Tuesday, June 26, 2007


What else had the sheer power to wipe out the massively strong base of the towers besides nuclear weapons?

(click to enlarge; you can see the tiny ant-like people better)

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist"

The “anonymous physicist” has this to say on the issue of radiation during and after the WTC nuclear demolition. We must dispense with any naiveté on this important issue. If the EPA and Whitman had found massive radiation and/or radionuclides (radioactive/decaying elements) at the WTC after 9/11, does anyone believe they would ever release this data to the people? Relatedly, it later became known that they found high levels of (asbestos, mercury and other) toxins shortly after 9/11, and yet told the world, and the responders, that “the “air was safe.” They lied, for quite some time, about what they had found in this sense. Now if the EPA tested for, and found, significant radiation, and/or radionuclides, and failed to tell the responders this; it resulted in the responders not wearing radiation-shielding, protective clothing. This would then likely lead to cancer and other illnesses. I note that there has been cancers, in 9/11 responders, and people living nearby; and asbestos is known to usually take far longer for its victims to get cancer. Could these cancers be the result of radiation? Cancer can be caused by even the very lowest levels of radiation. The father of the field of health physics, Dr. Karl Ziegler Morgan, has so stated. The EPA officials and Whitman would be liable for charges of mass murder and treason, just for this cover-up. Also if the government perpetrated 9/11 (and no one else could), would they allow another section of the government to give it all away? Do not the people know how the government lies, in perpetuity, about the Pearl Harbor set-up, the Kennedy assassination, and many more nefarious deeds it has perpetrated?

In a similar vein, is anyone foolish enough to trust a certain physicist’s alleged data on his tests of a single steel beam and a friend’s apartment? This is the same physicist whose alleged data shot down the whole field of cold fusion, which might have, by now, obviated some of the need for oil, if this field wasn’t shot down? Could his “data” on cold fusion have been accurate if many scientists around the world (who aren’t govt disinfo agents) continue to publish data showing that cold fusion works? When this same physicist tries to shoot down the fact that mini-nukes were used to demolish the twin towers, he rightly knows that he has to address the issue of the evidence of EMPs (Electromagnetic Pulses). But he barely mentions it, and simply says that other factors could have caused the power outages. No mention of the toasted cars--and not people or paper right next to them. See Ondrovic’s statements already alluded to by me. Read how she was knocked down by the car door right next to her overheating from the EMP and exploding off the car and hitting her. Note that nothing heated her up directly (which also eliminates DEWs). That physicist knows well that there is no other explanation for these events, except EMP, so he does not include this evidence of the toasted cars or Ondrovic’ eyewitness (heavily redacted) testimony. No one knows better than that nuclear physicist that nukes were indeed used to kill nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. That is why his statements are replete with omissions, and other falsifications not worthy of a complete rebuttal. Except to say one last thing. When he mentions the high temperatures and molten steel, at the WTC, he bogusly writes about this as if this occurred only during the demolition or just shortly thereafter. He ignores (as he must) the fact that flowing molten steel, and extremely high temperatures were found days, weeks and months after 9/11. Does anyone believe his beloved, bogus thermite was still generating massive heat days, weeks and months later? Any heat generated by thermite would have been gone minutes or hours after the event. Indeed, the heat from the mini-nukes themselves would also have dissipated within a short period of time. There are no reports of molten, flowing metal or high temperatures days, weeks or months after the events of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. This is why I had to propose another cause for this in my nuclear demolition article, other than the nuclear bombs themselves. And also why I included Tahil’s website as his is the only other explanation released about a possible source that could have generated high heat days, weeks and months afterwards. And I think my hypothesis of undetonated “extra” nukes impacted by the exploding nukes and going somewhat critical, is far more likely than his theory of two underground nuclear reactors having been surreptitiously built. But his reference was included by me, as it is not impossible. And someone interested in the truth includes other theories and other facts, and does not try to cleverly suppress them.

Also regarding the radiation issue, in this abstract of an article, a scientist, in 1969, published the following, “Nuclear device characteristics and the factors affecting radionuclide production and distribution are described along with some recent nuclear experiments conducted by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission for the purpose of providing technical data on cratering mechanisms and special emplacement techniques which could minimize the release of radioactivity to the atmosphere.” This shows, even back in 1969, that the govt experimented with using nukes to construct canals. It shows that they worked on having nukes with blast effect, and little or no radioactive elements created. The article’s abstract hints at two methods for obviating atmospheric release of radioactivity. 1. Steering the device towards low radionuclide production and 2. "special emplacement techniques" which means place it where you won't get much or any radiation released into the air. As this was back in 1969, they likely have perfected very low (or no) radiation nukes. There should be better, more recent articles on this topic, but I didn't find any so far. Maybe I know why?! Could it be because they perfected this, and classified this, as they knew they would be using this on the “home front,” such as on 9/11? Could small nukes to be used for “construction,” have morphed into nukes used for “destruction?”

Regarding 9/11, never forget that whatever radionuclides may have been created were sent to China, or otherwise were not allowed to be studied. This remarkable article states that before the steel was shipped to China, it was "first sent to be washed down"— a standard method of decreasing radiation levels! This article also has a top secret demolition expert/geologist saying that even the 1993 WTC bomb was a nuke, and they wanted him to be in charge of "better" nuking of the WTC in the future, and he refused! In this light, I always thought it strange that the govt basically admitted that they were the ones to use actual explosive in 1993 WTC hit. They even had a TV movie made depicting this. Do you recall how their inside man, an Egyptian agent, worked with the FBI? When he allegedly asked the FBI to switch to a non-exploding dud, the FBI allegedly told him to use the actual explosive! Why weren’t these FBI agents charged? Why would the FBI/govt admit to this malfeasance? Now it makes sense-- whenever the regime admits to something really bad, it's usually because the truth is vastly worse still! The same demolition expert said of the 1993 nuke— after he examined the basement of that tower: "The particular type of construction type micronuclear device is mostly radiologically clean." So, as I indicated in my WTC nuclear demolition article, recent nuclear devices can be designed to be “steered” towards blast capability, and away from any (significant) radiation release.

For completeness, I note that if there was significant radioactivity released, some such elements have short lives both in terms of time and distance. Few, if any "citizens" right there had Geiger counters, most of which have serious limitations. These nukes went off basically inside steel boxes. The government’s own study found significant levels of tritium (a signature of a fusion device, and according to Tahil, if he is honest, even end-products of fission were found). But the govt study notes that they were “unable” to test at numerous places— but especially deep underground, which was where the high temperatures and molten steel were observed! Of course, there is the possibility (since this is the govt), that they did test at these places, and discarded anything that would have proved the case for mini-nukes. With other government “investigations,” whistle-blowers have revealed that often there is much evidence, but it is eliminated. Sometimes absolute proof of nefarious deeds by govt elements is sent to Congress, and they immediately "LOSE" it. The govt has apparently used the most horrific methods to silence a FEMA photographer (Sonnenfeld), one of only two people, the govt allowed to video the WTC site.

The bottom line is that the govt is known to have created construction/destruction mini-nukes that likely produce little radiation or radionuclides. The govt’s own WTC study admitted to finding tritium (with a laughable explanation of its possible source) and other elements that could have been from a fusion (or even a fission device according to Tahil). The local govt leader (Giuliani) colluded with the federal perpetrators to cart off the evidence including building components and people’s remains, and disallowed their examination which clearly is obstruction of justice, but which prevented proper radiation studies—except apparently later for one steel beam. Was the latter chosen carefully, if you know what I mean? This govt has repeatedly proven that it would never release any data that would be complete proof that could lead to the prosecution—for mass murder and high treason here—of its officials all the way to the top…whoever that really is.

Bookmark and Share