Protected: Nuclear 2001-09-11

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Neutron Nuclear DEW

9/11 Tetris

In the game of 9/11 Tetris, the pieces of evidence come down at weird intervals and angles and must be oriented into a “theory stack” that leaves the fewest and smallest gaps. A given piece of evidence might fit equally well in multiple theory stacks. However, all of the valid evidence must be accounted for in a reasonable manner. And to make the game more challenging, disinformation is part of the mix. A piece of evidence coming from a disinformation source is not invalidate by this association. With regards to 9/11 and the shock-&-awe global agenda that 9/11 put into effect, one could argue that all sources of information are in some ways disinformation. Remember that in order to be credible and hence successful, all disinformation must have copious amounts of truth. Owing to this and that some truths are inconvenient to the agenda, some disinformation is fashioned as a straw-man, such that when the deceit of the disinformation vehicle is discovered or purposely exposed, all “Nuggets of Truth” contained therein might be knocked from the table in the hopes of no further public consideration.

When contemplating the WTC destruction, I champion today neutron nuclear directed energy weapons (DEW), which Mr. HybridRogue1 has assisted in crafting the label “neu nookiedoo”. The sources for my bastard beliefs are:

(1) Dr. Judy Wood’s 2010 textbook, “Where Did The Towers Go?” and her website. Yes, it has disinformation, but it also has the best collection of pictorial evidence and nuggets of truth that need to be addressed by any 9/11 theory-du-jour.

(2) Mr. Jeff Prager’s presentation, Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]. Also his two part eMagazine of a few hundred pages Part 1 [86MB] and Part 2 [56MB]. Disinformation probably exists here, too.

(3) The omissions, misdirections, and logic errors of Dr. Steven Jones starting with his paper “Hard Evidence Rebudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes were used on the WTC Towers” and extending into his research into nano-thermite.

Allow me to start with #3, because this represents heresy for the orthodox 9/11 Truth Movement (9/11TM) that will be hard to get passed. Try.

Logic Error

Dr. Jones based his “no nukes” paper on a deeply flawed government report that did spotty measurements of tritium at Ground Zero. The government study notes that they were “unable” to test at numerous places, especially deep underground where the high temperatures and molten steel were observed. Should have been a red flag.

Assuming we can trust the measurements given in that report [a big assumption], it re-defines “trace” or “background” levels of tritium to be 55 times greater than it was prior to 9/11 in order to downplay any adverse health effects. Dr. Jones in his paper accepts this report unchallenged, re-iterates “trace” as the re-defined level, supports the contention of its negligent health effects, and then introduces a blatant logic error best summarized as follows:

“Nuclear weapons of type X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures of A, B, and C. Radiation signature D was measured. Thus, the cause of the WTC destruction was not nuclear weapons of X, Y, or Z nor any other nuclear device.

Other than airplane exit signs and police gun sights, Dr. Jones does not speculate much into the radiation signature D (tritium), which is a signature of a fusion device. Dr. Jones at various times talks about using his Geiger Counter on dust samples that didn’t measure any radiation. Of course not. (a) If there was significant radioactivity released, some such elements have short lives both in terms of time and distance. (b) A Geiger Counter is intended for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation that gives off neutron radiation that requires sophisticated equipment to measure.

Nano-Thermite in the Dust

Dr. Jones discovers in the dust energetic particles of nano-thermite. Nano-thermite reacts with steel from which it obtains its oxygen to burn, leaving iron spheres as a by-product. This has two problems in accounting for the WTC destruction. (1) Nano-thermite by itself does not have the brissance to account for the observed pulverization and speed of the towers’ decimation. So Dr. Jones speculates how something more energetic was in the mix. Thereby he exasperates the second problem, which is (2) the amount of unspent thermitic materials (possibly combined with other energetic chemical materials) leftover in the pile and that would be required to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. High School math & chemistry easily calculate the quantities to be massive, with amounts increasing as a function of the materials’ brissance. [Add to this massive amount the initial massive quantities required for pulverization, and “that dog don’t hunt” for Occam Razor.]

Hot-Spots at Ground Zero

When Dr. Jones explores the topic of under-rubble hot-spots in his energetic materials paper with Kevin Ryan, they speculate into the cause of six energetic spikes as being attributable to nano-thermite (NT), but not into what maintained those high temperatures between the spikes. In late September (2012), Dr. Jones writes: “Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).”

Neutron nuclear DEW suggests (ala the Anonymous Physicist) fratricide between some of the multiple ERW devices, such that several of them did not reach their full nuclear neutron-emission yield and were left fizzling in the pile.

Elements in the Dust

Let us return to the dust from which the NT was found to see what other elements it contained, which Dr. Jones, A&E9/11 Truth, and the govt should have done. The following is based on Mr. Prager’s conclusion from Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB], but is modified for this venue.

The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance.

The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. The USGS report shows that these quantities vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission.

The USGS report shows Barium and Strontium present and in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400ppm to over 3000ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships.

The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship and to other radionucleide daughter products.

The dust samples provide an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device. Nuclear weapon scientists, such as Dr. Jones, should have seized this data to analyze it and determine exactly what type of device produced it.

Dr. Wood’s Collected Evidence

Let us now introduce the work of Dr. Wood. It is the evidence and not necessarily her analysis that is important.

If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don’t know what happened, keep listening to the evidence until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you.
~ crafty Dr. Judy Wood

Disclaimer: Areas of disinformation in Dr. Wood’s work probably include her downplaying of hot-spots, the Hutchison Effect, and free-energy from space. Rather blatantly, she doesn’t consider nuclear forms of energy to power her DEW devices. Other than this, it has many nuggets of truth for thinking individuals to contemplate.

The evidence of 9/11 nuclear hijinx is on display in those pages, right on down to the anomalous vehicle damage along West Broadway and in the parking lot across the intersection.

Vehicle Damage

The pattern of vehicle fires was not chaotic. The vehicles affected were line-of-sight and some at quite some distance. It didn’t affect shaded vehicles or those around corners, or lots of more easily combustible things, like flags, paper, leaves, trees, or people. The pattern to the burns on vehicles is notable, and just as important is the pattern of what combustible things were not torched.

Consider why cars were seemingly targeted; they contain sheet metal. Depending on magnitude, duration, & distance, electromagnetic energy can induce Eddy currents in metal, heating up the metal, causing its paint to burn, and torching rubber & plastic things affixed, touching, or adjacent to such. [Thereafter, the rest of the vehicle may or may not burn depending on other factors. Once one vehicle has flames, this can become the source for neighboring vehicles starting to burn.] Not all line-of-sight vehicles were affected, because the culprit electromagnetic energy “slipped out.” Lots of shielding agents including the intact outer shell, intact lower floors, falling steel debris, and neighboring buildings would reduce the angle of incidence and intensity.

As alternative 9/11 Tretris theory stack, “hot and spicy thermitic particulates blown from the disintegrating towers” has been brought up many times. Unfortunately, this pyroclastic cloud had a considerable distance — a cooling one at that — to locate the sheet-metal on vehicles along West Broadway and in the car park. Moreover, this pyroclastic cloud easily went around corners and into places much closer with more easily combustible materials, like neighboring buildings, without causing the expected fires, if the cloud had been so “hot and spicy.”

Horseshoe Beams

Changing the focus from the emitted cloud to the internal destructive machinations, here is a picture of a core column that was bent into a horseshoe. When heating a localized area of a large piece of metal, the caveat is that metal can be great conductors of heat. The ramifications are that more intense heat (and/or time) are required to get a localized area of a large piece of metal heated to the point where it can be easily bent. Given that time was in very short supply during the towers’ decimation when this “lucky horseshoe” would have been created, the extrapolation is that the heat source was massive and probably well beyond the abilities of chemical explosive materials.

When science literate people study this and try to place this evidence on the 9/11 Tetris theory stack for chemical incendiaries or explosives, they should be left with questions (or gaps) that can’t be easily answered.

– Why was this core column not cut there?

– How close was this core column to the neighboring core column that would have been rigged with such incendiary or explosive?

– How much higher temperature does the incendiary or explosive have to burn to not only do its job on the target column but to also span the distance to a neighboring column and to heat a localized area to allow bending into a horseshoe?

– How quickly could this incendiary or explosive on a core column heat a localized portion of a neighboring column to the bending point? [While Dr. Jones and Mr. Jon Cole have done experiments with thermite to show how quickly in human terms (many seconds) it accomplishes its task, the nature of the anomaly within the towers destruction suggests that it would have had to have happened several orders of magnitude faster (milliseconds or less.)]

Now let’s discuss bent pieces of metal compliments of Dr. Judy Wood:

Steel Beam Bent Like a Horseshoe
Multiple pieces bent

The images above suggest that they were heated end-to-end (as if in a furnace) in order to achieve the smooth arcing of those massive beams. The gap created by this in the 9/11 Tretris stack for an incendiary or explosive is that such would be applied (e.g., affixed to a column) in a localized fashion. While fast & hot and designed to cut or tear where they were mounted, such “conventional” mechanisms come up short in explaining these smooth end-to-end bends. The arched beam evidence suggest a massive heat source several orders of magnitude hotter than conventional or exotic chemical mechanisms that would (a) fully heat the metal beams end-to-end (b) in a very short period of time.

The following images imply proximity to a destructive mechanism in a completely different ballpark than a conventional incendiary or explosive.

twisted beam 3
twisted beam 2

In the following images, note the wall assemblies that are rolled up like “steel doobies”. Note also how the interior and exterior sides of these wall assemblies are “steam cleaned”, meaning they have no paint or other things attached to them.

twisted beam 1 and rolled up carpet
Fields on the rolled up spandrels
The Steel Doobies

A conventional incendiary or explosive cannot explain how the spandrels that connected the three beams in a wall assembly (a) could be heated so completely or (b) could wrap themselves up into such a tight “steel joint.” The direction of energy forces to achieve is also most curious. Yep, the towers were smoked by something: “neu nookiedoo.”

Finally, we have the meteorite, which is noteworthy for how it fuses together various materials. What sort of heat source created this?

Nuclear Neutron Devices

A “standard” nuclear weapon typically has a heat wave, a blast wave, an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and radiation. All of these are features that can be tweaked or mitigated in the implementation (e.g., EMP inside a steel box). To be sure, a neutron weapon is designed with the trade-off of sacrificing much of its heat wave and blast wave in order to release neutron radiation in a targeted fashion.

Neutron nuclear DEW extrapolates from Davey Crocket (1960) and its small tactical size. It extrapolates from Big Ivan (1961) that was directed upwards and had small and quickly dissipated amounts of lingering radiation. It extrapolates from Project Excalibur and X-Ray Laser that were research projects of Star Wars in the 1980’s. It extrapolates from a neutron bomb or enhanced radiation weapon (ERW), that is a type of thermonuclear weapon designed specifically to release a large portion of its energy as energetic neutron radiation (fast neutrons) rather than explosive energy.

According to Mr. Prager’s two part eMagazine Part 1 [86MB] and Part 2 [56MB]:

1. Big Ivan left little radiation (reducing radioactive output by 97% in 1961). Forty years of technological advances could have easily produced a bomb with very, very little and very, very short-lived radioactive elements.

2. Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation which is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect. A Geiger Counter will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation.

3. Using ‘Big Ivan’ technology including advances made during 40 years of diligent study, it’s not hard to imagine a micronuclear device the size of an apple. The demolition effect would then be scaled down to what we actually saw on 9/11. Two 1000+ foot structural steel towers destroyed with the majority of the elements turned to dust; micron sized “very small particles” that can only be formed by a fusion device, a fission device or a fusion/fission device.

The multiple tactical ERW weapons of 9/11 each were small DIRECTED energy weapons that were aimed where they wanted the energy: up. This can be observed in the “fountain” effects of the debris mid-way through the towers’ pulverization. [Some of the damage to neighboring buildings and vehicles could be attributed to ERW becoming misaligned in the destruction.] From Wikipeia’s neutron bomb:

A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components. The weapon’s X-ray mirrors and radiation case, made of uranium or lead in a standard bomb, are instead made of chromium or nickel so that the neutrons can escape. The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.

The “usual” nuclear weapon yield-expressed as kT TNT equivalent-is not a measure of a neutron weapon’s destructive power. It refers only to the energy released (mostly heat and blast), and does not express the lethal effect of neutron radiation on living organisms. … In a fission bomb, the radiation pulse energy is approximately 5% of the entire energy released; in the neutron bomb it would be closer to 50%. A neutron bomb releases a much greater number of neutrons than a fission bomb of the same explosive yield. Furthermore, these neutrons are of much higher energy (14 MeV) than those released during a fission reaction (1-2 MeV).

Recall that chromium and nickel were measured in significant quantities by the USGS in the dust, and correlate very well to such 9/11 neutron devices.

Buildings and Embrittlement

In addition, consider the Banker’s Trust Building across from the WTC. It had facade damage from the decimated towers, which they repaired after 9/11. But before the building could be occupied, they decided to tear it down. Why? Embrittlement, perhaps?

Embrittlement is a loss of ductility of a material, making it brittle. Various materials have different mechanisms of embrittlement. … Metal-induced embrittlement (MIE) is the embrittlement caused by diffusion of atoms of metal, either solid or liquid, into the material. Neutron radiation causes embrittlement of some materials, neutron-induced swelling, and buildup of Wigner energy.

Is neutron radiation exposure always detrimental to metals (steels)?

We talk about radiation damage and environmental degradation of metals following radiation exposure. Indeed, there have been numerous conferences and symposia held and planned on this subject, which include research work and discussions with the central theme being the damage created in materials by neutron radiation exposure. Radiation embrittlement in metals is believed to be due mainly to (1) changes in flow properties because of the interaction of dislocations with irradiation-produced defects, and (2) precipitation of transmutation-produced gases and irradiation-induced segregation at grain boundaries which are potential fracture sites.

In other words, the Banker’s Trust Building may have been torn down, because close inspection of the supporting steel may have discovered such “fracture sites” due to embrittlement by the neutron weapons used to destroy the WTC. Brittle supporting columns in a skyscraper are undesirable for their inability to flex without failure to wind loads. The building was hence probably deemed unsafe and demolished accordingly.

The Theory Stack with the Fewest Gaps

In the game of 9/11 Tetris, “Nuggets of Truth” must be actively mined, re-fined, and re-purposed from (dis)information sources, because often they are the only source of information. The “theory stack” that supposes only chemical & exotic means for pulverizing the towers comes up short and has glaring gaps out of which tritium stares and astronomical quantities of unspent explosive materials spill. The “theory stack” for “neu nookiedoo” orients the evidence with fewer and tighter gaps that can even explain concerted efforts to prevent the public from discovering that 9/11 was nuclear.

Evidence of “nuclear anything” has about the same PR stigma as a “toxic waste dump”: nobody wants it in their backyard, their playground, their place of employment, or their commerce centers. Want to see a portion of NY city shrivel up & die as inhabitents and workers make their exits to greener, non-toxic pastures? Then let it slip out that “nuclear something” was involved. Even though the spectrum of “nuclear somethings” is very wide with respect to radiation signatures, their duration, and their impacts on human health, misconceptions will still run wild in the public sphere. The “Field of Dreams” message to Silverstein paraphrased: “If you re-build it, ain’t nobody gonna come.”

// @ 3,329 Words; “Hey Wookie, Lookie! Kookie Neu Nookiedoo”

On the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis: an open letter to Gage and Cole

By Maxwell C. Bridges

The recent article AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis? by misters Cole & Gage concluded with:

“We do not support the DEW hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction is well supported by the evidence.”

Really? Does the evidence actually support well the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis, and in particular nano-thermite, which was found in the dust at the WTC?

In dispute here is not the discovery of nano-thermite in the dust or its deployment as one of the mechanisms of the WTC destruction. As a secondary or redundant mechanism, it does not have to address all of the features of destruction. The issue is that nano-thermite has been extracted (wrongly) by the scientifically weaker yeomen of the 9/11 Truth movement to explain all (or most) of the observed destruction features.

Case in point – nano-thermite reaches extremely high temperatures quickly, but:

(A) Nano-thermite’s very fast burn rate makes it an unlikely candidate to account for the DURATION of the underground fires. Do the math; massive overkill amounts would be required.

(B) The dustification of the towers is a massive energy sink. Again the math suggests massive overkill amounts.

(C) Is nano-thermite an incendiary useful for cutting, or an explosive that employs massive changes in air pressure to achieve destruction? As an incendiary, nano-thermite would be less than ideal to coordinate and generate the observed explosive energy of dustification. As an explosive, nano-thermite does not explain the steady and long burn of the under-rubble fires. Moreover, wouldn’t such explosives leave audible signatures and decibel levels that NIST’s Dr. Shyam Sunder confidently states weren’t present?

(D) Massive overkill amounts of nano-thermite (or conventional chemical incendiaries/explosives) under the noses of bomb sniffing dogs introduce risks of detection in both the logistics of implementation and what remains in the aftermath.

(E) Nano-thermite does not adequately explain the anomalous damage to vehicles. How does nano-thermite explain unique burn patterns that seemingly “cooked off” things like plastic door handles and gas caps yet didn’t affect surrounding paper and other more easily combustible materials? In some cases, the fires appear to have originated inside the vehicle.

So if nano-thermite has been incorrectly extrapolated by the yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement to explain observed destruction features that it cannot, then we are left with a void that must be filled, evidence in need of an explanation.

Let’s talk directed energy weapons (DEW). Here we have a Catch-22 situation whereby most of us can only speculate beyond our level of expertise and knowledge. Those with the credentials to talk knowingly would most likely reveal classified information and thereby violate top-secret or national security protocols and be held liable.

Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative that began in the early 1980s was not some glorified public works project for the overly educated with no expectation of producing something useful for the Department of Defence (DoD). What secret technology and exotic weapons resulted? On September 10, 2001 the DoD could not account for $2.3 trillion; where did it go and what did it pay for?

You dismiss directed energy weapons (DEW) too easily and what anomalous side-effects might be created by its energy source (e.g., nuclear devices, cold fusion,  HAARP, hurricane Erin & Tesla Coils?) A key word in its description is ”directed.” They pointed it where they wanted the “energy” focused, like a microwave “weapon” that instantly heats the residual moisture or water molecules within content into steam whose rapid expansion builds pressure that blows apart the “container” of that water (e.g., drywall, concrete, humans). “Dustification.” Pulverization. Recall that fragments of human remains were found in the dusty debris on rooftops of neighboring WTC buildings.

You do not do justice to the topic of DEW; or to Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook (“Where Did the Towers Go?”). I’m not saying that elements of her conclusions might not ultimately belong in the disinformation category. The danger that we must overcome when faced with concerted covert/overt disinformation campaigns (which is all around 9/11) is in too quickly dismissing a person and all of their conclusions, which then consequently dismisses all of the evidence and truths upon which their conclusions are built.

This is in fact what has happened and is happening with Dr. Judy Wood’s efforts. It is good and well when your scientific and scholarly efforts find issues with her analysis and conclusions. But when your own theories that the Truth movement lines up to march behind do not address the glaring evidence that Dr. Wood at least attempts, then your theories come up short. Worse, you know it.

A nugget of truth mined from the Russian disinformation agent, Dimitri K., is that in order to obtain building permits for the towers, they had to have an approved demolition plan; nuclear devices were supposedly in those demolition plans from the ’60s. (The Davey Crocket nuke was tested in 1960, so this is not out of the range of possibilities.)

Dr. Wood unwittingly debunks Dimitri’s thesis of “deep underground nukes,” because she presents undisputed evidence of the undamaged bathtub and only 3 or 4 of 7 subway lines being obstructed, as well as seismic evidence. Moreover, she calculates why dustification was required. Had the perpetrators not gone to overkill measures, massive chunks of building (like the leaning upper stories of WTC-2 that should have tumbled over or what traditional controlled demolition creates) falling from great heights would have had massive amounts of kinetic energy and been sufficient to damage the bathtub. Any significant crack of the bathtub walls would have flooded the WTC basements, the subway tubes including the ones going under the Hudson, and the basements of many other NYC buildings.

Thus, we must acknowledge that dustification of structure and content weren’t just flukes of an overly efficient overkill demolition (as would be expected of a tight paramilitary operation); dustification was a demolition goal to limit the scope of destruction to the WTC and to leave the intact bathtub & subways for rebuilding. As such, we must work backwards, recognize this dustification is a massive energy sink, and theorize what could be its energy source.

Conventional explosives and nano-thermite as primary mechanisms have the same issues: massive overkill amounts are required and would present more risk of exposing the operation during their installation (under the noses of bomb sniffing dogs) and aftermath. Tactical nuclear weapons and DEW exist; cold-fusion research is further than we’re told; they would not be withheld from the selection of tools, and were probably promoted heavily by generals to the planners and decision makers; the side-effects of such exotic weapons on, say, vehicles and metal are key and signature.

Here is how I would re-write your conclusion:

“We support the DEW hypothesis because it is supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction does not address all of the evidence and requirements.”

I encourage you to make another(?) thorough reading of Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook and mine it for nuggets of truth.