either.
    a progressive pancake collapse consistant with the videos would requre around 80 mininukes placed at the column joints in both buildings. that would be around 20 kg times 80 or at least 1600 kg of bomb material, which could be estimated from the quantities found in the dust.
    4. how does the mininuke hypothesis explain month long heat, enough to keep steel above 2000 degrees?? seems to me, once triggered, it is going to cool and the reaction stop.

    • JeffPrager  September 22, 2012 at 10:32 am

      We do see elements of steel with those types of steel beam ends. I have images in one of my books, See pages 234, 235 and 292 in my book “America Was Nuked” here:

      I never said there were nukes in the basement and disagree with Dimitri’s assessment. I believe a dozen or more very small devices were used. Khalizov believes a 150 ton device was used. I do not. I believe the devices were well under 1KT. Devices detonated sequentially top to bottom would create a top to bottom collapse.

      With dozens of devices placed in and around ground zero odds are certain that some device(s) woukld not detonate properly and unfissioned material would contiue to fission, as we see, for 99 days at Ground Zero.

    • Justin Kennedy  September 23, 2012 at 9:09 pm

      Sequentially detonated atmospheric mini-nuke blasts, a dozen or more in each tower? Wouldn’t these nuclear explosions every 10 floors cause windows and contents to be blown out of the building? I didn’t see that happening. The towers were turned to dust instantly, not section by section or sequentially. In WTC 7 the bottom floor fell at the exact same time and rate as the top floor.

      To accommodate the theory of multiple nuclear blasts there must be some “secret” fuel used which produced no radiation, no blinding flash, no electro-magnetic pulse and no explosions? This method of sequential demolition seems unnecessarily complex and requires the use of unknown technologies. On the other hand, underground nuclear explosions have been very well researched and tested (See Plowshare) and they know exactly what the characteristics of the shock wave will be depending on the density of the soil, the depth and tonnage of the underground blast.

    • Justin Kennedy  September 23, 2012 at 8:26 pm

      In the WTC 7 collapse, when you look at the one video which shows the bottom floors collapsing, the 1st floor descended at the same time and same rate as the top floor. There was nothing under floor 1 as everything was disintegrated. So there was no pancake collapse, all the floors of the building fell simultaneously and not a result of being crushed from the floor above. The entire tower had been simultaneously turned into dust. This is not as readily evident in the WTC 1 & 2 collapses but there is no resistance from the floors below and they fell at near free-fall speeds. A pancake collapse would have taken over 1 minute to collapse and it would have left a huge pile of rubble and steel. Instead much of the steel and building contents were pulverized into microscopic dust by the crushing shock wave of the underground explosions.

      I don’t think it was an atmospheric blast (or in the basement) but instead was positioned deep underground (depending on the explosive force of the nuclear or neutron device.) Dozens of First Responders reported feeling the ground shake violently just before each tower collapsed. The Bathtub enclosure around WTC was also substantially damaged during the blasts causing flooding and emergency repairs.

    • Howard T.Lewis III  September 28, 2012 at 1:09 pm

      Nukes and sprayed on thermite, primarily, plus nanothermate, etc.added much later. Where is the military. Congress is bowing to queen lizard.

  20. CoJonesGrandes  September 22, 2012 at 8:26 am

    Khalezov nailed it – the nukes were under the WTC.
    His 26 part video explained it totally to my satisfaction.
    Perhaps they had a fallback black ops device in case the nukes don’t go off, but those underground blasts performed in accordance with the builders’ expectations.
    Someone go light a fire to the architect’s/ builders’/ structural engineers’ feet and get them to tell us about the approved demolition plan of that complex.
    The architect was Minoru Yamasaki and the structural engineers Worthington, Skilling Helle and Jackson.
    Yeah, and waterboard the directors of Controlled Demolition, Inc while you’re about it.
    Better still, castrate them one after another until someone squeals.

    • Howard T.Lewis III  September 28, 2012 at 12:57 pm

      Concentrate on Skilling and Associates’ Seattle office. You will be considered a hostile. Develop a plan first. As I noted elsewhere, I documented the presets back in 1969-1972 from the Seattle library and University of Washington’s Engineering Library. All these SKILLING guys knew of the presets, and Bush41 as ambassador to the UN signed off on the US/USSR placed nukes. NOT THEORY. A fellow named Dick Eisenger (Pronounced Ei-zing-guh), a family member’s direct boss for several years that I met a few times, could sing the tune and not miss a note as to who and why. The WTCs I and II were built disposable, NOT THEORY, though designed and engineered brilliantly. The siding was supposed to be applied using “alchemy”, which Kaiser Aluminum failed in accomplishing. That was between Kaiser and the Rockefellers. ALSO NOT THEORY.

      These presets,as the one in the Chicago Sears(Willis) tower, were the last to be publically issued permits. An intense NYC lobbying effort at the end of the 1960s succeeded in having the practice banned. You bet L.Silverstein knew of the WTCs and Sears tower presets during construction. He bought and sold the Chicago Sears tower which was renamed the Willis tower and sold all in 2004..

      Somebody accessed areas of the WTCs controlled by the Bush cabal and installed nanothermate cutting charges and excessive nanothermate which raised the WTC I and II air temperatures and blew all over Manhattan. After 43 years of having scat and garbage thrown at me, the evidence of subterrerean nukes is proven by the deep craters under the WTC basements with molten/cooled walls. Duff says with considerable evidence that nukes were installed near 3/4 up. I will agree to this. It certainly appears so.
      I am still alienating myself on a daily basis. First,from warning all I could about the presets, etc., andd now about the murdering swine controlling the government. Where is the military NOW and where is my badge? This was the ‘step one’ of a community blood sacrifice to Molech, which is Bush41’s name at the Skull and Bones Society, murdering and pillaging for The Engllish Crown for over 300 years. read upon who Molech(Molloch) is.
      I am trying to figure a way to walk around town and legally grab people and kick and slap them into educating themselves into believing in the need to react to all this. Time to hit the U.S.Marshals’ and County Sheriffs’ offices.

  21. robert  September 22, 2012 at 7:36 am

    Jeff Prager

    Could someone please explain the type of nuclear cloud (mushroom?) created by Advanced Nuclear Grenades?

    • robert  September 22, 2012 at 9:51 am

      Whilst I am interested in the theory above it is really of academic interest only at this stage.

      All these conflicting, contradictory, highly technical confusing reports on how 9/11 occurred can only do major damage to achieving a new independent official investigation.

      If a new investigation achieves nothing more than to debunk the flawed “official investigation report” of 9/11, then that in itself will be a major achievement and victory.

      The difficult questions of how and why would naturally follow.

      The number one priority is to get an investigation under-way!

      This 9/11 argument has the same hallmarks as the disagreement and conflicting data following the assassination of John F Kennedy, which became too hard, and got nowhere as interest waned.

      It is a deliberate orchestrated plan to sow seeds of doubt and confusion that creates argument and disunity, derailing any calls for an investigation. It creates a spinning of wheels to bog down progress. It becomes a convenient argument over the terms of reference, rather than getting to the real agenda.

      Ironically these tactics in both cases contain the DNA of Mossad and Israel. The same process has been effectively used by Israel for over 60 years to prevent the real agenda of the plight and grievances of the Palestinians from being addressed. The argument always revolves around a set of terms that cannot be agreed upon, thus nothing is done.

      Lets not let this happen to prevent a new 9/11 investigation.

    • JeffPrager  September 22, 2012 at 10:34 am

      It’s not a theory. It’s generally suggested that people access the referenced citations, in this case 1-12, usually found at the end of an essay.

    • JeffPrager  September 22, 2012 at 10:36 am

      Yes, I’ll provide 4 images:

    • JeffPrager  September 22, 2012 at 10:38 am

      Yes, I’ll provide 4 images:

    • Gordon Duff  September 22, 2012 at 2:06 pm

      The nuclear weapons used outside fallujah were undetectable from conventional weapons other than leaving behind Uranium 235 in the people of the region.

      Depending on how tritium supply is controlled, a neutronic fusion weapon, be it a grenade, might not be more powerful than a standard hand grenade.

  22. arthurborges  September 22, 2012 at 2:54 am

    Yep, there’s a website that even sizes the charges at 150 kilotons apiece. The solution is an elegant one: an underground nuclear explosion right under a tower creates, in the bedrock, a spherical cavity into which the structure can fall straight down, thereby minimizing impact on the environs.

  23. Martin Maloney  September 22, 2012 at 2:34 am

    Using any search engine, enter

    “Stephen Jones” “cold fusion”

    You will quickly disabuse yourself of the delusion that he is an honorable man.

  24. lola  September 22, 2012 at 1:09 am

    Brilliant. Now I wonder what was Dr. Jones position? Was he a disinfo agent knowingly or unknowingly? I saw him present a talk at UC Berkeley several years ago with his thermite thesis and at the time it seemed to be compelling, but this above brings him into question.

    • JeffPrager  September 22, 2012 at 1:15 am

      Dr. Jones must be assumed to be a brilliant and knowledgeable physicist specifically in cold fusion, muon catalyzed fusion, deuterium, lithium deuteride and similar elements associated with cold fusion and we should assume, fission. He knows. He can’t possibly be, by any stretch of the imagination, anything other than part of the pre-planned public response strategy.

    • JeffPrager  September 22, 2012 at 1:17 am

      He also worked for DOE for most of his career and he’s refused to respond to numerous emails, as has Mr. Gage, and several others associated with both. One of them responded to one generic emails stating I had some questions and asked to email them. After I’ve repeatedly emailed my data they refuse to respond.

    • JeffPrager  September 22, 2012 at 1:23 am

      Just as important, Dr. Jones authored a paper that denied adamantly a nuclear component yet not once did he address the levels, PREDICTABLE levels across 12 locations of secure USGS dust samples, containing thorium, strontium, barium, yttrium, cerium, antimony, potassium, sodium and a dozen additional fission and fusion decay paths. These elements were not mentioned in his denial essay. And I promise, I too can refute a nuclear event by using uranium ALONE and avoiding the 7.57ppms in the girder coatings which equate to 93 Becquerels per Kilogram, fully 2-5 times normal background levels meaning 12 is normal and 40 is the absolute highest we could EVER expect. And INSIDE a building in a girder coating, 93Bq/Kg is astronomical and indicates a fission event once you’ve read link 9 above and included the strontium, thorium (only found in radioactive form), barium and other elements.

    • DaveE  September 22, 2012 at 2:32 pm

      That’s precisely how a bomb works…… turning uranium into OTHER elements. It does so very efficiently these days. The first sign of a false-flagger / PR specialist is the “we didn’t find any URANIUM so it couldn’t have been a nuke” BS.

      Jones ain’t the only one throwing that waste around, either.

      Great work, Mr. Prager.

    • Gordon Duff  September 22, 2012 at 7:15 am

      i always found it childish

      jeff simply proved it

      even nutty

  25. JeffPrager  September 22, 2012 at 1:09 am

    It’s 3am in Minneapolis and I’ll be here until 6am or so to answer any questions and refute any disbelievers. I won’t address comments that use poor language. Let’s keep it civil, scientific and accurate in that you can support your references as I have. Peace.

  26. this is too simple  September 21, 2012 at 11:55 pm

    The hospitals surrounding the World Trade Centers have had to been very busy assisting patients suffering from exposure to the dabris. Is their evidence that would point to a dirty bomb from those treated for radiation after the explosions, and why hasn’t anyone brought it radiation levels, no Geiger counters in the richest city in the world? Concrete and asbestos dust alone covered city blocks yet the focus is on the responders. Why?

    • Gordon Duff  September 22, 2012 at 7:13 am per weapons, i work a bit ahead of jeff

      1. geiger counters don’t work on modern fusion weapons…no readings
      2.. newer weapons have NO residual radiation and a small initial burst of ionizing radiation
      3. first responders..and the numbers are, by my count, very high, have radiation sickess/multiple myloma because of …probably…water dumped onto the site creating steam (not supported yet)
      4. there are no reports of sickness caused by asbestos
      5. the ‘toxic soup’ cover story is mostly drywall, steel and some concrete..there wasn’t much concrete in the upper floors…

      by that assumption, nobody could build anything and survive..concrete dust has filled manhattan for 150 years.

    • JeffPrager  September 22, 2012 at 12:43 pm

      According to the USGS study, if you read it [6 above] Ground Zero was virtually asbestos/chrysolite free. The energetic collapse blew the asbestos south and east well beyond Ground Zero. Avaris satellite data confirms, as seen in the USGS report #01-0429, that asbestos was a less-than-minor constituent of Ground Zero dust. Read the report.

    • LC  September 22, 2012 at 11:24 am

      Great work folks, Bravo. & the numbers of 29 to 144 Kilotons of explosive force for each tower tie in with the previous link at:

    • JeffPrager  September 22, 2012 at 5:08 pm

      Dirty bombs were not used. They produce zero energy. According to the USGS and AVARIS satellite data asbestos was not a constituent of Ground Zero dust in any measurable amounts.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login