4um: Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle

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 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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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).

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.

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.”

“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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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 Viken, Ph.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

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”.(12 images)

There are radiation detectors all over our major cities, just in case someone tries to smuggle nukes in. This is a long article full of nonsense.

Couldn't be that long. It only took you 10 minutes to read it. If you actually did read it.

"...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. "

Exactly. So that shows how this article IS rubbish, since neutron bombs are designed to release lethal radiation, but inflict no explosive damage to structures.

I REPEAT THE EXTREME BLAST AND HEAT EFFECTS DO NOT MAGICALLY DISAPPEAR IN A NEUTRON BOMB!

Add this to the growing list of things Former lurker needs to educate himself on.

Uh huh. Thing is, you wouldn't use a neutron bomb if you wanted to cause damage, you'd use a regular micronuke or something, and even then, the blast would be radial, ie. it'd blow the structure out horizontally and turn the dust to glass or lava.

A neutron bomb would simply make everything very radioactive in an instant, and provide a blast that would ALSO be radial in nature, but not as extreme. It WOULD however turn dust to glass or lava as well.

So the likelihood of a neutron bomb are about as equally slim as a standard nuclear bomb.

A more exotic weapon, using some cleaner form of energy which could be transferred upwards and downwards, would be more probable than any standard type of device, IF there was any sort of exotic weaponry used at all.

I've spoken of this years ago, perhaps if you ever read my writings when I was at LP, you'd know that.

Since when are you the expert on explosives? One post back you were trying to tell people the neutron bombs didn't cause explosions and here in the next you're trying to explain why a micro nuke would be better than a neutron bomb?!?!?!

If you did not know shit about it in the first post I doubt you became a PHD in the subject by the next post.

No one in the towers when it collapsed would have survived if it were neutron bombs causing the damage. At least one man did survive the collapse of the towers. He was in a stair well and rode fell down in it with the rest of the building. I think might have been the only survivor of the collapse that was in the tower when it happened. Again disinfo from you, Wudiz and Grey is never ending.

You are the bigger asshole than me. You and lurker and your kind are the biggest assholes in the universe. Why?

Your disagreements maybe based of faith or whatever but that does not justify your shitting all over everyone else whom you disagree with.

I know how to disagree with out being shitty but you sir... you are always shitting on everything you dislike.

Whoever wrote the article is trying to sidetrack us from the real issue, which is not how the buildings were brought down, but who was responsible for their destruction.

I'll guess you're not a detective, because generally a murder mystery investigation involves trying to figure out what weapon was used.

Let's see now, the same group of ruling class establishment pigs who murdered almost 3,000 innocent persons at the World Trade towers are the same group of ruling class establishment pigs who now want to manage and literally dictate our healthcare.

I look at videos of what they want us to think of as a "collapse" and see way too much dust. Absolutely no explanation in the official story for the dust or why all the paper wasn't burnt. No human remains larger than a tooth or bone fragment. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it? What did they do that with?

Did you even bother clicking on the Wiki link to see what a pyroclastic cloud, or flow, actually is?

It's a superheated mixture of gas and rock usually created in a volcanic eruption.

The dust cloud created by the collapse of the WTC towers WAS such a pyroclastic flow. Look it up.

So you're saying that the dust cloud created by the collapse was a superheated mixture of gas and rock?

Did you bother reading what a pyroclastic flow is? It's superheated gas and in the case of the WTC, dust. Superheated means it's VERY HOT wud. The temperature of a pyroclastic flow is stated to be 1,830 degrees F. That's VERY HOT wud, hot enough to burn a few cars.

I could find several lengthy scientic treatises on it if I looked, but let me try to make it simple.

Part of the energy released by the explosions, as well as the collapse itself, was in the form of heat, which superheated the molecules of the air and the dust.

Bullshit. Only a volcano or a nuke would make pyroclastic flow that would burn the rubber off one of the tires of a car and leave the paint intact on the rest of it.

The Hot gases [varying density]... and micron size and upward matrix give it a fluidic ability
add to this....it can be highly elctromagnetically charged.
So its conductive....like a Plasma.
If you factor in nano thermate/thermite,...its going to be very hot.

Says who? You? Please show me any sort of valid scientific reference which states some pyroclastic flows can be cool enough not to burn someone's skin.

We just want to have a conversation about 911 with out your lying disruptive ass.

Post three contradicts post 40 both are your posts and you refuse to own up to it and you refuse to atone for it...

Lurker.... LaHaye and Jenkins wrote about people like you... in their "left Behind" books.....

anti christ types that could do one thing in front of some folk and insist that they believe another thing... regardless of the transactions before their eyes.

I will point out your lies until you admit to them.... it is one thing to be mistaken with no ill intent.

So fuck you scum bag , you have nothing to offer the truth movement until you learn how to be honest yourself Lurker.

You are a real piece of work. YOU are NOT a "truther", you are most obviously a disinformationalist who PRETENDS he's a "truther" to gullible fools, and who ATTACKS those who DO post factual and scientific information regarding 9/11.

I've been on the side of truth long enough for people to know what I'm all about.

YOU on the other hand have earned yourself a reputation as not only a foul mouthed loose cannon, but one who jumps down people's throats because they don't believe or accept your lies.

You have also been trying to intice people into some sort of unspecified "action", oftentimes apparently violent action. It would not surprise me in the least if you work for the FBI or Homeland Security, and are trying to find some suckers to bring down as "domestic terrorists".

Just admit that you have no explanation at all for why the rubber was burnt off the tires.

It'd be a lot more noble and honorable than the smoke and mirrors show you've thrown up in a vain attempt to fool anyone.

Apparently speaking to you in a civil manner is in your mind, going to "impressive lengths to win an argument".

Perhaps if I called you fucking jew piece of trash, like your boyfriend titorite likes to say here, it'd be more acceptable to you?

I have no clue what you're high on but if that is what you pass for sarcasm you should lay off the booze because you're only impressing yourself.

Whats the matter? Can't you play this game with out resorting to the foul tactics?

Since the pyroclastic dust can cling to peoples faces with out burning off their faces then obviously that is not super heated dust.

Since you wish to butt into the converstation, let me ask YOU, what do YOU think caused those car's lower sections to burn?

now you're trying to say I have not been part of this conversation but rather you think I am "butting in" ...

The super heated dust cloud that lands on peoples faces just fine ..... well it could not of been super heated now could it? IT did not burn people , it did not burn trees, it did not burn paper...no... that cloud was not 1800 degrees hot...

So what in your hypothesis could of caused the cars tires to melt/burn like that ???

That dust was not hot enough to burn skin,wood,or paper yet we have these half melted cars and what not..

If it was not the pyroclastic cloud then what lurker, in your opinion could of caused the damage?

Instead of playing the game and giving another question for a question how about this time you give your opinion in regards to the most recent question that has been asked of you multiple times.

Both he and you avoid the very direct question of what you both thought in regards to what caused those cars to burn.

Let me tell you this. It was NOT the result of a neutron bomb. Did either of you finish school?

If it had been a neutron bomb there would have been NO survivors, since they would have all been dead or dying from radiation poisoning. THAT is what a neutron bombs does, in case you missed the discussion.

Furthermore, it would have been a matter of MANY things burning and/or turned to glass, not just cars having some scorch burns, and it wouldn't have resulted in a top down collapse of the towers, it would have burst outwards from the point of detonation and caused the entire top section to fall at once.

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)

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