LISTEN VT RADIO | JOIN TEAM VT | SIGN UP DAILY NEWSLETTER
VETERANS TODAY ON : FACEBOOK | TWITTER | VT FORUM
|

Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle

by Don Fox, Clare Kuehn, Jeff Prager, Jim Viken and Dr. Ed Ward (with Dennis Cimino and Jim Fetzer)

 

There are a half-dozen or more theories about how the Twin Towers were destroyed, where, as The Vancouver Hearings have established, the “official account”–that the buildings collapsed, due to the intense heat of the jet-fuel based fires, which caused the steel to lose its strength and lead to a cascade of floors falling upon one another–is the least defensible and most effortlessly refuted of them all.  

Here I am going to summarize the evidence for each and explain why the most defensible and difficult to falsify are those that posit the use of sophisticated arrangements of micro and mini-nukes, which, of course, is not a technique that would have been available to Osama bin Laden and his hearty band of 19 Islamic fanatics, which the government has peddled to the public with a straight face and which has been supported by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology).  The NIST, alas, has been carrying the burden for the Bush/Cheney administration, which, together with its friends in the Mossad, appear to have been the principals responsible for 9/11.  

The theories to be discussed include (h1) the collapse theory, (h2) the nanothermite theory, (h3) the DEW theory, and (h4), the nuke theory, which should be distinguished by its own subtheories, including (h4a) the 150kt subbasement theory (associated with Dimitri Khalezov) and the (h4b) mini and mico-nuke theory (associated with The Anonymous Physicist, Dr. William Deagle, Dr. Ed Ward, Jeff Prager and Don Fox, among others), which appears by far the most promising.

During The Vancouver Hearings, two sessions (with three speakers each) were devoted to the Twin Towers and how they were destroyed.  Chuck Boldwyn discussed (h1), the collapse theory, during “Why the Twin Towers could not have collapsed”, explaining how a collapse of either of those buildings, given their design, was not even physically possible.  This is especially so because the steel was tapered in thickness from 6″ thick in the subbasements to 5″, 4″, and so on up to the highest floors, where it was only 1/4″ thick.  Thus, the relative mass of the steel for the top 14 floors of the North Tower, for example, which were alleged to have been weakened by the intense fires and collapsed onto the 96 floors below, represented on 1.4% of the mass of the steel.  The very idea that that miniscule relative mass could overcome the lower 98.6%  is a physical absurdity.  Plus the fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt.  And if, counterfactually, they had burned long enough and hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, since those fires were asymmetrically distributed, their effects would have been asymmetrical, with gradual sagging and tilting, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition sequence that occurred.  For these and other reasons, (h1) has to be rejected.

The nanothermite theory, (h2), was discussed by several speakers, but had previously been refuted by T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer, who discovered the law of material science, namely, that for an explosive to pulverize or to otherwise destroy a material, it must have a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material.  The speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 mps, while in steel, it is 6,100 mps; the highest detonation velocity attributed to nanothermite found in the scientific literature, however, is only 895 mps, which means you cannot get there (pulverized concrete and decimated steel) from here (Twin Towers plus nanothermite).  Not only does nanothermite only have an explosive force that is not even equal to 1/13 of TNT, but Professor Niels Harrit, perhaps the most scientifically qualified of its supporters, advised Mark that, by his calculations, a minimum of 29,000 metric tons of nanothermite would have been required to have blown apart a Twin Tower. That would have been more than 100,000 tons of explosives.  Indeed, as Mark observes, even 29,000 tons would have been difficult to put in place without being detected.  And, more importantly, why would anyone want to use such a feeble explosive to perform feats that could more efficiently be accomplished using more powerful alternatives?  The case for (h2), accordingly, cannot be sustained.

 
During The Vancouver Hearings, Clare Kuehn, “Were DEWs used to decimate the Twin Towers?”, made heroic efforts to explain why hypothesis (h3), the use of DEWs (Directed Energy Weapons) might have been involved, as Judy Wood, Ph.D., the former professor of mechanical engineering from Clemson University, has proposed. The principal problems with the this approach, however, are that, (1) while her book, Where did the Towers Go?, and her web site, http://drjudywood.com, do an admirable job in laying out the effects that need to be explained (technically known as “the explanandum”) by means of an adequate theory (its “explanans”), (2) Judy Wood herself claims that she does not have a theory, which means that she is likely to deny any specific position attributed to her, where (3) the strongest claim she makes is that the energy that was required to destroy the Twin Towers was significantly beyond that provided by conventional explosives–and was directed!  Among the kinds of fascinating evidence to which she and Clare invite our attention are oddities related to those who jumped from the towers, the lathering phenomena that preceded the destruction of both Twin Towers and WTC-7 as well, and the importance of “the bathtub”, a dike-like wall that kept Hudson River water from flooding beneath lower Manhattan and the subway and PATH train tunnels, the preservation of which appears to be the primary reason why the towers had to be destroyed by a novel form of demolition that would convert most of those 500,000 ton buildings into very fine dust rather than allow them to fall upon and damage the bathtub.  Dust particles, after all, remain suspended in the atmosphere and do not come down in mass.

The North Tower “bathtub” during the clean up

These reasons do not completely rule out (h3), but they make it rather difficult to take very seriously, when the principal claim that Judy Wood makes about the destruction of the Twin Towers–that the energy that was required to destroy them was significantly beyond that provided by conventional explosives–is also satisfied by (h4), the nuke hypothesis.  While she appears to be completely correct in making that claim, it is a condition that is satisfied by the use of nuclear weapons, which provide quantities of energy that are far beyond those provided by conventional sources of energy and can be directed!  I believe that the only hypotheses that are sufficiently precisely defined that can potentially explain the destruction of the Twin Towers–which were blown apart form the top down in about 9 seconds for the South Tower and 11 seconds for the North–are those that appeal to nuclear devices, where several different versions have been advanced, which I shall discuss here.

The first, (h4a), has been advanced by Dimitri Khalezov, who maintains that, during their construction, all three of the buildings–the Twin Towers and WTC-7–were constructed with 150kt nukes in their subbasements, where those nukes were directed upward.  But the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by completely different methods, where WTC-7 appears to have been a classic controlled demolition, where the demolition is set from the bottom up, all the floors are falling at the same time and there is a stack of pancakes equal to about 12% of the height of the original 47 floors or about 5 floors high.  In the case of the Twin Towers, by comparison, the buildings are blowing apart from the top down, where the floors are waiting their turn to be “blown to kingdom come”, in the memorable phrase of Morgan Reynolds, they are being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust and, when it is over, there is nothing there:  no pancakes! Both buildings were destroyed below ground level.  So they cannot possibly have been destroyed by the same method, where Khalezov’s account may even have been intended to discredit the theory that nuclear devices were used. Our interview:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

That leaves (h4b), that the Twin Towers were destroyed using sophisticated arrangements of micro or mini-nukes, which was discussed during The Vancouver Hearings by Jeff Prager,  “Proof of Ternary Fission in New York City on 9/11″, and by Don Fox, “Mini-nukes used at the WTC and the real ‘untold story’”, where the contents of dozens of dust samples acquired by the US Geological Survey were revealing:

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.

As I have explained in “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”, which should be read along with this article, the most plausible theory now appears to be that arrangements of mini or micro-nukes were used to blow out 10 floor segments at a time, where, because the top 30 floors of the South Tower had tilted to the side and were blown out as one, the sequence of the South Tower took about 9 seconds and for the North Tower 11.

So I invited Dennis Cimino, who has experience with nuclear weapons, to comment on the discussion that follows, where he thinks that “not more than ’10′ or so ‘exotic’ very unconventional devices destroyed the cores, not THIRTY, and they were not triggered but were in fact, precision timed because each one had a WWV receiver inside it and each device knew precisely what time it was, and THAT negated the need for the interconnections, but having said that it did not mean they didn’t also need to shield from adjacent devices going off before their turn. . . .”

He added that, “They could have avoided the interconnection wiring issue totally by lessening the numbers of devices and hence creating the natural ‘head room’ they needed in the timing interval, should a couple of these somehow gain a few or lose a few microseconds in time between them after turning ‘off’ the WWV timing reception altogether, that way the criticality of perfect detonation timing would not be necessary to use somewhat larger devices but lesser numbers, dealing with the building in ‘cube’ segments [NOTE: as Chuck Boldwyn has emphasized], rather than floor by floor, which would be a waste of time and be fraught with a lot more wholly non-necessary ‘dud’ risks doing it that way.  And it also still legitimizes Controlled Demolition, Inc.’s role in the cleanup, as they would be there to make sure any and all forensic evidence of such stuff be ‘gone’ before anyone knew they had been found.”

“Boldwyn’s segmenting of the building into it’s natural cubes as it was built  made me think that the logical way to destroy the WTC towers so as to collapse them into their own footprint, would be to first create a ‘deficit’ in structural integrity and material created mechanical and purely physical resistance in a lower level of the building, so as to allow for the beginning of a gravitational free fall of the upper floors into the deficit. As you had actually said in one of your dissertations, the velocity of the collapse might just have been a smidgen ‘faster’ than mere gravitational falling, meaning that a force was used to ‘blow down’ or ‘push’ the upper floors into the structural cavity or deficit below. I also seem to remember that some of the accounts of people being horribly burned but clearly not by jet fuel, or being so wigged out so as to ‘jump’–meaning they were either preferring the death of falling over burning or, more adroitly, they saw something in the building that compelled them to lose all hope of escaping. . . . To destroy the CORE of the building as apparently was done as the antenna on top began to wobble due to no structure below it, means that the very core of the building was ‘gone’ or ‘compromised’ before the exoskeletal outer sections were destroyed, just prior to them then being forcibly blown outwards as the collapse began.

“I now think the ‘key’ was ‘lesser numbers of devices’ perhaps in the realm of half a dozen or maybe up to a dozen, max, taking out the CORE of the building in the cube segments as in almost reverse of the construction of the towers, and at the same time, using conventional stuff in the exoskeletal destruction, because all it would have taken is for one of the UNCONVENTIONAL devices being obvious to the external world going off, to expose the fact that something rather heavy duty had been used.

In summary, all devices were fully independent and not interconnected in any way, but could have used their own radio frequency link due to the fact the building had it’s own natural antenna (the core ) and that could have been the way these devices all communicated to each other just before detonation and checked in with the master timing device that would have been amongst them, all saying, ‘Okay, I am ready to go’, using radio inter communications of very low R.F. power to avoid detection by any security teams in the building, in a frequency domain that normally only submarines communicate on, also would have made it feasible for synchronizing them, while at the same time, being time sync’d to WWV broadcast out of D.C. on any number of those WWV tine sync frequencies, most likely on the 10 MhZ (not kilohertz this time) band, where  WWV is broadcast on 5, 10, 15 and I think still on 20 MhZ from Boulder and Bethesda

So, that’s my ‘behind the scenes’ assessment about how they did this, using NEUTRON devices to destroy the building in CUBES versus FLOORS, and blowing the exoskeletal structures outward using R D X and thermitic devices solely.”

Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle

 
NOTE:  The following email exchange took place 25-27 October 2012, which was initially precipitated by my posting this and inviting comments:

“Barometric bombs from Iran Contra to 9/11″
http://1776nation.ning.com/video/barometric-bombs-from-iran-contra-to-9-11

 
The discussion that followed seems to complement previous exchanges about  this crucial subject, which leads me to post it here for consideration. The final comment by Jeff Prager was taken from a related email thread and integrated here, because it fits very nicely into the ongoing discussion.

CLARE KUEHN:

… it relies on a cloud of chemicals and is energized with a specific high voltage power, so that there’s a “step” in the cloud … hydrodynamic generation … then this is further energized and turns the pillar to dust — not a directed EMF weapon BEAM but would contribute most of Wood’s comments accurately. (note!)
Maybe they used both that and a mini-nuke or two.
This doesn’t have to be linked with the nanothermite idea of Jones, but it might give several kinds of similar things.

 
JEFF PRAGER:

A barometric bomb is as outlandish as thermite; more so. It requires aerosol dispersal of an incendiary and/or explosive throughout the building and this type of weapon is ONLY used on large, empty structures. Walls, floors, doors and general office construction prevents effective aerosol dispersal within a building. Study the mechanics of these various devices and then study nuclear physics. One conclusion – 9/11 was an advanced nuclear event.

CLARE KUEHN:

 
There is some suggestion that parts of the buildings were left floorless. Now, two possibilities come to mind: 1. the indications are due to pre-demo on some floors (there is a photo of Gelitin B where there are wrong floorings and ceilings are too high), and it couldn’t have been used; 2. it really was like that in parts of the tower: a man named Tom Della-Latta (actually, my friend!) was a youth whose father worked on the towers, was invited for a family viewing “behind the scenes” and he said he’ll never forget looking up into the darkness in one of the finished towers, seeing only girders several floors up.

If this was the case partway up it’s structurally fine: the girders would be the support with the walls and central columns, and several floors could be left without floor pans, and only internal support beams to connect and buttress — like internal buttresses. Tinker-toy, upon which some areas were given flooring as well, and the lower levels particularly. Not impossible at all physically (not that it was done, necessarily).

 
The human element is: would the workers have minded? — well, the unions for construction workers were heavily arranged by the mob in NYC at the time.

Companies? Well, with the segmented elevators and lock-down of certain floors, as far as other companies were concerned, whereby they couldn’t just go to any floor, it’s not impossible.

Custodians? Being let in on only certain floors, assuming others were looking after the other floors, or being in on the secret and paid off, it’s not impossible.

Company records? Almost all the records are weird: companies whose tenancies leave large gaps in occupancy over many floors, companies which are tied to mil-ind. complex, banking, etc., companies whose tenancies were supposed to be occupying during periods when according to other records there was nobody.

Not that it happened, but Tom says he’ll never forget his shock. Looking wayyy up and seeing no ceilings.

If it was the case, then it wasn’t fully hollow towers, but it may have been partly. The sunlight coming through the buildings in 2 photos is explicable as unfinished walls inside the floors (quite normal) but the ANGLE of the sunlight, i.e., that the sunlight and camera angle are seemingly unaffected by perspective, as if the sun were streaming THROUGH floors which should have been finished, is not normal for a building with floors. Unless the photos were taken so far away that all angles are minimized and thus they’re so telephoto that you’d think there were no floors when there are. But I’ve watched buildings go up; even when they are unfinished, there is dimming wherever there are floors in, where the sunlight vs. point of viewing overlaps in perspective, even from far away.

And again, what about what Tom remembers? He mentioned it when I told him of the “crazy idea” of hollow-portion towers. He reminded me he’d been on that tour (I’d forgotten he’d been there at that point in our friendship), and said, “I saw that” and told me the rest. He said (as did I) maybe it was some unfinished area, but this was a month or weeks before opening of the 1st tower to open. He said it was not the basement, because they’d travelled up. He said he didn’t know if it was the big area of the generators/ac in the upper middle, but he didn’t think so because it didn’t have equipment.

And I’m fully aware that the people promoting this idea, as is usual, over-do their conclusions (they think there was no need for much debris and the dustification was bogus somehow), because they were upset with Wood’s point — no, it wasn’t Prager and Fox who first made the dustification a big deal to notice; it was Wood, like it or lump it. And that they are aggressive and nutty personally to deal with. But the issue is under attended, under noticed … it must be fully handled and explained (pro, con, or partly right and assimilated).

DON FOX:

Ed Ward and I were on Kevin Barrett’s radio show Friday ["Were the Twin Towers nuked?", American Freedom Radio, 26 October 2012] talking about how mini-nukes were used at the WTC. Check out Ed’s blog: http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/ and mine  for more info.

I was talking to Jeff a couple of weeks ago and we both agreed that it was most likely that they used neutron bombs to destroy the WTC buildings. Ed states this as well and I have heard Chuck interviewed on Jim’s show and he also believes it was neutron bombs. So what makes neutron bombs the most likely candidate? A neutron bomb is basically a hydrogen bomb without a uranium case. I think they use chromium or nickel instead so that neutrons can escape the bomb and radiate the targeted area. More energy is released as radiation than blast.

Cohen states that the intended use for the neutron bomb was to detonate it a mile up and in a battlefield area. A 1 kiloton device would fry most of the soldiers within 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile radius. Most structures would be unharmed in this scenario which is why the neutron bomb has been described as a weapon that kills people but spares buildings. There is no lingering radioactivity so the area will be inhabitable almost immediately after the blast is over. There is a blast of radiation then that’s pretty much it.

The bomb does have blast effects but they are much less than a fission bomb or a regular hydrogen bomb. So let’s modify the scenario by using low-yield mini-neutron bombs and place them inside the core columns of giant skyscrapers. These mini-nukes do have blast effects but it’s going to be minimized as the yield is lower. So the hypocenter of the blast is going to vaporize the core of the buildings and turn most of the rest of the material into small particles of dust that covers Lower Manhattan in a pyroclastic dust cloud. Which is what is observed. Large chunks of WTC 1 and 2 are ejected into nearby buildings. But all of the nearby buildings are still standing. They are not flattened by the mini-neutron bombs. The low-yield weapons and limited blast of the neutron bombs localize the effects. This is counter-intuitive to most people. When they think of nukes they envision whole cities getting flattened. Flattening whole cities isn’t usually the goal (especially in a black op). That’s why smaller weapons have greater military application.

To sum up the WTC1 and 2 operation: a series of shape charged mini-neutron bombs are detonated from the top of the buildings to the bottom to simulate a free fall collapse. Material is ejected upward and outward due to the shaping of the mini-nuke charges. Two giant 110 floor 500,000 ton skyscrapers are destroyed in 9 and 11 seconds respectively. Cement and steel are turned into very small particles while paper blows down the street. Why didn’t the paper catch on fire? First it’s hard to light a piece of paper on fire in a wind tunnel. Second the paper’s high tensile strength to weight ratio allowed the lightweight paper to blow away in the blast wave while the heavier material was vaporized. Paper has give to it. (Watch the first 911 Eyewitness clip posted on my blog for the paper/powder theory.) Why was there no flash? When small bombs are detonated inside of giant skyscrapers the flash is hidden from view. When it’s over nuclear fissile material is leftover and it reacts for months creating 1,500 °F ground temperatures (China Syndrome). Hundreds of dump trucks of dirt are required to be hauled in and out to clean up the mess. The USGS collects dust samples that show elevated levels of uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium and chromium which indicates fission has taken place. The DOE collects water samples that have elevated levels of tritium, which indicates fusion has taken place. So a fission triggered fusion bomb such as a neutron bomb would explain the USGS and DOE samples quite nicely. So we have a text book case of nukes being used but the manner they were deployed in is so far from what the average person suspects that it takes years for the mini-nuke theory to gain prominence.

So why are people like Steve Jones and Judy Wood denying nukes then?

Let’s start with Jones. Why would a nuclear physicist be pushing the nanothermite theory and denying nukes? A fair question. You would have to ask Jones what his motives are in covering up nukes but I’ll throw this out there: neutron bombs have always been controversial, even in the military establishment. “The idea of the neutron warhead has been hotly debated since its inception. At the time of its introduction, some felt that its relatively small initial blast and fallout was ideal for use in densely populated areas, like Europe.”

And from financialsensearchive.com:

The invention achieved the objective – to make a nuclear weapon that was tactically useful in the sense of not destroying the country in the process. But, it was quickly squelched by the various interests that concluded that such a device would only make nuclear war more likely. The neutron bomb was, in effect, banned because it destroyed the sharp distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons by minimizing the fission blast and radiation by-products.
 
Life was breathed back into the concept in the 1970s in an effort to improve NATO defenses by producing a weapon that directly challenged the immense Soviet strength – its tanks and armies. But, it did so without the massive physical damage usually associated with a nuclear weapon. Several hundred of the neutron bomb warheads were actually produced and stockpiled during the Reagan Administration. This new lease on life, however, soon came to an end. Following the first Persian Gulf War, President Bush at General Powell’s recommendation directed that all the tactical weapons be destroyed. ”

So if it ever came out that neutron bombs were used on civilians in a false flag attack there would be a lot of controversy behind the scenes in the military-industrial complex believe it or not. Steve Jones true audience may be the good people in the military establishment who would freak out at the use of tactical nuclear weapons on civilians. He’s probably not trying to convince the average Joe Blow on the street that thermite destroyed these giant skyscrapers. He’s merely trying to keep a lid on the use of nukes. This is classic CYA; he’s covering the assess of his buddies at the nuke labs. Nobody wants to get their government funding cut. Or worse yet go to jail.

What about Judy Wood then? She denies nukes at every turn same as Jones does. I think her audience is researchers and academic types who don’t buy the official story but are not familiar with the capabilities of mini-nukes. Publicly she states that she has no theory and her definition of a directed energy weapon (DEW) is merely “the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed.” Mini-neutron bomb shaped charges fit that definition to a T. But Judy tries hard to persuade people that Hutchison/Tesla technology is the culprit and not nuclear bombs. Judy also proclaims that there is no need for a new 9/11 investigation because she has already done it. If you want to learn more about 9/11 then follow all of John Hutchison’s work in his lab. That will tell you all you need to know if you are still curious. So the Judy Wood bottom line is: no nukes on 9/11, no new investigation is needed and follow John Hutchison’s BS on YouTube or whatever. Don’t look at what’s going on at Los Alamos, Sandia, Lawrence Livermore or Oak Ridge. This is a recipe for going nowhere. She is a gatekeeper and nothing more. The efforts of her crew are coordinated so it appears Judy Wood is an intelligence operative.

Since I have come out publicly supporting the mini-nuke theory I’ve gotten harassing and intimidating emails from Thomas Potter and Emmanuel Goldstein (members of the Judy Wood crew) and Fetzer and I have both seen the nasty comments on Amazon.com from her crew as well. They appear to have a list of folks like me who they go after. Anyone who advocates or even  entertains the mini-nuke hypothesis will likely hear from the likes of Potter and Goldstein. When you are over the target you will get some flack.

Jim Fetzer has tasked those of us who spoke at Vancouver with finding out as much as possible about the 9/11 operation. Just saying that the government’s account is false is not enough. We can do better than that and I believe we have. A close look at 9/11 reveals that a loved by some and reviled by others weapon, the neutron bomb, is at the heart of the destruction. Nanothermite couldn’t possibly have destroyed the WTC and Judy Wood offers no real theory. The only weapon that fits all of the evidence is the shaped-charge mini-neutron bomb.

CLARE KUEHN:

I repeat for you: Wood’s mind-set (aggressive and self-pitying though it be), is stuck on the evidence of EMF effects. Barometric-Neutron bombs would have such effects the way she suggests; as would SOME of the effects from mini-fissionless fusion.

The issue with the paper (fused but unburnt and with print still on, in the meteorite or similar agglomerated debris), and the fact that these bombs might in fact give off some of the weird EMF she noticed, for example, deserves further discussion.

Being stuck on seeing an (possibly) airy-fairy version of the EMF effects does not make one a deliberate disinfo person. In fact, one can see her emphasize things you people would only have majorly noticed — probably — such as the ongoing dustification IN MID-AIR of spires, with no heat-melt effects or flashes, if she had not pointed them out.

In doing so, she’s been emphasizing her stuff so long that though she’s always HAD room for nuclear EFFECTS, the regular bomb nuke idea, which was around when she started, DESERVED ridicule, and she’s GOTTEN STUCK IN DEFENSIVENESS. ——- Who hasn’t run into THAT elsewhere? HA HA ha.

Jones is a different kettle of fish. His denial of nukes is as bad as his effective denial (sidelining) of nuclear cold fusion — in its original form, from EMF alone.

JEFF PRAGER:

I would add, Dr Stephen Jones worked in muon catalyzed fusion using deuterium, lithium deuteride, uranium and other similar fusion and fission related elements, for years, for the Department of Energy, who is the sole controller of everything nuclear in the United States. These are, very specifically, the elements that would be used in the type of device we’re discussing. Don, I would also incorporate Dr. Busby’s material, my email with him, into your essays for academic support. He’s well known and well thought of. I would not add that The DOE is an old client of mine. Heidi Fox was their purchasing manager and we were great friends. She made enormous purchases that gave me massive commissions. She was in DC and I worked in Phoenix and inherited the DOE client and what a client it was. Her 4 or 5 yearly purchases provided a middle class income by themselves. This was the early 90s. I sold commercial grade hospital disinfectants and microbe and bacteria based cleaners.

CLARE KUEHN:

Absolutely. I was not meaning to “leave out” Jones’ massive nuclear credentials. I was emphasizing the difference with Wood.

JEFF PRAGER:

Wrong. I listened to a 2-hour radio broadcast with Diana Spingola, Dr. Wood and Andrew. The broadcast was about me and my 636 page, 167.8 MB eMagazine on 911 titled, “America Was Nuked” which, with 636 pages, obviously goes into great detail re: Jones, Wood and others as well as thoroughly covering the fusion/fission aspects of 911. I did not bash Dr. Wood in the book in the least though I absolutely crucified Dr. Jones.

Wood lied publicly and ridiculed the book from cover to cover during that radio broadcast yet failed to mention any physics and chemistry analysis which the book is based on; the 22 page physics, chemistry and mathematical analysis is the foundation for the book. I engaged in a brief email dialogue with Dr. Wood after that. It was akin to speaking to a Kellogg’s Corn Flakes box. Jones, I would suspect, isn’t much different. He’s never responded to me at all. A dozen professional emails and several attempts to contact him by phone. He knows better than to talk to me and Wood does too. I can discuss these elements intimately and know the data by heart unlike most everyone else.

THERE IS simply no scientific explanation for not just failing to discuss but avoiding at all costs, the USGS data, which proves beyond any doubt, but only when, the dozens of elements are correlated and examined TOGETHER, as they increase and decrease predictably across dozens of sample locations, that a fission event occurred. We use the word predictably for a reason. The decay paths are apparent in the elemental analysis. They’re difficult to see and require advanced chemistry and mathematics analysis to secure valid data but the data is there. Surely ternary fission occurred, a relatively unusual form of fission and possibly quaternary fission, an even more rarely seen form of fission. Albeit each explosion was a very minor fission event which, again, speaks of the very small ‘apple sized’ neutron bomb Dr. Busby discussed and which might in its third or fourth or fifth or who knows what generation, use a very small amount of uranium.

ANYONE AT ALL that understands the elements, like both Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood, and refuses to discuss them publicly is hiding the truth. The reason, for me, is immaterial. I abhor liars and thieves (that profit from theft in case anyone wants to bring up my books which don’t always have citations, but they’re all free and I’m also opposed to copyright laws). Murderers and rapists are right up there too. How many men and women were murdered and raped during war in Iraq and also in the US military; they have a huge rape problem? Rape incidence is extraordinary in the US military. How many homes in Iraq were plundered during the Iraq war (too many other wars to mention frankly)?

ANYONE AT ALL that hides the nuclear aspect of 911 has no legal, ethical or moral ground to support that stance. Gaining public acceptance of a lie across an entire country, and in Jones’   case an entire planet, is contemptible and criminal as well. Exposure to radiation is horrid and odious. The health effects are forever unknown and any illness can be directly related – even odd illnesses like a gastrointestinal problem 15 years later.


YouTube - Veterans Today -

I wrote a book, a 708 page book titled “Ionizing Radiation 911″ and I sent letters of request to the Japanese and Russian governments for medical data on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Chernobyl. I received quite a bit of bound material. The investigations are ongoing with new data obtained every year because exposures like this have life-long effects that we’re just now becoming familiar with and just slightly at that.

We do know that very low level radiation actually has a greater or more magnified effect on human health and that a single sub-micron radioactive particle within a living being emits radiation for the living beings life and causes irreparable damage and eventually an earlier than would be expected death. As for low level exposure, lifetime extremely low level exposure has a far greater impact on human health than one large survivable exposure such as that experienced by what are called the “Nuclear Veterans”. For example, living within 20 miles of a nuclear power plant may actually have a greater population wide measurable effect than, again as a rough example, people exposed to a high but one-time and short-lived exposure that, let’s suggest, were maybe 3-10 miles from ground zero Nagasaki or Hiroshima. It’s difficult to be exact with this material because, as I said, the medical data is still being collected today although, as with everything, as recently as 2008 staffing was cut dramatically in both Japan and Russia to monitor and compile records on humans exposed during these events. Medical investigation is ongoing, but monumentally slow.

Exposure to radioactivity does not only cause cancer. It causes neurological, gastrointestinal, lymphatic and ALL-SYSTEM damage. Exposure for a certain time level and dose causes cataracts. This is what we’re learning and have learned. We see a complete variety of almost every disease known to man with exposure to radiation. Different exposure types, times and amounts of exposure dictate response, to some degree, but not a degree that’s confidently predictable.

Honestly, I’m a high school and then college drop-out although I did manage to do well financially throughout my life. That I’m retired and have a great deal of time to study these issues helps immensely. BUT people of Dr. Wood and Dr. Jones’ caliber, with knowledge of physics, chemistry and the elements on the periodic table, with an understanding of science having spent entire lifetimes and full careers intimately involved in it, can only be seen as purposefully obfuscating the truth. There is no excuse.

Clare wants to think Dr. Wood is ignorant. She is not. Contact her. Ask to discuss my 22 pages titled, “19-42″ which I’ve linked in these emails repeatedly. She will not. Dr. Jones won’t either. One cannot, as a scientist, publicly make an ass of oneself and a public debate on those pages with me, or anyone else with a full understanding of the material in them, would crucify either of them and they know it. I do this full-time, or did until mid-2012 when I figured out more than enough and I spend my time now publishing a weekly eMagazine titled, “Globalism” which is about Class Warfare. I write something about 9/11 in most issues.

CLARE KUEHN:

Of course she ridicules you. She thinks somehow you took her images (she’s fanatic and unreasonable about images, even when they’re in the public domain). She also thinks you’re overweening — she’s not into nukes; she’s set on the EMF.

JEFF PRAGER:

The USGS study was primarily based on examining the dust for asbestos, chrysolites. It was not a physics study but a chemistry study that did also employ physics on a very limited basis. The objective was to determine chrysolite content in the atmosphere via the dust. The samples were taken with nitrile gloved hands and placed into a bag and then into another bag. I have full confidence in the USGS data because it would, and did, take several physicists many months to dissect and analyze the data and correlate the 2 dozen+ elements  across 14 sample locations to both see and prove fission.

Proving fission, ternary fission at that with the possibility of quaternary fission with the USGS data was not easy nor did anyone think to use the data for a number of years. The USGS data was collected by chemists, not physicists. I spoke with 3 of the chemists at the USGS who participated in the study, the three top people. I’ve spoken to one of them 3 times. I was asked what the daughter products of strontium are because these are chemists, not physicists, and they never would have seen fission in the data.

However, I do want to state, ANY physicist working intimately with current explosive nuclear devices could look at the USGS Chemistry Table 1 data and see fission in an instant. There are, perhaps, 100-200 people on earth, if that, because I’m being generous, with the skill set required to see fission instantly in the data. Dr. Jones is one of them.

Dr. Jones’ samples were acquired, handled and used in such a way that anyone, including Dr. Jones himself, could have tampered with those samples and as I’ve stated previously, no true scientist in his right mind would use them, yet Jones did.

The USGS does not claim to have found no thermite. That’s my claim. The USGS used all of the same methods of analysis Jones used and them some. They took far more sub-micron images than Jones supplied in his Bentham Open essay and their dust analysis is far more complex and infinitely more thorough than that of Jones. My examination of the USGS dust samples and the examination of those same samples by both physicists and chemists indicates no evidence of conventional explosives, thermite or nano-chemical explosives or any type of incendiary residues and they would be there if they were used.

The USGS analysis included: scanning electron microscopy (SEM) at USGS and Delta Group, scanning transmission ion microscopy (STIM) at USGS and Delta Group, high temporal resolution aerosol mass profiles (Mass STIM), (in vacuum) AT the Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory proton elastic scattering analysis (PESA) (in vacuum) at LLNL, Na-U, synchrotron x-ray fluorescence (in vacuum) (S-XRF) and digital Si (Li) analysis at Advanced Light Source, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LDITOF/MS) (in vacuum) and synchrotron-induced X-Ray Fluorescence (S-XRF) at the University of California. A slightly more sophisticated analysis than Jones performed.

Now, you worked for the government and you know how these agencies work. This analysis, as you can see from the organizations involved in the paragraph above, involved 100s of people, all plodding away, doing their government jobs like they do every day. They were analyzing dust for chrysolite content for the EPA. Little did they know that their data would prove fission.

Interestingly, there is a tremendous amount of missing data in Chemistry Table 1. When I asked about the hundreds of na’s (not available) where percentages or parts per million were concerned I was told perhaps the quantity of that element at that location was too small. Based on the study and the quantities shown, that’s absurd. While my analysis of the USGS data proves unequivocally that 911 was a nuclear event, if I had all of the missing data I could narrow down the device type slightly. Probably not precisely, but much closer than I can now.

We can say, being cautious, that:

1. 911 was a nuclear event
2. Fission is proven without doubt
3. The evidence for fusion is extremely good
4. The anomalies seen suggest a fission triggered fusion device similar to the Russian RDS-220 detonated in 1961, but on a micro scale.
5. The devices used on 911 were likely neutron bombs, the most feared devices ever developed by humans on earth.


YouTube - Veterans Today -

JIM VIKEN:

It’s obvious, any reasonable person who has looked at the evidence and listened to Jeff Prager knows that he is correct in his claim that mini nukes were used.  The actual specific type is open to discussion since there are known to be a number of very small types than could have been used.  But that such demolition was nuclear based and probably involving fusion is undeniable.

Prager’s assertions of this must be considered the best interpretation and conclusion after examination of all the available evidence of the destruction of the Twin Towers.  Any other known means of destruction including particle beam (DEWS) does not have near enough power to pulverize so much concrete and steel in mere fractions of a second.

It is only the focused nuclear cracking of the forces that hold atoms together that could have released enough energy to demo the Twin Towers in the manner which occurred. Folks who are well informed about deep cover black ops like this know that numerous different aspects and layers are always included: to test new weapon systems; to throw investigators off; and to provide narratives to be later used to conceal the main thrust of the operation.

Thus it is reasonable to expect that the attack on the Twin Towers included conventional high explosives, perhaps in the basement right before the main hits of the upper floors, nano-thermate in some areas which would be visible to observers as slag coming out windows, and the use of fourth or fifth generation mini or even micro nukes at about every tenth floor, setting them off from the top down in sequence.

But for anyone to suggest that conventional high explosives or nano-thermate was in anyway a sufficient cause or the main cause or anything more than a minor part, is certainly not making sense in terms of the laws of physics and what the best existing evidence shows.

DR. ED WARD:

The WTC specimen I got from Janette MacKinley (RIP – Died of a Brain Tumor in 2010) – which disappeared after Deagle got involved and suddenly he has a sample he can’t get tested – had no red granules – everything was grey like powdered concrete. No one has been able to beat the 1 to 1 weight ratio of of the best super-duper nanothermite to steel requiring around a billion pounds of thermite required just to melt steel – let alone craters, atomization of metals, concrete, cars, fire resistant paper, a billion pounds of 1800 degree residue, tritium and more. Only the massive bombardment of neutrons can do what was done.  For more,

Understanding the Scam of ‘Thermite’ on 9 11 - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/481

The Bogus Science of ‘Explosive Super Thermite - http://rense.com/general77/geddno.htm
Davy Crockett .018 kiloton unclassified Nuclear Test Video – 17 minutes  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv_q8q6Z9_I

History Channel Molten Metal At Ground Zero – The World Trade Center, Rise and Fall of an American Icon, Richard Riggs amongst a background of nuclear devastation talks about molten metal. 42 seconds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ogrupgt4mI

Molten WTC Rock - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbMu2w7fSG8&feature=related

Molten Metals under WTC 6 weeks after 9/11 -  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmMLDG87Sak&feature=related

A nice compilation of ‘molten steel’ observations.  Excerpt from Blueprint for Truth. 8 minuteshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJSDn5dgJc&feature=related  The thermite portion is BS, “Bogus Science”, to hide the use of nukes.

The Mystery of  WTC 6 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVs4oMQEpvs&feature=related

Massive Steel ‘Spire’ Melts - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4&feature=related

Some tower and some spire. Only a nuke can melt steel like this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W0-W582fNQ

Further evidence of tremendous heat can be seen in this 8 ton 6″ thick I-beam that is bent like a horseshoe without warping, kinking or splitting.  http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/horseshoe.htm

For the referenced facts see what’s been being hidden by most ‘truth’ organizations for 6 years, see:

Bombs in the WTC Proves Nothing to Racist-Fascist Bigots http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/08/21/ward.htm

US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs http://www.serendipity.li/wot/ed_ward/use_of_abombs.htm

Update: The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs – Domestic – WTC http://www.usavsus.info/WTC-MoreEvidence.htm

Update: Proven 9/11 Nukes = US Government Involvement http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/proven-9-11-nukes-us-government-involvement/

 

Dennis Cimino, A.A., EE; spent 35-years EMI/EMC testing, field engineering; FDR testing and certifications specialist; Navy Combat Systems Specialist; 2,000 hours, Pilot in Command, Commercial Instrument Single and Multi-Engine Land Pilot, Eastern Airlines 727-200, Second Officer.

Donald Fox has done extensive research on the role of mini-nukes by Dr. Ed Ward and on work by The Anonymous Physicist on the towers and has formulated an account of how it was done and why there is more to this story relative to very low-yield thermonuclear devices.

Clare Kuehn, a University of Toronto graduate in history and student of philosophy, mathematics and the arts, discussed Judy Wood, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, and presented evidence for “Directional Free or ‘Low-Input’ Energy Weapons” during The Vancouver Hearings.

Jeff Prager, founder of an award winning magazine for Senior Citizens, in 2002 he tried to prove 19 Muslims hijacked four planes and attacked us. By 2005, he realized this was false, sold his business, left the US and began to investigate 9/11 full-time. See 9/11 America Nuked.

Jim VikenPh.D., a Social Psychologist, Psychologist Emeritus, and retired former Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist, who has become an expert in psyops and covert operations and made many appearances on “The Real Deal” archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.

Ed Ward, M.D.,  among the leading experts on the use of nukes on 9/11, maintains an extensive archive about them at his “Weblog of Tyranny”, http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/, and has also appeared as a guest on “The Real Deal”, which you can hear at 

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, is the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, edited its first book, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), organized its first conference, “The Science and Politics of 9/11″ (Madison) and co-organized “The Vancouver Hearings”.

Bookmark and Share

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=227441

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners and technicians. Legal Notice

Education
Get Your Loan Now
Get Your Loan Now
Get Your Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now
Apply for Jobs on HireVeterans.com Now
Austins School of Spa Technology
ME Online
slow aging
What Price Gold
Posted by on Oct 29 2012, With 0 Reads, Filed under 9/11, Editor. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

COMMENTS

To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.
Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback

Comments Closed

86 Comments for “Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle”

  1. All of this stuff is well and good, it does make for good reading. However there is something that none dare to answer, and when some try they are attacked with a fury akin to a pack of wild Dingos.

    It’s the concrete core of the twins. Many refuse to accept the real design of the Towers, it’s why you have limitless theory as to the how aspect of the event. Like Nukes, or DEW, or any of countless others.

    It’s why when one looks for material related to their construction they come up empty. I’m sure evidence is available but only to attics, or buried in some second hand books stores, or book brokers of old mags and the like.

    Here is an old piece sent to me by a friend long ago, I’ve kept as a reminded of how far some will go to mislead the good in people.

    Quote:
    “Beyond the reaction that any citizen has—the sadness that we all feel—you have to understand, I worked long hours, seven days a week on this project back when I was young and energetic,” says the 73-year-old, his voice breaking with emotion. “It was just terrible to watch, painful and horrible.”

    Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

    Source:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20040807085840/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/

    This trumps anything said by anyone when it comes to theory of any kind because said theory is based on false information.

    Anyway..

    Raptor

  2. Dimitri Khalezov is wrong and right.

    He’s wrong on the type of nuclear devices, thinking plans from Soviet days took effect in 2001. Your article nails the devices. The perps had better tech by 2001.

    Khalezov is still “right” in showing how “nuclear demolition” was always in the cards. A corroborating witness to built-in demolition concepts worked the WTC project, Paul Laffoley.

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/12754

  3. I looked at the various links given here and I noticed that Dr. Wood has impressive credentials, yet her work here seems to be discredited. Perhaps she is on to something. Energy weapons do exist and the way in which those towers were destroyed (and even damage to some of the other near by buildings) is very odd. It seems worthwhile to check out her work and to explore this further.

    • Copy/pasted from 9/11 ILLUSIONS PAGE:

      Does the following look familiar?? Judy Wood had intentionally dropped an N (Nuclear) before her DEW:

      A COMPLETE (or PARTIAL) LIST OF U.S. WEAPONS USED ON 9/11 in New York, USA:
      Copy-pasted from your Vancouver hearings:

      Micro Nukes took down the Towers on 911 Pt. 1
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvnLag-Umss

      above clip shows a glimpse of this DOE 2001 release:

      RESTRICTED DATA DECLASSIFICATION DECISIONS
      1946 TO THE PRESENT
      (RDD-7) January 1, 2001
      U.S. Department of Energy
      Office of Declassification
      NOTICE
      “rdd-9 January 1, 2001″
      http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/rdd-7.html
      With this sub-part which has the five subdivisions:
      E. RELATED DEVELOPMENTS
      1- Enhanced Radiation Weapons (ERW)
      2- Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) Weapons
      3- Nuclear Directed Energy Weapons (NDEW)
      4- Nuclear Directed Energy Systems (NDES)
      5- Radiological Warfare

    • Egad! Read “Judy Wood and DEWs: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly!” I featured her on my shows 15 times beginning in later 2006. I gave her three hour to speak in Madison in 2007. I published a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007). I posted a 5-star review of her book on amazon.com. I even invited her to speak in Vancouver. Now read my article about her.

    • Tommy

      You must be new here.

      Fetzer and Co. love nothing more than discrediting Ms Wood and anyone who dares to question the direction they wish the investigation to follow.

      Find interviews with Wood, Johnson and Fetzer. Study the body language of each. Draw your own conclusions.

      Then consider the implications of Free Energy Technology being available to all.

      Ms Wood has supplied all the evidence necessary for a real inquiry. For that she should be applauded, not disparaged.

      But what would I know ? I am, no doubt, a zealous cultist.

      • I’m all for free energy and I did more to publicize her work than anyone else in the world in the years between 2006 and the publication of her book. Why would I have interviewed her 15 times, published a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), feature her as a speaker FOR THREE HOURS during the Madison conference, published a 5-star review of her book and even invited her to speak in Vancouver THIS YEAR if I were TRYING TO SUPPRESS HER WORK? Some people here are completely incompetent at thinking things through. There is no excuse for this level of stupidity.

  4. Dr. Fetzer,
    I just wanted to say that this is the best 9/11 article yet. The first part concisely sums up each of the theories about how 9/11 was done, so that we could move on to the red meat, some excellent stuff from the panel, and then comments by Dennis Cimino. Good job! Please continue. A few members of the public who commented here, still seem to think the “how” doesn’t matter. But it matters plenty, and most of all it matters to the people who were in New York on 9/11, who inhaled radioactive air. They need to know exactly what kinds of disease they will face in the future, and how soon.

    Has anyone plotted the deaths and illnesses on a map that shows where people were that day? I think it would be instructional to do so, and have a little slide show, with maps over time. I would think it should show a a pattern of deaths and illness rippling outward from the Twin Towers, like the ripples from a stone tossed into a pond. The same kind of map could be done for the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah federal building.

    • JS,

      You’re absolutely right that it matters how it was done. The people that had to clean up Ground Zero without the proper equipment got exposed to massive amounts of radiation and they deserve to know what was done to them.

      I think this was by far the best 9/11 article I have contributed to. We’re glad you enjoyed it. We’ve got some more stuff on tap that will knock your socks off so stay tuned!

      • Thanks, Don. I hope the discussion will include HAARPstorm Sandy. Perhaps you guys can help me decide whether part of Sandy’s job was to obliterate evidence of 9/11, to wash away contamination, or to further contaminate the area in order to dilute evidence of 9/11, or all three of those.

        • JS, most interesting! I just published a piece about Sandy, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/01/hurricane-sandy-vs-elections-rigged-for-romney/ but the 9/11 angle did not cross my mind. That is very, very interesting. You just might be right about this.

          • Dr. Fetzer, it gets worse. The very name SANDY means 9/11, in the same way that the name of Hurricane IKE meant 9/11. The psychos who create and direct these storms are laughing at us. What am I talking about, you ask? Prior to IKE’s arrival in Sept. 2008 in his own hometown of Houston, Captain May wrote an article about Occult IKE, which is worth re-reading now. He knew IN ADVANCE that it would be bad, based on the name IKE. Using a simple code that substitutes numbers 1-26 for letters A-Z, the first 2 letters of IKE are 9 11 (911). It doesn’t get any more in-your-face than that. Doing the same thing for the name SANDY, you get 19 1 (191 is a variation of 911, as it uses the same digits). For those who work with probabilities, please figure out the odds of that!

            If Captain May were writing, he would have pointed this out even before Sandy arrived.

          • Capt. May’s Occult IKE article is copied all over, but it’s best to read the original in his archives at America First Books. URL of the article is http://tinyurl.com/6jv93t. Article is “Occult IKE—Geo-War 9/11″ by Captain Eric H. May, Military-Political Editor, The Lone Star Iconoclast, September 7, 2008. Thanks to Maj. William B. Fox for archiving Captain May’s articles. Most of the links in the article still work, and I recommend checking them out also.

        • HAARP given, or God given, Sandy’s massive nuclear decontamination wasn’t just of Ground Zero but of the entire Manhattan!!!.

  5. October 27, 2012 – Kevin Barrett talks to Ed Ward about small nuclear demolitions devices used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings in New York City on September 11, 2001
    http://www.eddieleaks.com/mp3/20121026-kevin-barrett-ed-ward.mp3

    ###

    October 27, 2012 – Kevin Barrett talks to Donald Fox about nuclear demolitions devices used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings in New York City on September 11, 2001
    http://www.eddieleaks.com/mp3/20121026-kevin-barrett-donald-fox.mp3

  6. “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.”

    The last is not possible – this needs correction.

    • No, this is complex stuff and not everyone knows everything, especially me. I’ve been questioned on this very paragraph before.

      First, the standard short method of showing the decay path is as follows: U238 -> Th234 + He4 + 4.267 MeV. This shows Helium 4 or more typically written 4He. But it omits a lesser known pathway that does, in fact, produce lithium as follows:

      The daughter isotopes of 6He (helium) are the stable isotopes, 4He (helium), 2H (deuterium) and LI6 (lithium).
      The daughter isotopes of 8He (helium) are the unstable isotopes, 5He (helium), 3H (tritium) and 7Li and 8Li (both lithium).

      These are not common decay paths but they are the accurate decay paths nevertheless.

      Lithium does follow in the decay pathway although it’s a lesser known pathway. This has to do with the different types of fission, binary, ternary, quaternary and, unfortunately, etc. We just don’t have the isotopes, which is a shame, but Jim, I’m certain someone does and someday they will be known.

      Peace,

      Jeff

  7. Not to be unkind, but this is the stupidest comment yet. As though explaining the gross observable evidence, the time of their destruction, the effects that were observed, the contents of dust samples collected by the US Geological Survey, and the cancer epidemic of first responders were not proof! The man must be illiterate.

  8. @ Mr. Fetzer, Mr. Johnson, as well as others : Thanks, we will check out the posted links as well for additional understanding. It would be nice to know the truth about this event. There seems to be a lot of information available.

  9. The top 30 floors of the South Tower tilted over as one, which would have increased the area of potential damage beneath it. And so explosions within that section would have ejected material in an angular trajectory, one would imagine, increasing the area of potential damage even further.

    But it just dissolved into the ether. Is this relevant ?

  10. “Don’t look at what’s going on at Los Alamos, Sandia, Lawrence Livermore or Oak Ridge. This is a recipe for going nowhere. She is a gatekeeper and nothing more. The efforts of her crew are coordinated so it appears Judy Wood is an intelligence operative”

    Oh dear, dear dear – yet another site posting absolute nonsense with absolutely zero evidence to back up what it is saying. Heck, the people credited haven’t even read or listened to my free ebook

    http://tinyurl.com/911ftb

    It pretty much covers everything this article attempts to muddle up, confuse and distract from. It also mentions Los Alamos and folks like John Alexander – who visited John “BS” (lol) Hutchison in 1983. So, let’s reminded ourselves of what was posted in late 2007:

    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ

    We know that hot nukes didn’t do it – all covered in my ebook and Dr Judy’s book. So, now a new invention to stir people up with “mini neutron bombs”. What silliness. If you look at the research on the original neutron bomb/dirty bomb technology you’d find what a ridiculous idea that was too – it was just something for the press of the time to get in a flap about.

    So, I award this article 1/10 – but that was because I saw the photos.

    It’s a team effort I see… how interesting…

    • Three references to understand where Judy Wood zealots like Andrew are coming from:

      (1) “A Photographic Portfolio of Death and Devastation” (by Jack White)
      http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/911-photographic-portfolio-of-death-and.html

      (2) James H. Fetzer, Review of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? (with more than 1,000 comments)
      http://www.amazon.com/review/RC0R225GYLP3J?cdPage=18

      (3) “Judy Wood and DEWs: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” (with Don Fox)
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/20/judy-wood-and-dews-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

      If I hadn’t lived through all of this, I would find it difficult to believe myself. This is a cult.

    • The DEW crowd proclaims that there was no high heat at the WTC. Which is a complete load of BS. SIX MONTHS after 9/11 the GROUND temp was still 1,500 °F:

      Not only was this laborious for the firefighters, but the working conditions were hellish, said Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. of Norwalk, Conn.

      For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.

      ‘In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,’ Fuchek said.

      What type of a fire burns underground for 6 months Andrew? That’s right FISSION. Nothing else can explain it. Sounds like a hot nuke to me.

      Please address the EVIDENCE for FISSION found the USGS dust samples. While you are at it address the evidence for FUSION in the DOE report.

      Explain how a 300 TON chunk of the North Tower is ejected up at a 45° angle and out 600 feet into the Winter Garden? These buildings didn’t just turn into dust. They exploded from the top down, inside out and in every direction. Extremely powerful explosives were needed to achive this. Nuclear explosives.

      Andrew: You and Judy and your crew know where my brother and I work. Who do you work for? Are you now or have you ever been a contract agent for the Central Intelligence Agency? Mossad? MI6?

  11. I was talking to someone the other day and for some reason the events of 9/11 came up and they told me that the buildings were brought down by the impact and fuel of the planes – they have seen documentaries about it on a cable TV network partly owned by Murdoch’s News Limited so it must be true.

    Dick Cheney was in charge of NORAD and NORAD has the ability to take over the flying of individual commercial planes and fly them. MOSSAD just had to put some explosives in some Jewish owned buildings which could not have been that hard to do especially with the owners permission. Israel had to pay some Saudis to hijack the planes and get the pilots out of the cockpits once the planes were on autopilot – NORAD did all the rest of the flying.

    Some things are just very easy to work out.

    By the way I love the way that Americans look at the JFK assassinations and they always fail to notice that the security on JFK’s vehicle had been stood down – there should have been about six security guys walking closely to different parts of the car but they had been stood down prior to the shooting.

    Also, if someone was shooting at the vehicle you were in and you were a woman in your mid thirties wearing a nice fashionable dress with high heels, would you climb over the back of the car and help some tough highly trained and very fit security guy to get into the car?? Jackie Kennedy did!

    • I assume the first paragraph is a joke about the gullibility of the public. See, for example, “20 reasons the ‘official account’ of 9/11 is wrong”. Surely you know more than to buy nonsense about the planes and such, when the situation is far more complicated. See, for example, “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery’” or “Fraud and Fakery in the ‘official account’ of 9/11″. None of this is “very easy to work out”. I am having a hard time taking you seriously.

      Your remarks about JFK are similarly ill-founded. I have explained a thousand times that we have more than 15 indications of the Secret Service setting him up for the hit. See, for example, “What happened to JFK–and why it matters today”. You are also wrong about Jackie. She was reaching for a chunk of JFK’s skull and brains, not assisting Clint Hill. See, for example, “Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?” You have a lot to learn about both.

  12. Not that I am overly religious, but it also seems odd to blame Isreal. I would think it more logical to blame the Catholic Church since their mission is to dominate the world. They let others do the dirty work for them (it seems). That church murdered millions of people and sadly still does under various disguises.

  13. This article gives some useful information, but it looks like alot of cutting and pasting of emails together which makes it hard to follow.
    Good blog though and there should be a voting button for the other theories. Bombs would have blown up the people that survived so that seems unlikely to me. Try to be less harsh on the other writers, they seem to be working towards the solution.

  14. All weapons, from dynamite to thermite to “directed energy” beams to hydrogen bombs to micro nukes and everything else, release their energy in distinct frequency distributions, their spectra, which determine what materials will be destroyed and how effectively.

    From my limited knowledge of the energy / frequency distributions of various weapons, I think your neutron bomb hypothesis is getting VERY warm. Neutron bombs are known to have a spectral distributions which are very harmful to life forms and steel girders, but almost irrelevant to things like paper and wallboard which require much lower frequencies for destruction.

    I think you’re closing in fast, on this one. Well done.

  15. Excellent article , great work , keep it up , more and more are getting awoken!

    Jim,

    Khaled Odtllah, 31; Sakhera Hammad, 24; and Mohammed Fares, Mostafa Said Abou-Shahin and Abdelmuhsen Mahmid Hammad

    I believe these are the men that planted what need to be planted for the demolitions to occur,

    Find these men and you have found the perps, of course our justice system shipped them back to where they came from and they are probably pushing up daisies by now or living with alternate identities.

    The article was removed but thanks to the wayback machine still survives,

    see here

    http://web.archive.org/web/20020216133444/http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20020212_991.html

    The gomemphis.com article that was from march 6th 2002 has been totally scrubbed , if someone has a pdf of it they should post it.

    thanks

    • I find your suggestion highly implausible. We are talking about sophisticated nuclear weapons. What reason could you possibly have for identifying these four, who appear to be obvious patsies? Far more likely that the job was given of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., which was given the job of cleaning up the mess afterwards. Who better to cover it up than those who actually carried out the demolitions themselves? That is a far reasonable alternative hypothesis.

  16. Cohen points out that the neutron bomb doesn’t have the collateral damage of fallout, blast and heat effects that occurred in Hiroshima, but enhanced neutron flash radiation: ‘in about a thousandth of a second it will seriously irradiate enemy soldiers (in tanks, self-propelled artillery vehicles, armored personnel carriers, in field bunkers, and most other places where they may be) out to a distance of about half to three-quarters of a mile for a warhead yield of a kiloton… Roughly half will die, most rather quickly from shock to the central nervous system. … What doesn’t it do? Well, for start-offs, when the war is over the civilian areas — villages, towns, cities — will be in just about the shape they were in before it started. There will be no lingering radioactivity [residual doses from neutron induced activity in soil are insignificant compared to the flash dose of neutrons, and it decays quickly as in Hiroshima] prevent occupation of these areas; in fact, they can be reentered almost immediately.
    http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/05/revised-edition-of-sam-cohens-shame-is.html

    “The initial symptoms [from radiation] are similar to those common in radiation injury [for example, intense radiation treatment for cancer, hopefully to save your life], namely nausea, vomiting, diarrhea (and other distressing effects).” After these initial effects occur, sometime later, depending on how severe the radiation exposure is, “there is a return of symptoms, including fever, diarrhea and a step-like rise in temperature…” Quoted from the official government manual

    DECAY RATE. The decay rate of radioactive
    materials from a single weapon can be determined with fair accuracy by using the ABCM1A1 radiac calculator, which is a componentof the M28A1 calculator set or by using newlydeveloped automated aids. To make a quick estimate of fallout decay, analysts decrease theintensity by a factor of ten as the time after theburst increases by multiples of seven. Forexample, a dose rate of 50 cGy/hour at 1 hourafter the burst decays to 5 cGy/hour in 7 hoursand to about 0.50 cGy/hour in 49 hours. Boundaries for significant areas of newly depositedfallout are based on dose rates. For short-term (24-hour) occupancy of an area, the dose rate is20 cGy/hour at 1 hour after the burst. For longerterm occupancy, the dose rate is 10 cGy/hour at1 hour after the burst. FM 3-12 and FM 3-22 contain specific details of fallout prediction, decay,and total dose calculations.

    Craters caused by surface and shallow subsurface bursts will be contaminated by neutron-induced radiation and residual radioactive fission products. The activity in and around thecrater can be estimated one hour after detonation, and the decay rate established as discussed above. http://nige.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/fm101-31-1.pdf

    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA382631 neutron bomb
    http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/neutronbomb.htm 24 to 48 hours
    Samuel Cohen – Neutron Nukes Secrets http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/722

    The Nuclear Threat That Doesn’t Exist – or Does It?
     by Sam Cohen and Joe Douglass  March 11, 2003
    http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/douglass/2003/0311.html

    【Pure Fusion Warheads The small tactical battlefield neutron bomb is the closest kin to a pure-fusion device.

    The principle difference is that in a pure-fusion device, the plutonium fission component is entirely eliminated.

    The pure-fusion device relies on the same deuterium-tritium mixture to create its burst of high-energy neutrons, but is designed to accomplish this “burn” without the use of any fissionable material. Thus, while still packing a neutron wallop, its explosive yield – the part that does the most physical damage – is much smaller because it lacks the fission component.

    What little explosive yield remains can be as little as one hundredth the size of the small tactical battlefield neutron bomb.】

    ●DEVELOPMENT OF NEW LOW-YIELD NUCLEAR WEAPONS
     by Sam Cohen and Joe Douglass  March 9, 2003
    http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/douglass/2003/0309.html

    【To understand the reasons behind this concern, consider the small sizes into which very respectable yields can be packaged.
    Warheads whose weight lies in the 30 to 150 pound range can “have yields as low as 50 tons (high explosive equivalent) to tens of kilotons, several times the size of the first nuclear weapons that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The most available warheads and easiest to manage would be in the 100 ton to 1 or 2 kiloton range.

    Insofar as size is concerned, an implosion nuclear warhead could be as small as a soccer ball and weigh less than 50 pounds. 】
    Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons

    Andre Gsponer – also a nice read
    February 11, 2008
    Military effectiveness and collateral effects
    http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/6254

    • A couple of points: Dozens and dozens of first responders said they felt the ground shake violently just before each tower collapsed.

      How do we know the seismic data wasn’t falsified, the sole source seems to be from Columbia U, perhaps they receive funding from the Pentagon for all we know?

      What about the molten material under each tower which remained red-hot for weeks and months after the demolitions? Were the underground cavities under each tower (which looked like they were created by intense heat and pressure) really ancient glaciation as claimed?

      50% of the 7-storey WTC bathtub was severely damaged on 9/11 which required emergency repairs to abate the flooding.

      http://static.911digitalarchive.org/REPOSITORY/MISC_COLLECTIONS/national_guard_bureau/CRRDB/data/documents/1424.pdf

      When I consider the visual evidence, I don’t see a series of small explosions, but one massive explosion which turned each tower into dust…the crushing shock wave from a nuclear explosion. There was no “top-down” collapse, except the top 10 floors of WTC 1 & 2 which escaped demolition. In WTC 7, the bottom floor descended at the same time and speed as the top floor, not a top-down pancake collapse. The entire building was turned into dust and fell simultaneously.

      Perhaps small atmospheric neutron bombs detonated sequentially could have caused this destruction, but that method is unnecessarily complex and fraught with risks (i.e. one bomb failed to detonate or is destroyed by an above neutron explosion, causing the tower not to fall in its own footprint.) The results of using a series of neutron bombs to demolish buildings in not well known. On the other hand, underground nuclear blasts have been thoroughly tested and documented. Experts know exactly how the explosion will react depending on the depth, size and density of the soil/rock, minimizing the risk of failure which would expose their dastardly plan.

      • Justin, thanks for such an appropriate post, which, unlike certain others, does not attempt to defend the indefensible. The earliest blasts, of course, were in the subbasements around an hour before the South Tower and an hour and a half before the North Tower were demolished, as Willie Rodriquez reported and as Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong confirmed in their, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job”. If you haven’t read it, you should take the time. It’s brilliant.

        Shock waves would have been transmitted downward through the building through the core columns, but the effects would have been far milder than what would have been produced by 150kt detonations beneath the buildings. The readings appear to be consistent with a series of explosions taking out 10 floors at a time at the rate of one per second, which would yield 9 seconds for the South Tower and 11 for the North, since the top three cubes of the South were as one.

        While there was some damage to the bathtub, it would have been completely shattered by massive nuclear explosions beneath the buildings. Hudson River water would have flooded beneath lower Manhattan, the subway and the PATH train tunnels, as Hurricane Sandy has done. It would have been a calamity, which is why they had to figure out a way to destroy the Twin Towers without serious damage to the bathtub, which they did by converting them largely into very fine dust.

        I cannot imagine how anyone could deny that the towers were destroyed from the top down. They are blowing apart in every direction FROM THE TOP DOWN. Since gravity only works in one direction–down–we know that enormous sources of energy BEYOND GRAVITY were required. Compare the demolition of WTC-7, which was a classic controlled demolition (see “This is an orange”) with the Twin Towers (see, for example, “New 9/11 Photos Released”). The difference is stunning.

        It could not have been done using familiar techniques and had to be done with novel technology. Just blowing them up was not the problem. It was to do it in a fashion that SIMULATED a collapse from the top down, where DESCRIBING IT AS “A COLLAPSE” had a powerful effect on the public’s perception. It was NOT a collapse but rather an ingenious plan to create the pseudo-impression of their collapse by the sequential destruction of these buildings from the top down.

  17. AN INTERESTING EXCHANGE FROM FACEBOOK COMMENTS:

    (1) Mark Alexander · Subscribe · Manchester, United Kingdom

    The mini-nuke theory isn’t valid for the following reasons:

    1. Sixteen people survived unscathed on the 3rd floor of the North Tower. No one would survive a nuclear blast. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvdNHaOBGk4

    2. There were no really bright flashes as the towers turned to dust.

    3. There were no loud explosions as the towers turned to dust.

    4. There was little or no heat in the dust cloud. People didn’t get burned by the dust: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMNrb4aQyvI&t=18m8s.

    5. Nuclear explosives cannot account for the 24-foot cylindrical holes seen in the buildings and in the street.

    6. The nuke or “large explosive/incendiary” does not explain the selectively flipped cars and vehicles.

    7. The nuclear explosives created no seismic signature of any significant size (impossible).

    8. Thousands of tons of paper stored in the WTC towers floated to the ground unburned. After the destruction occurred the paper was left in the dust. Temperatures in the millions would vaporize all the paper.

    Micro-Nukes:

    1. Uranium or plutonium can’t have a 48 hour half-life; reality puts the half-life of even the most radiologically active form of uranium at tens of thousands of years.

    2. Micro-nukes use Americium or Californium.

    3. Micro-nukes are short lived devices that have to be MADE TO ORDER, the same way medical isotopes are made to order, and if you exceed even 1/2 of one half-life of time from day of manufacture to day of use, the nuclear material will decay to other forms and will no longer be pure enough to trigger a suitable chain reaction, which with a 48 hour half-life according to Gordon Duff would have given them ONE DAY to both build the bomb and plant it at the WTC. Not plausible either, even IF it would not have melted itself from having decay heat cause the device to be at thousands of degrees to satisfy the claimed ”48 hour” half-life in a coke can. THAT would have made it a real challenge to handle.

    Dimitri Khalezov’s ridiculous undergound nuke claim.

    1. There were seven underground floors under each tower. All the basement floors survived the destruction undamaged as demonstrated by these images: http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image312.jpg http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image311.jpg At no point did they form part of a “nuclear furnace”.

    2. Sixteen people survived unscathed on the 3rd floor of the North Tower. No one would survive a nuclear blast. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvdNHaOBGk4

    3. Nukes melt. The towers didn’t melt they turned to dust. It was a cold collapse not a hot collapse.

    4. An underground nuke would not be able cause the top down pulverization in mid-air.

    5. Clean-up workers would of died of radiation poisoning, thyroid cancer and first responders such as Jerry Reilly would have lost his hair and his blood marrow.

    (2) James Henry Fetzer · Top Commenter · Works at McKnight Professor Emeritus, UMD

    This is very interesting, Mark. I will ask others to respond. What is your theory of how this was done? Are you a friend of Andrew Johnson and of Dr. Judy Wood?

    (3) James Henry Fetzer · Top Commenter · Works at McKnight Professor Emeritus, UMD

    Re 1, you equivocate between a large nuclear attack and the use of micro or mini nukes. With arrangements of micro or mini nukes, some areas might be spared.

    Re 2, these were micro or mini nukes located around the core columns and taking out ten-floor cubes at a time. There would not necessary be visible bright flashes.

    Re 3, there were many reports of firemen hearing loud explosions in a sequence, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, as was reported already in “Loose Change”.

    Re 4, the heat is one of Judy’s favorites, but how hot the dust would have been is a good question. You no where address the crucial content of the dust samples.

    Re 5, Chuck Boldwyn explained those cylindrical holes long ago on the basis of arrangements of mini or micro nukes directed upward. You should know that.

    Re 6, you use the term, “selectively flipped”, in application to cars. But what makes you think that there was anything “selective” about the cars? That is a bit strange.

    Re 7, the seismic signature is actually discussed in the article. It is inconsistent with large nukes, but not for a series of mini or micro nukes in succession.

    Re 8, we also discuss the paper in the article. Did you plan to make this attack before actually reading it? That is typical of Judy Wood fanatics such as yourself.

    There is an epidemic of cancer victims among the first responders, yet one more reason why DEWs don’t appear to explain the data. But this is the best you can do.

    (4) Atahan Ganduu · 29 years old

    I have a secret satisfaction watching people discredit and discount Dr. Wood’s research.

    (5) Ross Johnson · Top Commenter · UTS

    We should all stick closely to the science like this site http://www.ae911truth.org/ Explosions were felt under ground.That could have been mini nukes.What evidence is there of radiation?

    Prof Chris Busby has found evidence of radiation in women’s hair that is not from Depleted Uranium at Falluja in Iraq.It is slightly enriched Uranium which suggests some new small nuke technology.There are also hints of this at Kosovo and the Bali bombings.The use of nano themite is evident and proven. So let’s get more evidence before jumping to conclusions.

    (6) James Henry Fetzer · Top Commenter · Works at McKnight Professor Emeritus, UMD

    FURTHER REPLIES BY JEFF PRAGER:

    Dear Mr. Alexander,

    1. Sixteen people survived because mini or micro nukes were used.

    2. One wouldn’t see a flash with mini or micro nukes inside a 204 x 204 foot building. The flash would be confined to a space perhaps 10-30 feet in diameter and would last for less than 100 milliseconds. Walls, doors and elements of the building interior would have fully concealed any flash.

    3. Wrong. Public First Responder testimony states that the 10 seconds of demolition was the loudest thing the First Responders ever heard. One First Responder, after stating that it was the loudest sound he ever heard testified further that it once he thought it was as loud as it could possibly be, it got even louder. He described it as resembling standing next to a freight train. For goodness sakes Mark, two 1000+ story steel structured buildings were demolished. Of course it was the loudest sound ever heard.

    4. There was, in fact, heat in the dust cloud. Thousands of people were treated for burns on 9/11 and 9/12 at make-shift medical facilities and normal medical centers and hospitals. More important, First Responder testimony states the heat could be felt a mile away. Also, reports of the clouds “glittering” and “sizzling” are available. This “glittering” is a known phenomenon of neutron reflection off of the cornea. Nothing is actually glittering, you’re seeing a reflection of sorts. But again, 1000s of people were treated for burns on 9/11 and 9/12.

    5. Wrong. Mini or micro nukes account for them perfectly.

    6. It certainly does. In a city center the pressure wave follows the path of least resistance so pressure was directed down streets and ally ways because buildings stopped the waves. Cars were flipped as a result.

    7. Not impossible. We’re talking about mini and micro nukes here. Your understanding of these devices is limited. Additionally, there is seismic data and while I can’t confirm it’s accuracy and it was released, recalculated and re-released, it still shows enough seismic activity with each demolition AND the seismic activity mirrors what the seismic activity of a nuclear device(s) would produce.

    8. Wrong. The initial pressure wave made up of fast neutrons would have pushed most of the paper outwards, to the streets, where we saw it. Paper has no mass and fast neutrons pass through it, unable to exchange their heat. Fast neutrons are attracted to metal and water, dense objects that allow for heat transfer. Paper is unaffected by fast neutrons.

    Micro Nukes:

    1. Wrong. The device detonated by the Soviets in 1961, RDS-220, reduced radioactivity by 97%. That was 40 years before 911 and technology advances rapidly. A neutron bomb produces no beta, no alpha, gamma only and measurable radiation would last 5-6 days at best. This is the purpose of neutron bombs. The area they’re used in is almost immediately inhabitable by troops. This is why they were designed. They leave no radioactivity. You should spend a year or so studying this issue. You don’t have the necessary understanding to engage in productive dialogue on this issue. Reading a few essays is not the answer.

    2. Micro nukes use a variety of elements including americium. Lead, chromium, copper, cerium, lanthanum, yttrium, zinc, vanadium and other elements are used to “salt” these devices. Americium was found at anomalous levels at Ground Zero.

    3. I don’t know where you get your information from but it isn’t LLNL, Oak Ridge, Sandia or any other reputable nuclear research facility. This would take several paragraphs to address properly. A phone call would work better for me. 612-353-6045, any time.

    Khalezov:

    1. Wrong. All the basement floors did not survive. At all. I have images from a FEMA dump in 2003 or 4 that depict First Responders with dogs searching in basement areas that were severely impacted. I’ll send them to you if you want them.

    2. I discussed this above. You don’t understand the technology used or the nature of these devices.

    3. Nuclear devices do not melt. They reach a temperature of millions of degrees in less than 100 milliseconds and in less than 600 milliseconds the source of heat is gone. Almost as fast as the heat develops it virtually disappears. What occurs is dissociation. With concrete what occurs is called “calcining” and the meaning is that the concrete is returned to its original constituents. It’s for this reason that we see so much calcium, gypsum, sulfates, etc. Extraordinary heat for 500 milliseconds returned the concrete to its original elements. The dust pH was 11.8, highly caustic. This is because the concrete was heated to such a degree that it was calcined.

    4. Actually, underground nuclear devices do, in fact, cause a top down demolition of large towers and building structures. This is common knowledge among people involved in the nuclear field and has to do with “crush” and “damage” zones, terms used in the field of nuclear demolition. HOWEVER, I do not believe this was an underground nuclear demolition.

    5. Indeed. As of March 1, 2011, One thousand and three First Responders were dead. Many died from not one, not two, but three rare forms of cancer. First Responders are undergoing a cancer epidemic. One First Responder was able to beat thyroid cancer only to come down with Multiple Myeloma. Let’s discuss MM. According to the CDC (K-25 Workers Report) we do not know what causes Multiple Myeloma but we do know that exposure to even a minimal dose of radiation produces a measurable Multiple Myeloma response in humans. It’s a rare plasma cancer. 99% of those that get MM are over 65 with an average age of 71. In the general population we see MM at a rate of 3-9 per 100,000 people.

    In First Responders the rate of MM is 18 per 100,000 which is 2-6 times the general population norm. What’s more interesting is that ALL First Responders that succumbed to MM were between 37 and 60. This is unprecedented. Last, according to the NYC Bureau of Vital Statistics between 2001 and 2010 they see a “2.7% drop in births across all age groups” which is always the first sign of a nuclear event; a drop in birth rate.

    I don’t normally discuss these issues with people that have a very limited understanding of the physics and chemistry of nuclear devices in this format. It requires far more typing than I have the desire to engage in. I would prefer, if you care to debate the issue, that you call me. Before doing that you should carefully read these 22 pages linked below so that you aren’t left feeling foolish. This is my proof that 911 was a nuclear event. It is unequivocal, unarguable proof. It is an excerpt from one of my books, the physics and chemistry analysis that proves ternary fission and possibly quaternary fission is accurate.

    http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html

    Peace,

    Jeff

    (7) Marc Pinke · Top Commenter · The University of Western Ontario

    Mark:

    1) You said: “The nuclear explosives created no seismic signature of any significant size (impossible).” – There are testimonies from over 48 FDNY and other first responders that stated the ground shook them violently 10 sec’s before each ‘collapse’ started. There are also several camera tripods scattered throughout lower Manhattan that shake @ the same time and @ different locations on different angles and even show the North tower violently shaking people out the sides of the buildings. That equates to > 6.0 mag which equates to > 100 KT, no?

    2) You said: “Sixteen people survived unscathed on the 3rd floor of the North Tower. No one would survive a nuclear blast.” – If you look @ the center area of the detonation cavities you can see ground zero was positioned slightly offset to both towers which allowed for the lower several floors of the facade on one side of each tower to survive. I’m going to dig up that video you mention to see if that is the same side that was offset to the crushing wave.

    3) You said: “Clean-up workers would of died of radiation poisoning, thyroid cancer and first responders such as Jerry Reilly would have lost his hair and his blood marrow.” – Yes, dozens if not hundreds of workers and residents of the area have died of leukemia (which is only caused by radiation). I read the testimony of John Wilcott and several others and have studied Jeff Prager’s works on the dust. Hundreds of people show signs of radiation-related sicknesses. Interesting the FBI showed up @ Fresh Kills, NYC in full radiation gear with even the masks sealed shut as to avoid breathing in ionizing vapors. Why the full decontamination process of all material leaving ground zero?

    4) You said: ” Nukes melt. The towers didn’t melt they turned to dust. It was a cold collapse not a hot collapse.” – But if ground zero was underground (which to me would explain the ground shaking the 500,000 lb building so violently before collapse), then it’s an underground detonation which would merely pulverize everything beyond its cavity. It wasn’t an atmospheric detonation w/ fireballs, thermonuclear temps in the air, etc. It was underground, which also would server as a filter for ionizing radiation escaping and would lower the Roentgens/Hour that first responders received. I wonder if that’s why FEMA equipped them w/ air monitors (so they could rotate them in and out based on air readings to prevent acute radiation poisoning). 50/hour would prove mortal, no? But a solid effort @ decontamination would help greatly while moving that rubble to China and the hell away from ground zero.

  18. Have you missed “9/11 and Zion: What was Israel’s role?”, “9/11: Confessions of a former CIA Asset?”, and “9/11 J’accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and O’Brien”? I think you are missing the “big picture” on multiple counts. We have to figure out how these things were done to have proof that 9/11 was “an inside job”. Plus we are pursuing the perps by documenting their offenses. And, unless you have been living in a cave, we are working on bringing indictments against them. See, for example, “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I” and “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II”.

  19. duay khwaam nap theuu

    Dr.Fetzer, Re sentence about Tritium: “…55 times normal the basement of WTC-6…” Do you mean “IN the basement”?

  20. Talk….talk…talk…what we need to do immediately is send the weak link = Larry Silverstein to Abu Graib to be water boarded… held indefinitely under the NDAA which he and his cohort agreed to…get a confession for the sake of his sorry as#. He’ll confess without water boarding, which I don’t approve of, but, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. He is a weakling, absolutely arrogant in his thought that he can always go to Talmudia and escape extradition laws and be protected. We in the 9-11 truth movement need to focus our attention and effort on one person and that is Mr. pull-it Silverstein. He made a lot of money for killing 3,000 plus people. He needs to go down first! Let’s put all our efforts into targeting him. Forget the rest of the crap, once he goes, it all goes.. Let’s work together to get him!

    • George Carlin details recommends the best way to deal with those gangsters, just cut & paste below line in YouTube:
      Wachovia Busted Laundering Drug Money

  21. Aside from the issue of what actually happened on 9-11 (I think Fetzer’s idea persausive), the existence of mini-nukes, if true, explains the inflated confidence and unfettered malice of what passes for leadership in the world today. These morons believe ‘ they have the power! But since it is widely understood that Israel, with a supporting cast of US traitors, did 9-11, we will likely see min-nukes employed once again, if only for convenience, in the next (Israel inspired) false flag.

  22. LC, Dr. Wood won’t discuss the thorium, uranium, yttrium, lanthanum, cerium, chromium, vanadium, molybdenum, americium, lead, zinc, nickel, copper, sodium, potassium, strontium, antimony or barium found at over 12 locations at Ground Zero by the USGS team. These samples prove, when the Product Momentum Correlation Coefficient is applied, that 911 was a nuclear event. Please, ask Dr. Wood to explain these elements to you. She refuses to discuss them with me. I also have personal knowledge that no one at the World Trade Center ate bean tacos the night before. The Department of Homeland Security removed them from the menu specifically for that reason, so the towers would not be destroyed.

    • Mr. Prager:
      I think I just caught you on a critical WTC demolition detail: there was no “Department of Homeland Security” at that time, so the bean-taco blast theory is totally plausible, at least more than Judy Wood’s crap.!!!

      • This is really pathetic. How many pointless insults and sock puppets do you heroes need to discredit Ms Woods work? There is a vast difference between not having a theory and not presenting one. Here are some quotes from an interview with Ms Wood;

        “None of the evidence that is in this book has been refuted”
        “The way I wrote this book is to empower the reader to think for themselves”
        “If you call an unknown phenomenon by a known term then you bias your investigation”
        “Right now, when people create Free Energy technology in the secrecy of their basements they are suicided, something happens to them. If everybody in the world knows this technology exists, we’re all free to develop it in broad daylight”
        “I think we need to move to a culture that doesn’t exist on exploiting others but just lives to live and lives to share”
        Do these sound like the spin of a disinfo agent ?
        From her interview on One Step Beyond. Type in Directed Energy Technology – Youtube. Follow the ‘Dr Judy Wood is not only a magnificent engineer etc’
        I am not providing the link to avoid moderation.
        Also, try typing in ‘Andrew Johnson Directed Energy Weapons 9/11 COVER UP” for a good interview. If you are in a hurry begin at the 23rd minute.
        I bet Mr Fetzer loves this guy.

        • What IS “Ms. Wood’s work”? She herself claims that she DOES NOT HAVE A THEORY. I now believe her. Her strongest claim is that the energy required to have destroyed the Twin Towers goes far beyond that provided by conventional explosives–and was directed! But of course, as we have explained, those conditions are satisfied by the use of sophisticated arrangements of micro or mini nukes. One of the weakest parts of her book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?. is her critique of the use of mini nukes on pp. 121-122, which appears to be directed toward a theory like that of Dimitri Khalezov, which, I agree, is indefensible, as you should know.

          She does a brilliant job of inventorying the effects that an adequate theory would need to explain, but she does not provide an explanation. While her work abounds with hints, suggestions, and questions, I does not tell us how it was done. She instead lists 43 claims about the evidence that needs to be explained on pp. 480-483. She has even become hysterical when asked why she denies she has a theory. I think we have to take her at her work: According to Judy Wood, she DOES NOT HAVE A THEORY. But by her own definition, DEWs were involved–in the form of sources of energy far beyond merely conventional–which were directed!

        • What if something like Judy Wood’s weaponry was utilized in conjunction with nukes, thermate, etc. for ultimate performance???? This weapon may have done just that:
          YOUTUBE: “9/11 Proof Of Used Laser Weapons Part 1″

          In the above clip you see a Directed Energy Weapon which shoots a high-powered directed laser apparently capable of vaporizing steel & concrete at probably over 10000 F degrees.

          Now, in addition to all else previously discussed in this page and its related pages, if you have such a self-fueled weapon installed at the top of each tower (installed with face down) so that when activated it emits laser downward vaporizing the building from the top down as it falls through the building, while simultaneously the nuke/nukes go off to push away the massive amounts of pulverized building compounds and human bodies into space to help it spread with the wind (the pyroclastic inferno).

          Hurricane ERIN: could have also been created by HARRP and directed to WTCs to help spread the pulverized debris away from WTCs, so that a mountain of debris is not created.

        • Above I provided link to William Tahill’s book that nuclear reactors were utilized for WTC demolitions @***http://www.nucleardemolition.com/GZero_Sample.pdf

          Now, a good look at the WTCs’ pyroclastic infernos emanating from top of each of the two towers and free falling to its base could mean that in addition to any other devices used, a NDEW (Nuclear Directed Energy Weapon) working like a Nuclear Reactor core was installed at top of each building. Then each reactor had an engineered, and induced, nuclear meltdown (a China Syndrome) as each nuclear reactor pulverized each tower from the top down while free falling as each one dustified (SUBLIMATED) each building on its way to China.!!! The Circling helicopter at top of buildings may have activated the meltdowns!!!

          North Tower Exploding
          ***http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=hSApOavkHg8&feature=endscreen

          Also, put in YOUTUBE: “911 FREEMASON RITUAL SACRIFICE – 1”

  23. wow one of best articles regarding 9/11 i read yet,,i agree 1000% with everything that was said in this article and im tired of people saying “check out Woods theory” utter bullshit! i agree i think shes some kind of counter intelligence operative and she’s trying to suck people into a bogus theory that can be ridiculed later on,and her unwillingness to discuss the nuke theory proves what a shill she is,,,when i read this article i knew it was unbiased pure scientific reasoning based on factual evidence with the most likely scenario to have transpired that day…

    we must all be careful of those wolves in sheep’s clothing pretending to be honest 9/11 truthers..

  24. Dimitri Khalezov did not say the WTC were constructed with “nuclear devices in their sub-basements”, but said the nuclear devices were stored under WTC 7 (or alternately were stored at another location and moved to WTC 7 to be detonated on 9/11.) Khalezov said there were tunnels leading from the WTC 7 Command Centre to WTC 1 and 2.

    The U.S. Dept. of Energy used chemical and nuclear devices for their underground tests which look very similar to the explosions of WTC 1 and 2 on 9/11. Could you imagine what would happen to an office tower positioned over this underground explosion below:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssLZ4bUTDYM

    • I interviewed Dimitri for two hours on “The Real Deal”. A link is embedded in the article. What I have said would hold whether they were built-in during their construction, which is my understanding of his position, or were brought into play later. The Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed in completely different ways, where the bathtub would have been reduced to rubble had 150kt nukes been exploded in their subbasements. Lower Manhattan was not flooded, so they were not used.

      • Yes, hopefully someone like Johnathan Cole, Professional engineer, will present some solid proof, rather than confusing numbers. Please copy paste the following line in you tube to see his experiment:

        “9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate”

  25. Dr. Fetzer:

    Did you ask if anyone of the above experts knew about SUBLIMATION of steel by using thermite/mate? As discussed in your 9/11 illusions page, and as Michael Reconoscuito explains sublimation of the Oklahoma Building by use of thermite coating + barometric bomb/s, at beginning of above video titled “Barometric bombs from Iran Contra to 9/11″, Reconoscuito cites the thermite velocity at 20,000 meter/second of pressure causing sublimation, which doesn’t correspond with the numbers provided above.

    • Those numbers sound fantastic to me. How do we get from 895 mps to 20,000 mps? I can’t imagine. But perhaps others will have more to day about this. I have published several articles about nanothermite with T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer, so I know that our numbers are correct. See, for example, “Is ’9/11 Truth’ based upon a false theory?” and “Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”

      More to come about this, no doubt.

      • Dr. Jones authored a paper in which he described his energetic compound as being iron oxide and aluminum in a silica substrate and estimated the velocity at 300mps. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) states that the maximum velocity for an energetic compound created with aluminum and iron oxide in a silica substrate is 895mps.

        LNL further states that adding copper increases velocity to 2,000mps but Jones’ compound had no copper component.

        There are other energetic compounds. They’re called, as an industry standard, Metastable Intermolecular Composites. While there are probably formulas that can reach extraordinary velocities we haven’t seen elemental remnants of them in the Ground Zero dust. We see fission and fusion.

        • Your above “mps” units are meters or miles per second? Reconoscuito’s was 20,000. meters per second.

          • The “895mps” figure is from T. Mark Hightower’s research and represents “meters per second”.

  26. This is really excellent. Thanks Jim. I have long said that it would make perfect sense to use a combination of different means of destruction to 1) confuse the investigation and 2) make absolutely certain of success. I don’t understand why not nukes, thermitic material AND energy weapons could have been used.

    Am I mistaken or would Khalezov’s theory involve the melting of the bathtub and isn’t it true that it was not?

    Also, I find one of the most interesting pieces of evidence of Judy Wood’s is the evidence of toasted cars and other anomolies several blocks from the WTC complex. And things seeming to burn but with no evidence of heat. Or can the mini-nuke theory account for these things?

    I like John Anderson’s comment above because it mirrors my own in that the most important part is not how it was done but that the official story is hogwash and, as you so brilliantly explain, the absolute most least likely scenario. I personally, however, love the debate about the cause. Thanks

    Matt

    Lexington, ky

    • Well, as Clare Kuehn has emphasized, the use of nukes can cause DEW-like effects, where thermite/thermate/nanothermite may have played some special roles, such as creating the cut-outs on the facades of the buildings to simulate the effects of airplanes crashing into the buildings. (See Richard Hall’s 3-D radar study of Flight 175 and some of my articles about planes/no planes and “video fakery”.)

      Thanks for this nice note.

    • I don’t buy this picture of “the BATHTUB” (above) which seems to have been taken long after it had been filled in with non-radioactive dirt and rebuilt with concrete to make it look like there had been no nuclear meltdown there!!! or is it just another photo-shop by Larry Zionisteen’s media?

      • Well, if you have a link to a better one, let me know. I obviously believe that nukes were used, so if this is not a good photograph, lead me to a better one. It was taken during the clean up. The point was to illustrate the bathtub, not argue for one theory or another using it. Are you a proponent of Dimitri’s theory and think that I am trying to bias the case?

        • Dr. Fetzer:
          you have been performing outstanding work to solve the 9/11 enigma.
          I recall having seen photos of very deep damage under WTC’s in Khalezo’s documentaries, and elsewhere, which raised my suspension to this picture. I will try to locate some the next days and post links. One problem here is that when links are included in comments here they are held back sometimes for days!! why??

          • I am not aware that any links have been “held back”. Tell me more. I have seen photos of the bedrock that appeared to have been seared, but they did not show the bathtub. Khalezov’s theory cannot be correct on multiple grounds, including that WTC-7 was destroyed using a classic controlled demolition, while the Twin Towers were blown apart from the top down. Do you find those argument to be unpersuasive?

          • Sorry, I have to drive to a meeting now, will respond to you sometime this evening. thanks.

          • Dr. Fetzer + anyone interested:

            I have some WTC-Bathtub pictures & more goodies for your analysis:
            The titles of every picture or video come first. The following line is the link which you can COPY/PAST into your web-browsers. I have added ***before each web-address to kill the links in this comment, because when links are added a delay of one or more days follows before the comment is posted, so the comment chain is disturbed.
            You must delete all the stars (***) before you paste web-addresses into browser:

            First picture without theme shows solid granite melted at least 40 yards below bottom of BATHTUB at the same corner Dimitri Khalezov documented the nukes to have been buried.
            ***https://911justicehalifax.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/article-0-02c2ecc500000578-922_468x703.jpg?w=468&h=703
            Glacial rock formation at Tower 4 Site (Bogus theme for nuclear-molten rock):
            ***http://www.wtc.com/media/images/d/14_38_Tower-4-Site—September-2008.jpg
            Glacial rock excavation at Tower 4 (Bogus theme):
            ***http://www.wtc.com/media/images/d/14_38_Tower-4-Site—September-2008.jpg
            Tower 4 – September 2008 (massive underground melted granite filled in with cement):
            ***http://www.wtc.com/media/images/d/14_38_T4-Week-of-Sept-15-(2).jpg
            Most of the above images come from: “WTC Image Gallery” (probably includes photoshops):
            ***http://www.wtc.com/media/images/s/NaN
            NOW SOME OTHER DOCUMENTARIES:
            Dimitri Khalezov 911 video – the most prohibited item on the web
            ***http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_UsC6GvKf0&feature=related
            911: Craters M-Nukes left in the WTC site
            ***http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM3bHgTBxGo&feature=related
            Pt.4/5 The 9/11 Fake Planes Paradox ~ Holographic Deception 2012
            ***http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ6vgo11Sto&feature=autoplay&list=PL5C8A42E025039D1D&playnext=1
            Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of The World Trade Centre, By William Tahill, Ba.” (Tahill documents that nuclear reactors were utilized for WTC demolitions)
            ***http://www.nucleardemolition.com/GZero_Sample.pdf

          • Thanks for this, but we explain in the article (early one) why it cannot have been done using 150kt nukes in the basements of the three buildings. First, WTC-7 and the Twin Towers were destroyed in completely different ways: WTC-7 was a classic controlled demolition, with all the floors falling at the same time and a pile of pancakes equal to about 12% of the original when it was done. It was not being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.

            The Twin Towers, by contrast, were destroyed by blowing them apart in every direction in segments at the rate of one 10-floor cube per second, where the South Tower took less time because its top three 10-floor segments tilted over and were taken out as though they were one. All the floors remain stationary and there are no stacks of pancakes when its done–because most of those buildings had been converted into very fine dust. So he cannot possibly be right.

            Moreover, not only were they demolished in completely different ways, contrary to Khalezov’s account, but, as he explained to me, it would then have to have been done from the bottom up, where the first 60 floors APPEARED TO BE INTACT when they had actually already been destroyed! Frankly, I found this more than a stretch when I interviewed him on “The Real Deal”, where he appeared to be completely unaware of the bathtub. So his theory cannot possibly be correct.

            That is not to deny that there may be evidence of value in the sources for which you have provided links. But we need to acknowledge that, even though nukes appear to have been the principal causal mechanism (which may have been supplemented by others), Dimitri Khalezov’s account is wrong and, I suspect, may even have been advanced to discredit theories about the use of nukes, where Judy Wood’s criticisms about nukes may work for his theory but not for mini or micro nukes.

          • Dr. Fetzer:

            Thank you, and I have a few questions. Your direct answers would be helpful to understand the 9/11 events further:

            1- Are you completely dismissing Khalezov’s testimony about everything because he may have been wrong regarding WTC-7?
            2- In Khalezov’s video interviews he showed a book containing his documentation. Do you have that, and is it available anywhere to buy, or with a link?
            3- Did you watch Jonathan Cole’s thermite experiment I provided below by copy-pasting “9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate” into YOUTUBE? If so, did he prove that thermite/mate had been used in the two main buildings and had been installed, or “PAINTED” inside the WTC boxed-panels surrounding the building?
            4- Did you ever check possibility of sublimation of steel by thermite/mate put forward by possible witness Howard Lewis in your 9/11 illusions page?
            5- Did you see the comments regarding the Ben Laden Construction Company’s involvement in WTC buildings, in your 9/11 illusions page?
            6- Do you agree with Jonathan Cole that “we should use physical science rather than political science to investigate 9/11”?
            7- Would you be able to arrange with Jonathan Cole, or another, to run a thermite/mate sublimation test by painting all sides of a piece of steel with it and igniting it?

            Question to Demo-experts: Does anyone of the readers know about thermite/mate steel sublimation ability, and can he provide an experiment?

          • I have asked Jeff Prager to respond to your questions. I agree with most of his answers but, during our interview, he (that is, Dimitri) appeared oblivious about the bathtub.

            Jeff Prager’s opinions are as follows:

            1. Everything? No. Dimitri deserves singular credit for providing a remarkably educational volume of work related to the nuclear components of 911. He was right in many cases regarding his material and his discussion of the retaining wall or “bath tub”, the various aspects of nuclear demolition and other mathematics, chemistry and physics is both enlightening and highly instructional.

            2. A little searching on Google and you’ll find Dimitri’s book. The first portion is free. I’ll try to attach it to this email when I’m done answering these questions, if I can find it. I have it somewhere. Here’s a link to a book I wrote but no longer promote, as a supplement to Dimitri’s book, with Dimitri’s knowledge. Dimitri was right about a lot of things and wrong about a lot of things. In this science 2 + 2 doesn’t always exactly equal the same 4. Sometimes the 4 is 3.9 or 4.1, if you can understand what I mean. Attached are 11 chapters of Dimitri’s book. Here is a link to my supplement of Dimitri’s book. Again, some of the science is extremely well done but the theory isn’t correct. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16017306/Nuclear.pdf

            3. I did watch it, some time ago. No, he proved nothing at all. We don’t know the exact chemical make-up, the elemental components of Cole’s compound. We do know the physical properties of Jones’ compound allegedly found at Ground Zero. Are they the same? If they are, Jones and Harritt estimated 29,000 – 144,000 metric tons per building. The low of 29,000 metric tons would have required 1,500 tractor trailer deliveries to each building and working 24/7 would have taken a year just to get that weight of material inside the towers which doesn’t include unpacking and somehow installing it. If they are not chemically identical there’s no reason to use Cole’s data.

            4. I haven’t. The velocity of Jone’s alleged thermite, 895mps maximum according to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL), is far too slow to do what we saw and a wholly unnecessary component of the demolition, in my opinion. Jones’ chain of possession for his dust samples was compromised from the very beginning. There is no secure chain of custody for Jones’ alleged compound.

            (I would like to ask, how did Mr. Cole ignite his thermite. Thermite is typically extremely difficult to ignite. Ignition can be unreliable and unpredictable. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction. Thermite cannot be ignited with conventional black powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, pyrotechnic initiators or other common igniting substances. How did he ignite it? How does he think the perpetrators ignited it?)

            5. Haven’t seen those particular comments. Have seen some material regarding bin Laden construction and the WTC. The bin Laden family and the Bush family and other Saudi’s closely related use bankers, investment counselors and financial advisors together. They have had over the years a variety of mutual business interests, projects and investments.

            6. Yes, and he should start doing so immediately by determining the chain of custody for the thermite he’s alleging was in the dust. There is no secure chain of possession. Science, real science tells us we can not use any data whatsoever from Dr. Stephen Jones. None. This is why I don’t bother with thermite. We don’t even know if it was in the dust. So start using real science.

            7. I’d rather Mr. Cole prove thermite was in the dust with a secured sample for starters and then he can explain, in great detail, how each building had between 29,000 and 144,000 metric tons loaded, wired up and installed. The first thing he might want to look for is 3,000 tractor trailer loads (58,000 metric tons) delivered to the Twin Towers. He should be able to find 5 or 10 tractor trailer deliveries every day for a year, each weighing 40,000 pounds and requiring whatever number of people would be needed to take about 100 tons off of tractor trailers, each and every day, 7 days a week, for a year, using Jones & Harritt’s low estimate. Moving 80-100 tons a day. Every day. For a year. This entire theory falls flat when dissected carefully.

            Peace,

            Jeff

          • Jim,

            Do note that you, dimitri, jeff and so many others are to be removed from VT…by orders of Tony Lawson, our absent “dictator in command” from the fuhrer bunker in Bangkok.

            LMAO

          • Mr. Duff:

            That’s very unfortunate.

            Did this REMOVAL occur right after I posted my response to Jeff Prager’s comments? And, was it because my response completed the 9/11 picture puzzle?

          • Mr. Duff:

            I hope VT passed on to Dr. Fetzer & Mr. Prager my final comment which was censored & did not appear here, after which you announced the unfortunate REMOVAL above.

  27. “…The speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 mps, while in steel, it is 6,100 mps; the highest detonation velocity attributed to nanothermite found in the scientific literature, however, is only 895 mps, which means you can get there (pulverized concrete and decimated steel) from here (Twin Towers plus nanothermite)…”

    Typo? Perhaps it should read “…which means that you cannot get there…”

  28. Bravo to all. You have proven beyond reasonable doubt that assortments of nukes & WMD were used on 9/11 by the 9/11-cabal. But get this folks: there is nothing you can do about it because the cabal controls everything!!!

    • The cabal attempt to control everything LC, they never have and never will succeed. A defeatist attitude engenders defeat, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. This is not anywhere near over.

      • Really? Please give me a couple of example of something significant which they tried but couldn’t control.

        • Fair enough LC, I will put it like this. Over the past fifty years the crimes of the secret team (U.S. shadow government and their international allies) have been exposed in unintended ways many times.

          Lee Oswald wasn’t supposed to survive November 22 1963, Jack Ruby wasn’t supposed to need to have silenced him so publicly. The House Assassination Committee was not supposed to find that both the JFK and MLK assassinations were as a result of a conspiracy.

          The whole Watergate coverup was not supposed to be exposed. The Mk ultra program was not supposed to be exposed. Gary Webb was not supposed to discover and write about the CIA/Contra drug dealing in the United States. The whole series of dirty deals and criminality known as Iran/ Contra was not supposed to be exposed.

          On September 11, 2001, the secret team’s hubris got the better of them and they did a very stupid evil thing in an incompetent way that ensured eventual exposure. The scale of the crime and the ensuing consequences (two wars, internal security state, etc.) are so great that when these crimes are exposed to the general public, as they inevitably will be, the public will no longer tolerate the existence of the shadow government and will demand it’s dismantlement, leading to the opportunity of a restoration of democracy and the rule of law.

          None of the previous crimes were as intolerable to the people as the crimes of 911. People could live with knowing about the Iran/Contra operation, it didn’t impact them personally. The exposure of the crimes of 911 will have an effect on the operations of the secret team like no other.

          The evidence that the official account of 911 is physically impossible is overwhelming. We just have to encourage people to look at it and let nature take it’s course.

          • Nobody was prosecuted & convicted for any of the above crimes you mentioned because of the total Stalin-style control of the country mainly by destruction of evidence and witnesses, such as Ben Laden’s confidants who were probably whistle blowers of 9/11. + so much more already covered by the authors of these VT pages…

Comments are closed

 

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Join Our Daily Newsletter
  View Newsletter ARCHIVE

WHAT'S HOT

  1. MH17: Another Israeli Cover Up?
  2. War Comes Home to America
  3. Israel has lost big over Gaza war: Analyst
  4. MH17 Shootdown – The Investigation Continues
  5. The Deconstruction and Complete Reset of Israel
  6. 38 States Call for Constitutional Convention
  7. NEO – Rebirth of the Trans-Siberian Railway
  8. Gulf War Illness – GWI
  9. Veterans and Israel do Well in Congress
  10. Toleration of Israel’s Inhumanity Condemns UK’s Leaders
  11. Why Veterans Will Soon Save Thousands on College
  12. Ukraine unit surrenders in Russia – “Abandoned by Kiev”
  13. Ode to a Dead Palestinian Child
  14. Annihilate Gaza: Israeli official
  15. Are the Zionists done mowing the lawn in Gaza?
  16. Israel: A Cornered Rat
  17. America: Who Is The Boss?
  18. On C-SPAN, Richard Gage leaves 9/11 Truth in a “time warp”
  19. French Report ISIL Leader Mossad Agent
  20. Gaza – It is not much…but at least something
  1. windyw: Mark Twain didn't write this, but he could have http //axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_60352.shtml
  2. OrdinarySerf: The German pilots analysis was put up at least twice on VT before Mr S got to it (as a link from Gordon and then a full article currently no. ...
  3. Joe Yeshie: How and who shot down the plane isn't as import as why, and certainly not as important as those who died in the event. The why is an old tactic. ...
  4. OrdinarySerf: Could have been a belt and braces job on MH17 Simpsons, several methods. Or even a complete 'Horlicks' of a job that they had to 'recover'. Either way, someone was ...
  5. Joe Yeshie: Money controls far more than just the White House. Every hear of the "golden driver"? It's in an article posted at Universal-Rights dot Com. Well worth reading. This stuff goes ...

Veterans Today Poll

For over 60 years, US Taxpayers have been funding Israel, Palestine and Middle East. Are you happy with return on investment or would you prefer those monies be invested at home instead?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Archives