World Trade Center Demolition

by The Anonymous Physicist

This author, among a few others, has claimed that numerous mini- or micro-nukes were used to destroy the WTC. There may appear to be a conflict between the “official” listing of minimal critical masses for small nuclear fission bombs, and the claims of very small yield for such nuclear devices. Now we have sources, like this Wiki article state that about 10 kg. (kilogram) for Plutonium, and 15-50 Kg for Uranium are their minimal critical masses. I have seen other sources put 2 Kg for the minimal critical mass for Plutonium. At the same time, we have a gov’t physicist at a Congressional hearing, in 1998, who said, “These experiments involve the actual testing of extremely low yield fission devices (as low as the equivalent of several pounds of TNT) within a confined environment.” Such a very small fission yield directly implies a critical mass far below that claimed to be the minimal critical mass for any fission device; thus there appears to be a conflict. How can it be resolved?

Obviously one or the other side may be lying. The official listings and equations for finding the smallest critical mass for a given radionuclide can have been made much larger than they really are—ostensibly to deter nuclear proliferation among “newcomers.” Or the physicist testifying to Congress could have lied to scare people. Although the Congress did pass legislation barring the production of such extremely small yield nukes. Needless legislation was passed, if this were impossible; but this doesn’t prove anything, due to the nature of Congress.

Now regarding mini-nukes, as far back as the 1950’s, the USA had the Davy Crockett mini-nuke (fission). It was called a recoilless rifle with a range of 2-4 km. It’s yield was down to 10 tons of TNT. This is 0.01 Kt (kilotons), or about 1/1000 of the Hiroshima blast. Thus it can be called a mini-nuke. Note that this low yield appears to be from less than the “official” minimal critical mass claimed. One would think that with an additional 45 years before 2001, and with the advent of technological breakthroughs, such as nanotechnology--which the military would have had decades before civilian use--ultra-small nukes would be obtainable, unless truly forbidden by the Laws of Physics.

The Wiki article admits, at one point, that “critical mass depends inversely on the square of the density.” And there are greater explosives now to implode the material to a greater density, than they did in 1945. As the critical mass equation has the density inversely squared, this could provide for a great shrinkage of the minimal critical mass. There are other relevant things in the wiki article on critical mass. There is the “fudge factor, f”. And they admit that “sophisticated nuclear weapons programs can make a functional device from less material than more primitive weapons programs require.” But wiki, which has been called a CIA front, does list the minimal critical masses I cited above.

Can these opposing views be reconciled? How could a micro-nuke be made? At first thought, one might conclude that one would indeed use nanotechnology to emplace Uranium or Plutonium atoms one at a time optimally, to obtain as small, and compact, a nuke as possible— and this may be feasible. But then I realized this may be approaching the problem from the wrong direction. Instead of trying to see how that physicist at the Congressional hearing could build a fission bomb, with a yield of only a few pounds of TNT, from a very tiny amount of Uranium or Plutonium, I may have found better ways.

Now we know, e.g., that the Hiroshima bomb had 80 generations of neutron capture/emission. One neutron yielding 2-3 neutrons with each successful capture by a Uranium nucleus, and so on. 99% of the 13-15 Kt of TNT release is said to have occurred in the last 10 generations of neutron emission. That is because of the exponential build-up to the massive numbers of neutrons at the end. So instead of thinking very tiny, what is to stop the following? Start with an Hiroshima bomb, or the smaller Davy Crockett nuke. Then stop the last few generations of neutron emission/capture to have either of these bombs have a much lower yield. This can probably be attained in numerous ways. 1. A somewhat hollow core or 2. Emplacing one or more spherical shells (or whatever geometry is required) of a neutron absorbing material, at the appropriate radii, to either terminate criticality near the end (or earlier for a very small yield), or go barely critical (as opposed to the initial super-criticality), or possibly sub-critical somewhere in between to halt, or slow, the reaction. 3. Employ ACTIVE nanotech devices to halt a critical reaction, even after it has begun.

The first method is somewhat obvious, so let’s examine the second and third methods. Regarding neutron absorbing shells, we know that the properties of neutron absorbing materials are well known from the nuclear reactor industry. In fact, such a tiny nuclear bomb is almost in between a nuke and a nuclear reactor. I think this is very attainable. Now for the third method. As the time scale between each of the 80 generations of neutron capture/emission is said to be 10 nanoseconds, and nanotechnology operates at nanometer distances, it is thus possible that active, not merely passive, means could be employed to act on this related time scale. Thus it may be possible to build in active methods to curtail, or halt, a chain reaction, even after it has begun. As they have nano-engines, they could have nano-lasers that could “de-implode” the critical mass, even after it has begun! Thus no laws of physics would be violated. So it appears likely that there may be numerous ways to attain micro-nukes-- including with the earlier noted increased density—despite official claims that may be highly exaggerated, or outdated, of 2-10 kilogram masses, etc.

Indeed these methods may make it easier to produce small yield nukes out of fission only, and not have any fusion. And tiny nukes were needed, at the WTC, so as to not obviously nuke through the whole building at once, or Manhattan for that matter. So if only fission nukes could be made so small, we can see how the redundant emplacement of many of these could have given rise to the China Syndrome, beginning on 9/11. Indeed these small nukes that employ methods to “damp” them down, may be difficult to standardize. That is, a little too much damping, and it stops the chain reaction before any significant yield is attained. Thus I now have a third possible causative factor that may have led to fizzled nukes! E.g., they would have used the lowest yield nukes in the smaller buildings, and possibly many of these same devices were placed in the larger towers—or several larger ones, as I originally wrote. Again, I have asserted, all micro-nukes in WTC7 fizzled in the morning. See http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/09/breakthroughs-toward-attaining-complete.html

And WTC6, with it’s nearly perfect spherical hole, looks like JUST ONE mini-, or micro-nuke exploded there. If this one had fizzled, they would have had to do a WTC7 later in the day, for WTC6 also! What I am saying is that they likely tried to have several go off (redundancy), but that spherical hole indicates just one went off, and came close to being too large, if you know what I mean. Many smaller ones— to hide the nuking, was the order of the day— if possible. And these methods, to reduce the minimal critical mass, may make these micro-nukes very sensitive to fizzling. So this hypothesis of how to make a micro-nuke, may be coherent with the rest of my hypotheses, including fizzled nukes in WTC7 and the towers, and the subsequent China Syndrome of high heat generating radioactive fragments, and the three month long hot, large, rubble pile, and the six month long very high heat underneath the towers and WTC7. The latter due to insufficiency of the radiation-lowering methods of sand and water.

I might even speculate that the fizzled North Korean Nuke (of 2006) may have been given to them by none other than the American regime. And it was one of the WTC-type small nukes— with the same fizzled result! See http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002832.html This is part of the op of having a bogus enemy for a possible bogus future war.

So we may have a cohesive body of knowledge tieing together micro-nukes, fizzled nukes—among the ones that did go off--on 9/11, and the subsequent China Syndrome at New York City’s World trade Center. Unlike Hiroshima, all this arose because the American regime needed to hide the nuking of New York City from its residents! But the nuclear cat is out of the bag, and making its presence more and more known every day.