Thursday, December 31, 2009

Permanent Top Post

This site deals primarily with the mechanism of demolition of the WTC and the likelihood of nuclear bombs being used.

See "China Syndrome at the WTC" for articles pertaining to the aftermath of the WTC nuclear demolition and the extreme heat phenomena seen at "Ground Zero".

Just Published: Limited Edition, Nuclear 9/11 Book by The Anonymous Physicist

See or

Bookmark and Share

Friday, October 23, 2009

Index of Nuke Articles

(click on link to view article)

A Brief Summary: WTC Destruction & High Temperature Aftermath: ONLY Nuclear Bombs and the China Syndrome Fit All the Evidence (by The Anonymous Physicist)

35 Reasons for Many Small Fission Nukes at the WTC (by Spooked)

The Crucial Differences in the Nuclear 9/11 Theories-- A Call To Eliminate Nuclear 9/11 Mis- or Dis-Information & Attain Completeness and Fit all the Known Evidence (by The Anonymous Physicist)

On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Original WTC Nuke Thesis from "Anonymous Physicist" (by The Anonymous Physicist)

If the WTC Nuclear Destruction Had the China Syndrome Aftermath, Why Didn’t Hiroshima? (by The Anonymous Physicist)

WTC7 Demolition: Conventional, or Nuclear After All-- and the Speculative Nuclear Borer Hypothesis (by The Anonymous Physicist)

The “China Syndrome” Came to New York City on 9/11 (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Hanging Skin and Nuclear Blasts. Where in the World is Felipe David-- and Did He Survive Exposure to Nuclear Radiation? (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Eyewitness Testimony of Firefighters Believing They Were Nuked on 9/11 as well as early WTC7 Destruction, EMP, non-impact plane flyby, and people being pushed out of a WTC tower (by The Anonymous Physicist)

More Evidence & Testimony Indicating Nuclear Blasts, Nuclear Radiation, & China Syndrome at the WTC (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Proof of the Existence of Mini-Nukes and Micro-Nukes (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Brief Summary of Evidence of Nuclear bombs used at the WTC on 9/11/01 (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Was the First Atomic Bomb [in modern times] Exploded on an American Town by the American Govt? (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Could 9/11 Have Been Done With FAE/Thermobaric Explosives? (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Breakthroughs Toward Attaining A Complete Understanding of the Nuking of the WTC on 9/11-- The Likelihood of Sabotaged, Fizzled Nukes (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Basement Nukes and Top-Down Demolition (by Spooked)

Breakthrough: The Story Of Cathy T, & The Large Earthquake That Was Felt One Mile Away When WTC1 Was “Hit”! (by The Anonymous Physicist)

More On the Immediate and Continous Radiation Lowering, and Shielding, Techniques Used at the WTC, after 9/11 (by The Anonymous Physicist)

The Final Word on The Tritium (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Exposing The “Red Mercury” Nuclear Scam, & Its Possible Use In Future Bogus Wars, & Other Crucial Matters On Nuclear 911, and About Mercury (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Breakthroughs Towards Attaining A Complete Understanding of the Nuking of the WTC on 9/11, and its China Syndrome Aftermath: Part II (by The Anonymous Physicist)

On The Existence of Mini- or Micro-Nukes, Fizzled Nukes, 9/11 & The China Syndrome (by The Anonymous Physicist)

A Summary of Evidence of EMPs (Electromagnetic Pulses) from the Nukes Used in the WTC on 9/11 (by The Anonymous Physicist)

WTC Destruction Theories: "DEW" versus Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermate versus Milli-Nukes/Micro-Nukes (by Spooked)

Ground Zero Smoking Cannon: Where Are All the Core Columns and Beams??? (by Spooked)

Micro-Nukes in the WTC--Creating The China Syndrome: Important Matters of Completeness & Plausibility (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Did Two Nuclear Reactors, not Nuclear Bombs, Destroy the WTC on 9/11? Review of William Tahil’s Book, “Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the WTC”, and of his Reactor Hypothesis (by The Anonymous Physicist)

The Effect of a Low Yield Nuke on a Steel Structure (by Spooked)

The Fall of the WTC1 Spire and the Intact WTC1 Stairwell: Proof of Demolition Near Bottom of the Tower (by Spooked)

Further Observations on WTC1 Stairwell B-- 1. Did Pasquale Buzzelli Surf Down The “Collapse”—or Do Conflicting Reports Collapse the O.C.T.? 2. Does the Revealed “Upward Wind” During “Collapse” Prove the Final “Cleaner Nuke”? (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, July 02, 2009

The Final Word on The Tritium

by The Anonymous Physicist

I have written, that after long and careful analyses, the best bet for the main factor that destroyed the WTC on 9/11/01 were numerous, small, fission bombs. Others have claimed that one (hypothetical) 4th generation, pure fusion nuclear bomb destroyed each tower. This is what the anonymous Finnish military expert wrote. And the Finn apparently based his entire 4th generation pure fusion hypothesis on the finding of tritium at the WTC on 9/13/01. Since he was the first person to publish any specific nuclear destruction scenario for 9/11, many others cite his work as being definitive, or such. (He could still be correct, though this is extremely unlikely.) And so many who state that they are proponents of the nuclear destruction hypothesis of the WTC are proponents of the pure fusion mechanism, because the Finn is; and he cited the Tritium found at the WTC on 9/13/01. Or there could be a more sinister reason for these numerous individuals to support the pure fusion scenario.

Now the Finn apparently gave overarching consideration to the Tritium found and published in the article, “Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center” by T.M. Semkow, et al. It was published at the 223rd American Chemical Society National Meeting, Orlando, FL, April 7-11, 2002. The article states that “This work was performed under the auspices of the United States Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.” (Note that this is the same lab that allegedly can create “super nano-composite thermite” that yields “unextinguishable fires,” and thus new laws of chemistry and physics as well as the first equivalent perpetual motion mechanism. [If only.] It’s also the same lab that is remasterminding Kennedy Assassination audio tapes. And I have some suspicions on what the “Eng” might mean.) It should be noted that this paper contains several bogus and ludicrous attempts to account for the tritium at the WTC on 9/13. Mostly they allege that the tritium came from exit signs on the planes that “crashed into the towers.” The paper also alleges that tritium was in the sightings on the guns of police officers killed that day. The first “mechanism” is obviously bogus, as there is not a single video that agrees with reality in that the “planes” are clearly just CGI broadcast on TV, and there was no credible evidence on the ground that any planes had crashed into the towers, and did so with blatantly, obvious impossible crash physics. Sources have also stated that the tritium claim on gun sightings is also bogus, if not totally, then regarding the amount.

Being a long-term expert on gov’t conspiracies and crimes, I see the whole tritium matter very deeply. The regime can and does refuse to release anything damning. So why did they release any data showing tritium at all, when they could have kept this under wraps, as I am sure FEMA is doing with WTC radiation readings? One possible answer is that it would provide a ruse for others to later claim the mythical 4th generation pure fusion bomb was used-- thus obviating what was there in NYC for 6 months-- the China Syndrome. And always remember, we are discussing the Lawrence Livermore Labs, designers of humanity-exterminating WMD for more than 60 years, as well as the above nefarious actions, related to the thermite hangout and JFK murder.

Now my first articles on my “many small nukes hypothesis” cited evidence for both fission and fusion at the WTC. I too ignored one important factor in these matters for a while-- but I have changed that in later articles and in a larger work-- but have not played this up at this blog, and wish to rectify this now. I have also written that it may be more than coincidence that a 4th generation pure fusion bomb does not allow for what we clearly had at the WTC for up to six months-- the China Syndrome of great heat GENERATION from the remnants of the many fission bombs, as each used only about 1-6% of its fissile material. That is, pure fusion does not allow for the China Syndrome as any remnants of pure fusion components (such as deuterium or tritium) do not allow for this-- only Uranium or Plutonium fissioning can. Note that a fission-triggered fusion bomb could still allow for the China Syndrome. Only the pure fusion scenario does not. So it is curious that the Finn immediately went with pure fusion, and not with the possibility of fission-triggered fusion. And the Finn based this on the tritium finding, and either did not know about, or chose to ignore, all the evidence of massive heat generation at the WTC for 6 months, and also the following matter.

One factor from nuclear physics has been mostly left out of this “nuclear choice.” This is TERNARY FISSION, and was included in William Tahil’s book. Unfortunately that book was shown by this researcher to be incorrect on several points. These included the “nuclear reactor” hypothesis being thoroughly unnecessary and impossible, as is his and the Finn’s claim that a single nuke destroyed each tower. (Tahil also incorrectly stated that a fission nuke uses up 100% of its fissile material, when it is only 1-6%.) I have also cited much evidence both of a preliminary sub-basement nuke timed with the explosions on top (so-called “plane hits”), and that the final destruction involved numerous small nukes. So the single nuke scenario, from the Finn and Tahil, is untenable.

Now most fission reactions of Uranium or Plutonium are binary-- they yield TWO large “daughter elements” (e.g., Barium and Krypton, or Strontium and Xenon), plus 2-3 neutrons, plus energy in the form of gamma rays. But since 1959, it has been publicly known, via this article, that ternary fission yields TRITIUM, along with its THREE daughter elements, plus the excess neutrons, and energy. And thus with the numerous fission bombs that were detonated, and with the additional possible factors of redundancy and fratriciding that my articles have detailed, we can arrive at perhaps the most likely source of tritium in the rubble-- the fission nukes themselves. I have seen estimates for the percentage of tritium production from ternary fission ranging from 1% down to .005%. (There is the possibility of deliberate disinformation, in some matters of nuclear physics, so one cannot often trust public nuclear physics discussions.) Because of this, and not knowing what element(s) were fissioned, nor how much of each, it is impossible to know just how much tritium could have been produced by ternary fission in the numerous micro-nukes used to destroy the WTC. But it appears to be more than would occur from non-existent planes, or gun sightings; and the proven heat generation of the China Syndrome Aftermath belies the use of a mythical 4th generation pure fusion device.

The most likely type of nuclear bombs used, was the type that could be made the smallest, and was the simplest, and most proven/dependable (compared to the others). This was the “good old” pure fission form of nuclear bombs. As I have shown, they’re even backpackable. And in the final analysis-- given ternary fission-- there never was any basis for claiming that the nuke(s) used at the WTC had to be 4th generation pure fusion, nor even that there was any fusion at all at the WTC. We may never be able to prove exactly what happened regarding the nuclear destruction of the WTC on 9/11, by the American regime; but we should strive to emphasize the most likely, and the most dependable factors the American regime would have used. And we must realize that the regime wanted to hide the China Syndrome Aftermath, as that poisoned thousands of responders, and to a lesser extent, millions of metro NY residents.

So any tritium found on 9/13/01 at the WTC, was most likely from ternary fission, not fusion. But if you want one more, perhaps crucial, plausibility argument, here it is. Fusion bombs have a history of having a yield larger than expected. And the perps strenuously wanted NOT to blow through the building in an obvious nuclear manner. A nuke having a yield larger than needed could not be risked. This would have been visible to thousands, perhaps millions; and such knowledge would have been difficult to contain. (Whereas radiation findings were controlled by FEMA, and the Gestapo regime need only scream “national security” to prevent release of such data-- including the tritium paper, if it had wanted to.) I have emphasized the need not to blow through the building in an obvious nuclear way, since my very first article herein. This is one reason why some conventional explosives may have been used during the destruction scenario, as I have also written.

What the nukes were mainly for, in my estimation, was to vaporize INSTANTLY, and definitively, the necessary core structure for the TOWERS’ ENSUING RAPID, APPROXIMATE, FREEFALL RATE OF COLLAPSE! The PTB apparently intended to later push the impossible “gravitational pancaking” ruse, even though it violates numerous laws of Physics, and we can see the outer structure being exploded outward, by the overpressure within. (You can compare what happens during an actual gravitational collapse by seeing this.) The PTB clearly wanted to shove a physically impossible, evidence-opposing destruction "mechanism" down the throats of the masses. They know what it does to many peoples’ psyches. It induces denial, fear, schizoid behavior, and hopelessness-- all good for the coming endless wars, and destruction of the American Constitution. Putting out a physically impossible and evidence-opposing “mechanism” for WTC destruction jibes with other events perpetrated by the American regime. With the American regime’s assassination of the Peace President, John Kennedy, the “official” scenario is that the fatal head shot was fired from behind, even though Kennedy’s body is slammed violently straight back--from the shot fired, from the front, by his Secret Service “protector”/driver. The ludicrous shot from behind violates the simple Law of Conservation of Momentum. As I have written, the WTC bogus scenario entails “pristine pancaking”-- violating Newton’s Laws of Motion. Similarly the JFK Assassination had (future) Senator Specter’s “pristine bullet” that smashed into 5 bones, made turns on its own, hung out for 2 seconds and looked virtually like new-- and violated the Momentum Conservation Law. The PTB want to put out these impossible “mechanisms” to dumb down, shock, or paralyze the people. Most people go into denial, and do not want to think about it, because their subconciousnesses know what is really involved. Those who can think and see, and have combatted the denial, are then further confounded with other limited hangouts put out by the Gestapo Regime’s hidden intel agents posing as “leaders” of the “truth movement.” These WTC hangouts included the evidence-free inanity of DEW, and the “thermite burns forever” impossibility. Both are easily demonstrated to be physically impossible to have caused the WTC destruction, and the CSA. All the regime’s hidden assets earlier inserted at the top of the “alternative” or conspiracy internet media, were then instructed to push these hangouts and avoid mention of the nuking and the China Syndrome Aftermath.

Returning now to the fission vs. fusion issue. Blowing through the outer structure of the building with unnecessary fusion--either as the hypothetical pure fusion, or as a fission-fusion bomb-- could not be risked, when pure fission micro-nukes were readily available. Fission nukes have a more "guaranteed" upper bound on their yields, and are more dependable as well, compared to either the alleged pure fusion or the fission-fusion bomb. In the final analysis, the release of the tritium data may have been a clever Intel Op to try to hide the China Syndrome Aftermath, and its nuclear fission cause. If there was tritium at the WTC, its most likely source was ternary fission.

Bookmark and Share

35 Reasons for Many Small Fission Nukes at the WTC

1) heat generation at ground zero for six months (china syndrome)
2) inability to quench ground zero heat with water
3) red hot/molten steel at ground zero
4) missing core columns from ground zero (vaporized during destruction)
5) spreading of sand at ground zero consistent with attempts to limit radiation
6) washing of steel recovered from pile consistent with radiation decontamination
7) extreme security for ground zero steel shipments consistent with limiting access to radioactive steel
8) extreme security at ground zero, limiting exposure, view of devastation
9) extreme pulverization of WTC concrete into very fine particles
10) disappearance of over one thousand human bodies from WTC debris
11) disappearance of furniture, phones, filing cabinets and computers from WTC debris
12) disappearance of elevator doors, office doors, office cubicle walls, toilets and sinks from WTC debris
13) several floor fragments fused together in “meteorite” object
14) bone fragments sprayed into Bankers Trust upper floor during destruction
15) multiple blast waves during destruction of tower
16) large fireballs during initiation of WTC1 destruction
17) small backpack-sized fission nukes exist
18) fission-nuke technology well-established
19) low efficiency of fission nukes ensures leftover radioactive fragments and China syndrome
20) EMP formation during tower destruction (exploding cars, partial burning)
21) Description of heat in WTC blast cloud
22) Extensive cover-up of ground zero air by EPA
23) High rate of cancers, including thyroid cancer typically associated with radiation exposure, in ground zero responders
24) Melted, hanging skin in WTC survivor Felipe David in absence of fire
25) Vaporized press and crumpled steel door in WTC basement reported by Pecoraro
26) Steel beam bent in U, without cracking, evidence of extreme high temps
27) Steel beam bent in U has layer of molten metal on surface
28) Extreme overall devastation of two massive towers and blasted out Ground Zero aftermath
29) Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical DEW theory by likely govt agents-- uses evidence of nukes (EMP, extreme pulverization of tower into dust) but denies nukes at all costs
30) Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical thermite (super nano-thermite) theory by likely govt agents-- uses evidence of nukes (molten steel, china syndrome) but denies nukes at all costs
31) Small iron microspheres found by Jones et al in WTC dust— evidence of steel vaporization by high temps of nukes
32) Pyroclastic debris cloud during WTC destruction
33) Upwards jutting debris trails reminiscent of debris trails formed during underground nuke test
34) Small bright flashes during destruction of both towers
35) Extremely compacted ground zero debris

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Further Observations on WTC1 Stairwell B

1. Did Pasquale Buzzelli Surf Down The “Collapse”—or Do Conflicting Reports Collapse the O.C.T.?

2. Does the Revealed “Upward Wind” During “Collapse” Prove the Final “Cleaner Nuke”?

by The Anonymous Physicist

Pasquale Buzzelli is a structural engineer who was working for the Port Authority in the North Tower on 9/11. Genelle Guzman [McMillan is added now—due to subsequent marriage] was a co-worker of Buzzelli’s at that time. Both would be among only 20 alleged survivors of the “collapse” of the two towers. Curiously all 20 were in the North Tower. Buzzelli would become famous for claims that he, in effect, “surfed” down 22 floors during “collapse” as described here.

He was found ATOP the rubble pile, and taken to safety, at least three hours after the “collapse.” Guzman-McMillan, who started out with Buzzelli on the 64th floor, would become famous as the last person rescued alive from beneath the rubble, about 24 hours after the “collapse.”

However, Guzman-McMillan’s description of events leads to the collapse of credibility of Buzzelli. As archived here, Guzman-McMillan states that she was on the 13th—not 22nd—floor just before the “Collapse” began; and that Buzzelli was BELOW her. She states that Buzzelli was below her as he led a group of people (including her) down. She does not know, at that point in time, how far below her he was. So this could be but half a flight of stairs, or several flights. But Buzzelli, and his fellow claimants thus lose AT LEAST nine flights of “collapse surfing” from Guzman-McMillan’s account. Also please consider the possible implications in the differences in how they were found. Guzman-McMillan was buried BENEATH some rubble, while Buzzelli was ATOP the rubble pile. Curiously Guzman-McMillan also relates pressure from the Port Authority on its reported orders to Tower workers to stay put after the “plane hits.” The article above states, “On instructions from the Port Authority, McMillan declines to discuss why she stayed [initially].”

Guzman-McMillan “felt hot” while awaiting rescue. Reports from the 12 firemen who survived in Stairwell B also have them saying they felt heat in the Stairwell even when initially climbing up. (This fits with my articles on the early sub-basement nuke’s thermal rays that affected many people, including Felipe David.) Indeed I might say that the following report from Rick Cushman is the very first report of what I have lengthily described as the China Syndrome Aftermath. See this blog: Now Rick Cushman was a marketing manager and National Guardsman from Saugus, MA. He rushed to Ground Zero from Massachusetts. For 12 hours he searched for survivors in the rubble. “But he had not seen any — only pieces of bodies. Beneath his boots, heat billowed up through the web of steel.” Then Cushman heard Guzman-McMillan’s shouts and directed rescuers to her.

Now this article reveals numerous things. Despite the fact that there was likely a large number of people going down Stairwell B at the moment of collapse— as there were only three stairwells in each tower— people survived only at a few locations along Stairwell B. There are several possibilities, according to my many small nukes hypothesis. As previously hypothesized here, there could have been several failed or fizzled nukes. Or there is the possibility, that at certain intervals, those who were in an effective nodal region— between nukes—may have survived, at least initially.

Now Stairwell B contained 14 survivors— including 12 firefighters— who survived the tower’s final destruction. Two others— Buzzelli and Guzman-McMillan— were on Stairwell B at the onset of “collapse,” but were found elsewhere in the rubble pile. And four others were found in the underground Mall. (This includes the two Port Authority policemen depicted in the Oliver Stone movie.) Again it appears that the South Tower’s “collapse” curiously did not have any such survivors. Now the New York Magazine article indicates again that some of these Stairwell B surviving firemen surmised that they survived a nuclear attack: “[Captain] Jonas and his men, finally freed from their stairwell, looked around at fires and flattened buildings. They thought they were witnessing a nuclear attack.” My articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC have detailed how many firefighters surmised this. Why? Firefighters are well familiar with heat from fire, but if they feel great heat on their skin and they are nowhere near a fire, they know something very different is going on! Readers of my articles, and of this blog by Spooked, and his 33 blog here can also see the involvement of the PTB, when the article states “When Buzzelli called at 3:30 everything changed, though not as she’d expected. Soon, she’d know that he’d somehow landed safely in the midst of acres of destruction, a lone soul dropped to safety on a concrete slab…”

The New York Magazine article has other quizzical matters, and should be read in its entirety. There is the matter of the 12th Floor as depicted here. “Jonas picked up a Mayday from the lieutenant of Ladder Five, who reported that he was in Stairwell B on the 12th floor. Jonas had passed him on the way down, helping a civilian. “I’m trapped and I’m hurt bad,” he said. Jonas, who was on the fourth floor, tried to climb the stairs but couldn’t ascend more than a floor, and in any case, as he’d later learn, the stairwell had no 12th floor. “I’m sorry, I can’t help you,” he radioed back.”

The highest-ranking officer on Stairwell B was Chief Richard Picciotto. He later wrote a book, as the article continues: “Picciotto’s Last Man Down became a best-seller. It would also end his friendship with Jonas—“It’s a very bad book,” says Jonas— and whatever camaraderie he shared that day with the others from Ladder Six. “We don’t speak to him,” says Komorowski. “Liar,” Butler wrote in his copy of the book.”

““It was part of my personality to take charge of a situation,” Picciotto writes. “I’d never been the type to sit idly by while someone else called the shots, and I wasn’t about to start now…Picciotto was the highest-ranking guy, but he was not the commanding officer. He was doing nothing. He was balled up in a corner,” says Jonas.”

Picciotto’s book says he was on the 7th Floor when the North Tower “collapsed.” These articles indicate that the extant height of Stairwell B, after tower destruction, was five flights. And this should be kept in mind when researching where people were at the moment destruction began, and where they ended up. It appears that each flight had two levels of standard zigzag stairs as depicted here. We must keep in mind that anyone being blasted on the stairwell, but remaining in the stairwell, would have been blasted in a straight line, and shouldn’t have been blasted more than a flight of stairs. This is different from those—like Buzzelli and Guzman-McMillan— who were apparently blasted OUT of the stairwell, at some point, during the tower’s destruction.

(And, of course, the stairwell above the fifth floor may have been vaporized, or otherwise destroyed.) With Guzman-McMillan ending up buried under some rubble, and Buzzelli atop the rubble. I also note that there appears to be no pictures that show the very TOP of the extant five-floor Stairwell B section. Could this be because the top contains obvious indications of the great (nuclear) heat of tower destruction? Have these photos been cropped, as many photos were in the Kennedy Assassination? I was the first to note the similarity of the remnant of Stairwell B, and the remnant of the tower from the fizzled Upshot-Knothole Ruth nuclear fission bomb test of 3/31/53. At least the bottom third of the bomb’s tower remained because the nuke had fizzled—it had a yield about 1/15th of what was expected. See here:

Note the date has a 33. The tops of the Ruth test tower and Stairwell B have some similarities as I indicated to Spooked, and as he has in his article at his blog here on 3/12/09. The tops indicate some steel has melted and twisted downward.

Finally, I cite the book, Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts at the World Trade Center by Dennis Smith [not read by me]. In particular I cite this review by Sterling D. Allan, an apparent alternative energy expert. After reading that book, and Stairwell B’s survivors’ accounts, Allan reveals, “a cohesive conclusion: A POWERFUL WIND WAS GOING UP THE STAIRS AS THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING DOWN. This would seem to refute the official pancake theory of collapse in which one floor after another fails as the mass from above comes down.”

Allan includes this familiar hypothesis, “One possible explanation for these survivors, in the demolition model, is that explosives that were placed in the vicinity of this stairwell section failed to go off.” Allan however appears to only consider non-nuclear matters, but his review is dated in 2006, before my articles, and that of others, on the nuclear destruction of the WTC appeared.

But I conclude with the question—does the now-revealed UPWARD WIND, of final tower destruction, indicate a nuclear blast from the ground, or perhaps more likely from the basement? Is this upward wind another indication of the final cleaner nuke that I have written about for several years now? As I have written, this final cleaner nuke may also have been seen as the so-called “nuclear glow” that TV cameras panned AWAY FROM while purporting to show what was happening at the WTC.

So-- we have seen now that “surfing the collapse” is not as the regime wishes to have it depicted. Many floors of “surfing” are missing, and ending up atop the rubble— with a huge building “collapsing” on top of you— is incredulous. Also we see that firemen’s accounts of the upward wind of final collapse fits well with my nuclear destruction scenario, but it impossible with the OCT, as there would be no wind until the pancaking floors hit that level, and that would have been a downward wind.

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, March 28, 2009

The Fall of the WTC1 Spire and the Intact WTC1 Stairwell: Proof of Demolition Near Bottom of the Tower

After the destruction of WTC1, this stairwell in the core of the building remained-- three to four stories higher than the rest of the rubble pile:

Now remember the "spire" of WTC1 that remained for a few seconds during the destruction of the tower?

It was a good 70 stories high, and was part of the WTC1 core:

The spire didn't topple over, but fell more-or-less STRAIGHT DOWN:


Rather-- the stairwell WOULD survive if the spire was blown with bombs at the base-- a few stories above the stairwell. In this way, the higher spire columns could fall to the side as the base was blasted out. Perhaps several bombs along the base of the core were used to create this result. But it seems clear that a collapse of the spire could not result in this intact stairwell. It also seems likely that this nuclear blasting along the core/spire would account for all the missing WTC1 core columns!

Also this:

Bookmark and Share

The Effect of a Low Yield Nuke on a Steel Structure

The Ruth shot was a fizzle. The predicted yield was 1.5 to 3 kt, while the 200 ton yield was a fraction of that. Especially embarrassing to UCRL was that only the top 100 feet of the 300 foot shot tower was vaporized (though much of the remainder was scattered across the desert). It was standard practice at that time for each test to totally erase all evidence associated with it (automatically "declassifying" the site), which Ruth failed to do.

Hard to tell how tall this tower remnant is but I would guess about 100 feet, if the cross-sections are 10 feet apart (which would fit what looks like a ladder near the base).

Compare the above pic to this pic of the WTC1 core remnant (click to enlarge):

Note the wilted pieces of steel dangling down.

Note-- this puts the WTC destruction into good perspective. If a 200 ton yield nuke can vaporize 100 feet of steel structure, and destroy 100 feet or more of it, you can imagine the yield nuke that would be required to vaporize the innards of the 208 foot wide WTC while leaving the outer walls more or less intact. What's not clear is if there is a linear correlation between nuke yield and vaporization radius-- I would guess it's not perfectly linear.

(thanks to A.P. for the find)

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, October 23, 2008

A Brief Summary: WTC Destruction & High Temperature Aftermath: ONLY Nuclear Bombs and the China Syndrome Fit All the Evidence


by The Anonymous Physicist

In attempting to ascertain what caused the destruction of the WTC on 9/11/01, and the great heat and molten metal observed for up to six months afterward, one must account for ALL the phenomena involved in WTC destruction, and the aftermath-- and not just one or two factors. Only nuclear bombs and the resulting China Syndrome can account for ALL phenomena observed. The overview and numerous supporting articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC are here: But, at the outset, we should realize that there is an abundance of evidence that the O.C.T. (Official Conspiracy Theory) is quite bogus. For example, sworn testimony from firemen/responders contains their witnessing of loud explosions from the onset of tower destruction. This alone destroys the OCT of gravity-driven, progressive collapse.

A brief summary of the nuclear aspects now follows.

1. First, low yield nukes (mini-nukes or micro-nukes) are a proven fact that the U.S Govt has admitted to since the 1950’s with their Davey Crocket rifle, and more recently with a physicist’s testimony to Congress. It is also documented fact that since the 1960’s, and Project Plowshare, low radiation nukes-- and later neutron bombs-- have been available, and were planned for excavation projects and such. My “many small nukes” WTC hypothesis indicates that numerous low yield nukes went off INSIDE (near the center of) the towers. They vaporized anything near them (via million degree temperatures and/or high neutron flux), but the yield of these micro-nukes was deliberately small enough not to vaporize the outer structure. This also ensured that any radiation was contained during detonation. And Plowshare, and neutron bombs, prove low radiation nukes have been available for decades.

2. MASSIVE EVIDENCE of ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSES (EMP) FROM NUKES. This includes the eyewitness, sworn testimony of EMT responder, Patricia Ondrovic (and others). She reported that as WTC1 was beginning to be destroyed, she saw flickering lights in WTC6 lobby where she tried to enter, but was stopped. And just outside at that time, cars caught fire without any visible reason, and one then had its car door explode off of it; and the door hit and injured her as she began to flee the area. Exactly how EMP from nukes did all this is explained here, along with other evidence of EMP during tower destruction from nuclear bombs.

3. DUST PARTICLE SIZE WAS LESS THAN 2.5 MICRONS-- & LIED ABOUT by the Gov’t’s main OCT (Official “Collapse” Theory) engineer/author. You can think of a mortar and pestle, and grinding something large into smaller and smaller pieces. It takes more and more energy input to yield smaller and smaller pieces. A nuclear bomb is known to yield particle sizes down to 10 nanometers. (1 nanometer is 1 billionth of a meter). And Govt scientists had equipment to analyze the WTC dust down to 10-nanometer size, if they wanted to, and should have. Unless they did, and have refused to release this. What they (the U.S. Geological Survey scientists) did was lump together all dust sizes less than 2.5 microns and released this data. (A micron is 1 millionth of a meter, and a thousand times larger than 1 nanometer). Nonetheless, the Govt’s main engineer/author, Z.P. Bazant, numerous times wrote papers that claimed that 10 microns was the smallest sized particles created during WTC destruction, and later collected by USGS scientists. For years he did not cite the work that showed, this. Last year he did cite a reference, and it led back to the 2.5 micron study, NOT to the 10 microns he claimed as the smallest dust particle size! So he flat out committed fraud here. He had to do this as his bogus papers claim that the gravitational potential energy (height times weight) of the towers accounted for the energy needed to create the smallest dust particle size. And there isn’t enough energy from his theory to account for 2.5 micron size dust, let alone the much smaller dust sizes that the USGS did not ascertain or release! The bogus physics and math from Bazant and others is here.

4. MELTED, HANGING SKIN WITHOUT FIRE was reported by at least 4 known WTC survivors. This includes WTC worker Felipe David, whose own words state this occurred without fire, but his story when told by another, has “fire” added. There are also two women who reported (on the “Larry King Show”) that a similar thing happened to them, and they don’t know why, because they too were not in any fire. And there is also a security guard with a similar report. The security guard and Felipe David had this happen to them in the lobby and the sub-basement area of WTC1 respectively. Outside the towers, firemen/responders also felt great heat on their skin without being near any fire DURING TOWER DESTRUCTION. Only the thermal rays of a nuclear bomb can account for this. They go out the farthest when a nuke goes off. And hanging skin was a common occurrence in Hiroshima survivors. Note that the outside firemen feeling heat on their skin (without fire near them) also disproves “DEW”, as they are NOT in the towers nor right under them either, and thus if “directed energy beams did it”, and these must be coherent, they would not diverge and cause heat far from their target! So no “DEW” was involved.

5. SUB-BASEMENT LEVEL, 50-TON STEEL PRESS & HEAVY DOOR VAPORIZED. At the same time as Felipe David’s nightmare was unfolding, and also in the sub-basement, WTC engineer Mike Pecoraro reports going up a level and seeing that a sub-basement level was in shambles and was “just gone.” Also he states a 50-ton press has also been apparently vaporized, and a 300 pound steel/concrete door has just been left shriveled up like foil. The only things that could do this are the multi-million degree temperatures, and neutron bombardment, from a nuclear bomb. Coupling this with the four survivors who had melted, hanging skin at this same time, we have evidence of blast, high temperatures, neutron bombardment and thermal rays-- all virtual proof of nuclear bomb use.

6. HEAT GENERATION AT THE WTC FOR UP TO 6 MONTHS AFTER 9/11- -THE CHINA SYNDROME AFTERMATH (CSA) (see No heat “lingers” for weeks and months, not alleged jet fuel, not alleged thermite (which would have been used up either in minutes or hours--or during its use as an explosive). We have the documented, witnessed, and well photographed and videotaped great heat and molten metal for weeks, and indeed for up to six months underground at the WTC-- until all radioactive fission fragments were carted away. No heat lingers for that long; this could only have been heat GENERATION. The evidence of great heat throughout much of the rubble pile and even higher temperatures underneath the two towers and WTC7 is massive. It included melted firemen’s boots, even dogs had to wear special boots, a mass of congealed bullets in WTC6 going off weeks later from heat, and many photos of steam emanation from the continual water hosing of the “hotspots” all around the WTC. The China Syndrome HAD TO ARISE because each of the numerous small nukes used up only 1-6% of its fissile material-- which is standard for nukes. The remainder was then available as radioactive fragments, releasing great heat for a long time (until removed), as the half-life of Uranium 235 is 700 million years. And it is likely that there were numerous, redundant nukes employed, and the phenomena of "fratricided" and fizzled nukes may also have occurred as these are common with nuclear detonations. These effects likely further exacerbated the China Syndrome. The radioactive fragments were somewhat dispersed throughout the rubble pile, and in greatest concentration underneath the towers and WTC7-- where water and sand treatments could not readily be employed. Note that the alleged Tritium finding that the Govt released, may be a red herring to fool people to look for top-secret unknown types of nukes, which couldn’t have led to the CSA, which is what clearly occurred. The ludicrous lying (“there never was any heat during or after WTC destruction”) or the poor attempts to create new laws of chemistry and physics by alleged 9/11truthers (“super nanocomposite thermite burns forever”) only shows how desperate the Govt is to hide the China Syndrome Aftermath.

7. THE MISSING PEOPLE, FURNITURE, steel & other contents of the towers. Destruction of the towers vaporized many of the nearly 3,000 people who died, as well as much furniture, steel and other building contents. The medical examiner was unable to find or utilize any strands of DNA for over 1100 people. The rubble pile from the two towers was only a couple of stories high when it should have been several times higher from a “collapse,” or even a conventional demolition. There is much missing mass from the “extraordinarily high temperatures” as fire engineering Professor Barnett declared after examining vaporized steel, that occurred during tower/WTC7 destruction. Nukes vaporize matter near their hypocenter. Thermite, thermobarics, etc. DO NOT. Contrary to what some claim, neither thermite nor thermobarics could vaporize the missing people, furniture, steel and other contents, as detailed here.

8. CLASSICAL GOV’T DISINFO METHODS ENSUED whereby their agents put out supposedly “alternative theories” involving alleged “secret, new technologies” that are either evidence-free and/or impossible. Space Beams/DEW (Directed Energy Weapons), or ludicrous “super nanocomposite thermite burns forever” theories were created by the intel agencies to cover up the nuking of the WTC, and the China Syndrome Aftermath. (Thermite cools off in minutes or hours.) These “theories” desperately try to claim new phenomena or new laws of physics and chemistry--as does the 9/11 Commission’s ludicrous “findings.”

9. More now on the issue of Radiation: The #1 item above showed that the Govt has had mini-nukes, and micro-nukes for decades, and that low-radiation yielding nukes have also been around for decades as well. On the other hand, the great heat and molten metal at, and under, the WTC for up to six months after 9/11, indicates the existence of the China Syndrome Aftermath at the WTC; whereby many responders and Metro New York residents may have been exposed to some radiation from radioactive fission fragments that resulted from the use of the many micro-nukes. We have much indirect evidence of the effects of radiation poisoning among the 40,000 responders who were at “Ground Zero” in the weeks and months afterwards. There have been hundreds of reported cases of blood, lymph and thyroid cancers among responders. These types of cancers frequently arise from radiation exposure, and are much less likely (unlike lung diseases) to arise from inhalation of toxins. Also, the teeth and hair falling out reported by several responders are also standard illnesses from radiation poisoning. These responders’ doctors and lawyers are not telling these people that radiation may have caused their illnesses, because the China Syndrome Aftermath remains one of the Govt’s most closely guarded secrets. However, we can see that the Govt itself was well aware of what it had caused! Standard radiation-lowering methods were employed beginning the very next morning-- 9/12/01! These included water dilution/hosing down and sand/earth covering (and subsequent removal of this sand/earth) of the rubble pile. These procedures continued for weeks and months precisely because the rubble pile, and undergound areas, were replete with radioactive fission fragments.

There is some general information on radiation sources that needs elucidation. Due to absorption and other factors, radiation levels can go down quickly-- unless radioactive fragments (radionuclides) are released to the environment. Unless one is close (like Felipe David, who appears to have received thermal radiation, and not ionizing radiation)-- or the radiation is very intense-- enough distance/air or most materials, will stop most forms of radiation. This assumes one does not inhale or ingest radioactive particles or radionuclides. The underground WTC areas-- which likely had the highest radiation yields (and also heat)-- were off limits to all but a few responders. Also, as Hiroshima studies indicated, it took decades for many cancers and other illnesses to manifest. Note that a Gov’t agency, FEMA, was/is in charge of any radiation data for Ground Zero, and could easily have blocked release of any data that found radiation. The U.S. Gov’t has a long, sordid record of lying about radiation exposure to soldiers and citizens, as noted here when they nuked their own soldiers during “atomic tests”.

Honest people, not in DENIAL, must see the analogy to the Reichstag fire set by the German Nazis, in 1933, in Berlin. This was their seat of almost their entire federal gov’t. And this fire/destruction was used as an excuse to destroy their Constitution, and as an excuse for War on “terrorists,” and then all of Europe. There was one difference with the Nazis, however. They waited till the middle of the night, when there were no inhabitants in the Reichstag building! Of course, that German Gov’t did not admit they did it themselves, but that came out after they lost WWII. If U.S. Govt agencies have certain types of proof that they nuked the WTC, and thus its largest city; does any honest person think these Govt agencies would ever release this data--unless a new Gov’t came about? There is reason to believe that other crucial data such as WTC rubble pile temperature (AVIRIS, 2nd set), and WTC destruction seismic recordings were altered. This physicist hypothesizes that WTC responders AND nearby Metro New York residents and workers, that were exposed either the longest or to certain areas with the “hottest”spots face the risk of getting cancer and other immune disorders from radiation exposure in the years and decades to come. Sadly this will prove the China Syndrome Aftermath in the worst possible way. Private persons and institutions are urged to get and keep statistics on this, as the Gov’t will likely cover this up.

Bookmark and Share

Eyewitness Testimony of Firefighters Believing They Were Nuked on 9/11

... as well as early WTC7 Destruction, EMP, non-impact plane flyby, and people being pushed out of a WTC tower.

By The Anonymous Physicist

Reading just a handful out of the 503 9/11 WTC initial responders’ testimonies has proven to be a real eye-opener. These firefighters’ and EMS officers’ depositions provide good corroboration for many of the things I have hypothesized at this blog, including the following: The WTC was demolished via small nuclear bombs, that pre-“collapse” basement nukes were set off in the towers, synchronous with the “plane hit” explosions above, that there likely were EMP’s (Electromagnetic Pulses from nukes), and that WTC7 underwent early explosions, and attempted early demolition.

Firefighter Edward Kennedy here states that he thought a “nuclear bomb” had demolished a tower. “We were on Liberty Street and we came out into there and it just look like something that -- it looked like a bomb, of course, had gone off, almost like a nuclear bomb... “

Here we learn that NYFD Lt. George DeSimone similarly thought the heat--without fire--impinging on him was Hiroshima-like:
“I thought it was some kind of thermal explosion where I'm either going to get burnt -- and I had kind of ideas that it was going to be something like Hiroshima where all this heat was coming at me and we were going to get burnt…”
Several hours after both tower “collapses”, and despite official regime claims of total military and civilian flight termination, he said:
"...We saw jets overhead, commercial airliner, military jets, Air Force jets, and we didn't know what the hell was going on..."
Recall I have detailed how a nuke’s thermal rays go farthest out, well beyond its destructive blast radius. Here NYFD Chief Jerry Gumbo’s testimony is one of several I have cited, to say he felt heat far away from any actual fire. He stated:
"...At the time of the impact, we were able to feel heat that was generated from the explosion at the command post, which was across West Street, and West is fairly large street with that island in there, and debris was showering all over West Street."
I believe this is again indication of the early basement nuke concomitant with the “plane hit” explosion above.

Another firefighter who thought the WTC destruction was nuclear is NYFD Lt Richard Smiouskas, whose statement is here. He was an official NYFD photographer, and has some startling testimony, regarding other matters, as well. It appears that with his telefoto lens, he witnessed people being pushed out of tower one. He said:
"...I was photographing the fire from the roof. I had a long lens on the camera, and I had people in the windows. It looked like they were being -- they weren't actually jumping. One or two people I saw, they seemed like they were being forced out by the people behind them. There was half a dozen faces. In between the smoke you could see people..." (snip) "I guess they were all trying to get air, and this guy was actually standing in the window, standing in the frame with each hand on each frame and he kind of like got nudged out."
In the second sentence, it looks like he just stopped himself from saying “pushed”. The last incident may even indicate the NON-jumper was trying to keep himself from being pushed out!

Lt. Smiouskas believed that a nuclear bomb went off, due to the magnitude of Earth shaking that he felt. As a tower is being destroyed he recalls:
"It looked like an earthquake. The ground was shaking. I fell to the floor. My camera bag opened up. The cameras went skidding across the floor…I'm thinking maybe a bomb blew up. I'm thinking it could have been a nuclear….”
Then he writes of seeing “glitter” through the black smoke, during tower destruction.
“Everybody started running north, and this huge volume like ten stories high billowing, pushing black smoke and like a glitter. I guess it was glass that was glitter that was in the cloud of smoke.”
I do not believe this “glitter” was glass in the black smoke. Perhaps it is more likely that gamma rays from nuclear explosions which could readily traverse the black smoke, impinged on his retina. This is like the atronauts in earth orbit seeing (retinal) flashes from cosmic rays when they tried to go to a higher earth orbit, and like medical x-rays that go through you and onto a photographic plate.

But note how Lt. Smiouskas found the ground shaking was intense enough that he surmised (correctly, IMO) that a nuclear bomb went off. Now, I have been in 5.1 (Richter scale) Earthquakes, and in 2.3’s. The latter I didn’t feel at all, and the 5.1 sounds more like what Lt. Smiouskas (and I) experienced—at least a likely 4.0. I also was at the WTC six weeks after 9/11, and saw many cracked, concrete sidewalks, blocks away from the WTC, (as well as experienced my eyes burning from the hot toxic gases still emitted.) I therefore make the following assertion. It is likely that the “official” 2.1 and 2.3 Richter scale recordings on 9/11 had their spikes cut off! I have even found that NIST asked for a “re-analysis” of seismic data from one observatory before publishing their “findings.” So, just as I hypothesized about the long-delayed second AVIRIS (WTC temperature) data set, the seismic recordings were likely doctored by this regime. And this fire-fighter’s belief that the intense ground shaking was due to a “nuclear bomb” supports this hypothesis.

The interview of Dr. Michael Guttenberg, of NYFD’s Office of Medical Affairs, who may have witnessed EMP is here.

Just after the second “plane hit” explosion, and before any tower “collapse”, he noted:
“…on the EMS radio, there was absolute silence for probably 10 or 15 seconds, you know, which to me, it seemed like 10 to 15 seconds, but it was absolute radio silence for a few seconds…”
“We were told that the air was so thick with debris that radio waves weren't able to travel.”
“That was after the towers came down.”
Note two things, the radios went dead—likely a sign of EMP, as I have previously described. And see how the questioner attempts to confuse the issue with a double lie. One, that this happened after a tower was destroyed, when instead, this is after the second WTC2 “plane hit” explosion, and before any tower “collapse” as Dr. Guttenberg corrects him. And two, that radio waves would have been blocked by a conventional explosion, when they wouldn’t have been. And note also that this radio blackout occurred after the second “plane hit” explosion. My previous articles contained evidence, and my hypothesis, that the WTC1 “plane hit” explosion was used as cover for a nearly concomitant basement nuclear bomb explosion that vaporized a 50 ton steel press, and a garage level, and also caused phone outage. So we learn now that electronic communications also were affected after the second “plane hit”, which may indicates that they also nuked the basement of WTC2 at that time. I hypothesized that this was done in case the planned, subsequent, intricate, top-down demolition failed.

Guttenberg also provides more eyewitness testimony for early WTC7 explosions, as he went to the loading area of WTC7.
“…We all stuffed ourselves into this hallway [near the loading dock of WTC7], pulled the door shut, and the noise just got very loud and the room filled with dust. The noise stopped, and we opened up the door, and everything was pitch black. The way we got into the loading dock was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.”
This appears to be a watered down way of saying WTC underwent internal explosions. This jives with my earlier article citing Deputy Director of the NYC Emergency Services Dept., Barry Jennings, that the WTC7 underwent attempted complete internal destruction at the same time that the first tower (and WTC 3, 4, 5, 6) were demolished. My article, on top here hypothesized that fizzled nukes was the reason WTC7 was not successfully destroyed during this early coordinated attempt, which Jennings stated destroyed much of the lobby, now corroborated by Guttenberg. The last URL also has my earlier articles on nuclear demolition of the WTC.

NYFD Lt. Robert Larocco here also noted that tower destruction seemed “nuclear” to him. He said,
“Of course the cloud was kind of like a nuclear winter thing. You're walking through fallout.”
Near the towers, but BEFORE either tower “collapse”, he noted:
“As I started walking onto the side street – actually as I stepped onto the side street, the strangest thing I noticed was there was like three inches of snow on the ground. The snow was probably pulverized concrete, sheetrock, loose tiles, insulation, asbestos or what-have-you.”
Now this fine ash or 3 inches of snow-like “pulverized concrete” as he called it would not occur from a “plane hit” or conventional explosives. Could this fine, 3 inches of “snow” be from the early basement nukes I have written about? Like the WTC1 basement blast that vaporized a steel press, and a parking garage level that eyewitnesses said was just “gone.”

Now some DEW/OCT disinfo agents claim that the tower destruction was not loud because their hangout was not loud. During the commencement of WTC2 destruction, Lt. Larocco stated:
“The next second I heard that loudest noise in the world that I was describing before getting louder and louder.” (snip) “It was the loudest noise I've ever heard in my life. It was in both ears. Kind of like those rockets that they launch the space shuttles with, it was like I had one going off in each ear. When I thought it was the loudest noise I ever heard, every second it was just increasing getting louder and louder and louder.”
Lt Larocco also describes very personal feelings of fear of death, and fellow firefighters “crying like babies” during and just after collapse. These revelations prove that the redactions in the published responders’ statements were not because of wanting to hide the most personal of feelings.

Lt. Larocco also stated that hours after both towers were destroyed:
“…I still really didn't believe that the second tower was hit by a second plane.”
At this point, the interviewer, Monte Feiler, says, “Stopping the interview at 1306.” Then, “Resuming the tape at 1308 hours. Same people present.”

Now Lt. Larocco says: “
Like I said, the rumors were flying around, and they turned out to be quite factual, about the second tower getting hit. Although at the time I really didn't believe it until I saw it later on television. The thing about the Pentagon, the plane crashing out in Pennsylvania, it was all coming into the picture that this is something major going on.”
So we see how something happened during this “time out.” Something he was told and recalling what was “on TV” apparently made him change his mind and believe in the second “plane hit.” This manipulation speaks for itself. And if there really were plane hits, would the PTB need to perform such blatent manipulations of eyewitness testimony?

Finally I note that when he was making his way out after “collapse,” Lt. Larocco recalls:
“I thought to myself this is a locked exit. That's illegal.”
We see, as some survivors have noted, many fire escape exits were locked. Someone--who may have had a master key--apparently locked numerous exits. If such a man is ascertained, and his actions proven to be deliberate, he should be charged with mass murder.

My interpretation of EMT Frank Puma’s deposition here indicates that he may have witnessed a FLYBY, and not a “plane impact” regarding the alleged “second hit.” He said:
“…I ran down to the corner of Church and Park Place, looked up and I saw the plane shooting out of the top of the towers. That's when I grabbed for my radio and yelled over the air, "1 Adam. A bomb just went off in the Trade Center."...
Note that after he witnessed an apparent flyby, HE CALLED IN A BOMB, and NOT a plane impact! In fact, when you couple his statement to the interviewer, with his action of exactly what he called in, it seems clear that he believed the plane he saw bombed the WTC! And this must be considered a possibility. However, all the evidence and the ludicrous “plane-shaped” hole itself indicate shape charges, at that facade, were set off in sync with a flyby (and basement nukes).

Finally, for those who grasp the deeper conspiracies I have elucidated here, I note that Firefighter Michael Wernick here stated the number of the Fire Engine that apparently responded first to the WTC, on 9/11. Wernick said, “Engine 33 went first.” As I have written here before, “All things nuclear…”

Bookmark and Share

The Crucial Differences in the Nuclear 9/11 Theories

A Call To Eliminate Nuclear 9/11 Mis- or Dis-Information & Attain Completeness and Fit all the Known Evidence

by The Anonymous Physicist

Several, differing WTC nuclear destruction scenarios have been put forth by their respective authors. While they all have nuclear explosions in common; they have key differences. These differences must be openly examined, and used to strive towards a final nuclear 911 WTC destruction scenario that fits all the evidence, and is not contraindicated by the Laws of Physics. Nuclear WTC scenarios that do not fit all the evidence, or contain false statements, or are contradicted by physical law need to be abandoned.

1. Within a year or two of 9/11/01 people began to post at physics forums that WTC destruction seemed to involve nuclear bombs.

2. By 2005, the first website appeared which contained a nuclear WTC destruction scenario by an Anonymous Finnish Military Expert. He hypothesized that one upwardly-focused, sub-basement shape-charge-like nuke was used to destroy each tower. Tower destruction, he stated, was likely done with the aid of conventional explosives as needed. The Finn also hypothesized that the single nuke was a fourth generation, fission-free thermonuclear (pure fusion) device. He cited the alleged Tritium finding by U.S. Gov’t scientists. Therefore (fusion only), there could be no China Syndrome Aftermath with this theory.

3. In 2006, William Tahil wrote a book and offered it for sale online. (It is now downloadable for free.) Tahil also claimed that one deep underground nuclear explosion per tower occurred, but that they weren’t bombs per se. Rather, he claims, there were two huge, underground, fission nuclear reactors already present, which were made to go supercritical, and explode in a nuclear fashion. Tahil wrote that a China Syndrome Aftermath resulted.

4. In 2007, this Anonymous [American] Physicist offered a detailed, nuclear WTC destruction scenario. Many small nukes were said to have been employed during tower destruction, but some conventional explosives may also have been used to allow the nukes to be small, and not vaporize the outer tower structure. After first incorporating all the “official” evidence, that included findings that supported both fission and fusion; he [I] first wrote that either fission-initiated fusion bombs or tritium-boosted fission bombs were used.

But after finding massive, irrefutable evidence of the China Syndrome Aftermath at the WTC for up to six months-- until the fissioning, radioactive fragments were carted away-- and noting that the China Syndrome can supposedly only occur from fissioning remnants, not fusion components, the Anonymous Physicist has stated the following. The alleged Tritium data release to the public may be a clever regime ploy (red herring) to get people to look for the mythical fourth generation nuke precisely because it is fission-free, and therefore you couldn’t have WHAT WE DID HAVE-- THE CHINA SYNDROME AFTERMATH at the WTC. Since the evidence of the China Syndrome of a massive heat-generating source existed at the WTC for months afterwards, and only fission fragments could cause this heat GENERATION for so long, the bombs likely were fission bombs. The Govt then deliberately released bogus information (Tritium), as covering up the China Syndrome Aftermath was their most crucial Op-Plan after 9/11. The China Syndrome arose, and HAD TO ARISE perforce, because a fission nuke uses only 1-6% of its fissile material. The remainder is left over and will remain fissioning for a long time, as the half-life of Uranium 235 is 700 million years. Also the concepts of redundant nukes, "fratricided" nukes, and fizzled nukes were detailed in my papers, and all lead to a China Syndrome Aftermath.

Furthermore, the massive disinfo efforts by the American regime, and its agents, make clear how important it was/is to cover up the nuking, and the China Syndrome Aftermath in NEW YORK CITY. As usual, disinfo agents try too hard. Their M.O. is often clear to see. The hangouts known as the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT), and “DEW” blatantly lie that there was no heat during or after WTC destruction. And another hangout (thermite) has its proponent admit to the great heat for months, but must lie and claim that “thermite burns forever,” when it actually cools off in minutes or hours. The final step, in the intel agencies’ disinformation scheme--as more and more people see the truth of the nuclear destruction of the WTC, and the China Syndrome Aftermath-- is to plant individuals (mostly online personalities) who will pretend to be pro-nuclear 9/11. All the while everything they write is meant to confuse, confound, and actually belittle the nuclear 9/11 hypothesis with ludicrous or irrelevant claims. They will be easy to spot; they will likely never cite my research and articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC, and the China Syndrome Aftermath. They will cite the other theories above-- but not mine-- precisely because of the unchanging flaws in the others, as detailed above. So please be aware of new, allegedly nuclear 9/11 proponents who may actually try to confound the issue; and present mis-, or dis-information, or irrelevancies, or pretend it is unknowable, or doesn’t matter.

Let us now examine the first two detailed nuclear WTC destruction scenarios listed above. First, let us look at the Finnish military expert’s claims of one sub-basement, pure fusion, shape-charged-like, upwardly focused nuke per tower. This appears to be erroneous in several ways. First the observed, top-down, destruction mechanism, and the earlier, highly likely nuclear sub-basement explosion (see more below) both belie the one nuke per tower hypothesis. The Finn has stated that he is an expert on shape charges, and that the top/down scenario could have been done via nuclear shape charges in the sub-basement. But the website that has his articles says that his translator refused to translate his details of how this could have occurred. But even if theoretically possible, the details of the early likely nuclear, sub-basement explosion (see below) demonstrate that his one nuke per tower scenario is untenable. Likewise, this Anonymous Physicist, has proposed that the hunt for the pure fusion, 4th generation nuke is likely a deliberate, planted red herring precisely because this would obviate what did take place-- the China Syndrome Aftermath. So I contend that the Finnish Military Expert’s hypotheses of 1. Pure fusion nuke, 2. One nuke per tower in the basement are incorrect. The Finn also says that “red mercury” could be one way to attain fusion without prerequisite fission. This is the “red mercury” scam, that I have shown here is physically impossible to cause fusion; and is a British American Regime Psyops. The Finn was given my critique of his hypotheses, by the owner of the site that has his nuclear scenario. There has been no word back from him to my knowledge, but I would still welcome this now.

Next I have written what may be the only full review of Tahil’s book here. And this should be read by all, after reading his book. Tahil deserves credit for analyzing the USGS dust/elements study, and concluding that fission likely occurred during the WTC destruction, and even afterwards with secondary fission on some of the samples. But then Tahil’s scenario entails one nuke per tower in the sub-basement again-- but here each one was a fission explosion that arose from making a large, hidden fission reactor explode like a nuclear bomb with upward focusing (as with the Finn). My review makes clear that several aspects are untenable or improbable. First, a nuclear reactor “going super-critical,” and exploding like a nuclear bomb is said to be physically impossible. Then the videoed, top-bottom tower destruction itself makes the one nuke per basement unlikely. Furthermore, my articles have also cited much eyewitness testimony such as from survivor sub-basement nuke survivor, Felipe David, and WTC Engineer Mike Pecoraro. Pecoraro was in a sub-basement level, and went UP a level to see that an earlier blast vaporized a 50 ton steel press and shriveled up a heavy concrete/steel door into foil-like matter. This implies a nuke went off above him, not below him, and so even if a fission reactor could be made to go off like a nuclear bomb (which is stated to be impossible), could the one reactor do this a second time after it would have had its first, chaotic nuclear explosion? So the actual destruction videos and eyewitness testimony further erode some of Tahil’s (and the Finn’s) hypotheses.

Finally, numerous crucial statements Tahil wrote are incorrect. His rationale for the massive hidden reactor hypothesis was two-fold. 1. He claims that a fission bomb uses up 100% of its fissile material, when the correct figure is only 1-6%! and 2. Massive amounts of Strontium and other elements found in the dust, he claims, could only mean that two massive fission reactors were already present. My review showed that Strontium occurs in concrete, sometimes not as a tiny component, but as a relatively large percentage, as is known for the concrete used in making the Empire State Building and the Pentagon. All this taken together make his two hidden, massive, reactors hypothesis either physically impossible (to go off as a bomb and/or to subsequently be re-used), unnecessary, or untenable. But again his work is most valuable for demonstrating the likelihood that fission occurred during WTC destruction, and that the China Syndrome resulted. I have had no communications from Tahil after my review and critique of his hypotheses. But I continue to welcome honest criticism of both my critiques of the other nuclear scenarios, and of my own hypotheses.

It is hoped that people will examine all the evidence (including survivors’ testimonies, EMP, massive heat, sound, radiation lowering methods used, photos, etc.), and the Physics I have outlined, and that are archived at these two blogs, and, and stop promoting misinformation or disinformation. I assert this includes the “red mercury” scam, the tritium red herring, and the latter’s implied fission-free pure fusion hangout as well as seeing how massive hidden underground reactors going off as nuclear bombs are improbable if not impossible-- and don’t fit the destruction evidence, and eyewitness testimony. They are not needed when you learn the aspects of my “many small nukes” hypothesis. If you are truly interested in what was perpetrated on 9/11, please read the ENTIRETY of the two blogs that contain my archived nuclear 9/11 articles, and make up your own mind. And if you want to see just how the Official Regime “explanation” for what occurred at the WTC on 9/11/01, (and some of the “alternative” non-nuclear theories) used bogus science and committed outright fraud, there are more articles on this at this site.

To sum up, all the evidence of the actual WTC destruction, and the great heat generated there for up to six months indicates that WTC destruction was most likely caused by numerous small nuclear fission bombs (micro-nukes), not by a single basement nuke, nor by massive hidden reactors that exploded like nuclear bombs. The China Syndrome Aftermath arose, and had to arise, because the fission fragments were contained in the buildings as they were nuked, and ended up all over the rubble pile, and beneath the towers and WTC7.

It’s time to promote, or at least publicly discuss, the continual efforts made by this Anonymous [American] Physicist to examine all the evidence of the nuking of the WTC, and the China Syndrome Aftermath in New York City. Please promote these works both on the net and to friends, family, and neighbors. It is ABSOLUTELY THE MOST CRUCIAL ASPECT OF 911 TRUTH, TO INFORM PEOPLE THAT THE AMERICAN REGIME NUKED ITS OWN MOST POPULOUS CITY, NYC, ON 9/11. If your favorite blog or website ignores-- or blocks-- this most crucial aspect, either post it yourself or tell all your friends, family, etc. And carefully examine the differences in the nuclear 911 hypotheses, and eliminate the impossible, the improbable, the untenable, or what the evidence indicated is incorrect; and promote what fits all the evidence, and is physically tenable-- many small fission nukes were used to destroy the WTC on 9/11/01, and the China Syndrome Aftermath resulted. And the radiation issue is also discussed here.

Please promote this, as there isn’t much time left before they pull away the wool from everyone’s eyes. It won’t be pleasant, and must be prevented. Life will not be worth living then. Remember Hiroshima. The survivors there were said to be envious of the dead. This may be what they have planned for all of us, with the American Regime being, as Rev. Martin Luther King said, “the greatest purveyor of evil in the world today.” Indeed, there is much evidence that the American regime nuked its own people at least once before 9/11/01, in the Port Chicago, California incident, as I detailed here. Thus the American regime remains the only regime that has nuked its own people, as well as others, and that fact would likely enrage the American people to act, as nothing else might.

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Micro-Nukes in the WTC--Creating The China Syndrome: Important Matters of Completeness & Plausibility

by The Anonymous Physicist

My “Many Nukes” Hypothesis for the destruction of the WTC on 9/11, perpetrated by the American regime, is detailed here How this led to the China Syndrome is detailed here

To summarize these matters now, I have written how the towers’ destruction entailed numerous micro-nukes detonating in each tower, and furthermore much redundancy was employed to insure that sufficient numbers of these low-yield devices successfully went off as planned. Some of the redundant micro-nukes were impacted by the exploding micro-nukes, which allowed for the redundant ones’ fissile material to give rise to the China Syndrome. I also explained how some micro-nukes fizzled for various reasons--part of the reason for having so many redundant micro-nukes present. I listed several factors that could have caused this fizzling, even hypothesizing that the early explosions in the WTC7 were fizzled nukes, that were meant to destroy WTC7 but they did not properly go critical.

The reader can read how standard some of these concepts are in the nuclear world. The military and “policy” makers use the term “fratricide” for the occurrence of one nuclear warhead impacting/adversely affecting another one and preventing the latter from going nuclear. Read here, for example. Under the heading of “Nuclear targeting and fratricide,” you will find this: “Historically, analysts have assumed that only 2 nuclear warheads could be used in a short time frame against any target because of a problem called “fratricide.” Assigning multiple warheads to a target requires precise timing to prevent one incoming warhead from destroying others. Furthermore, a nuclear detonation near ground level (which is ideal for destroying hardened silos) would create a debris cloud that could destroy other warheads heading to the same target.”

Furthermore, long term storage of nuclear bombs or warheads involves another form of fratricide. This article on the many problems of long-term nuclear warhead storage, describes how nuclear warheads have “vulnerability to fratricide neutrons,” as well as being susceptible to many other problems that could make them fizzle. So you can see that I was correct in writing that impacted and/or fizzled nukes, are problems that could be expected to occur when you have a complicated scenario involving many small nukes going off in a relatively small place-- especially in an enclosed space. And these matters thus could easily explain where the available fissile material to cause the China Syndrome at the WTC came from.

Now knowing of these potentially, fratricidal effects on the nukes to be used in the WTC on 9/11, the American perps-- foul physicists, and monstrous military men, much like those involved in nuking their own at Port Chicago, and other innocent humans at Hiroshima and Nagasaki-- did the following. 1. Emplaced many redundant nukes, in each WTC building, and at each level to be nuked. The levels where the nukes were emplaced took fratricidal effects into account, as much as possible. 2. Used (somewhat hardened) sensors that would trigger (sequentially, as needed) redundant nukes at each level that they were to be set off at. 3. Used sensors that themselves would be vaporized, if the first, planned nuke went off properly, so that the redundant ones would not go nuclear. Of course, their fissile material would then be available for the China Syndrome Aftermath. Did all this go off exactly as planned? No. As I have written, the hidden, denied, early WTC7 explosions indicate that the perps failed to properly set off the nukes in WTC7, and took five or more hours to re-do it, later in the afternoon. One possible scenario for the failed, early nuking of WTC7 could be the following. The early nukes in the lobby and basement fizzled (due to fratricidal or other effects). That is, they exploded but either did not attain any criticality (only conventional explosions worked), or else the fissile material had been “weakened” and the resultant nuclear explosion was too small for demolition of WTC7 to occur. The sensor(s) were themselves damaged (from partial explosions), and did not then trigger redundant nukes to go off, or else all redundant nukes fizzled, as Jennings (in the last article) describes several WTC7 explosions.

However even a properly functioning nuclear device going off inside a building can lead to its own China Syndrome, as follows. Let us look at the efficiency of nuclear devices historically, as I do not have access to data on the efficiency of the most current nukes. But it would likely be in the same range. The efficiency of a nuclear bomb is the percentage of its total available fissile material (such as Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239) that actually undergoes fission during the criticality stage of implosion/explosion-- roughly one microsecond. The remainder is still highly radioactive and could give rise to a China Syndrome under certain conditions. Peter Vogel’s book, “The Last Wave From Port Chicago" describes on page 13-13 how the Hiroshima “A-Bomb” used only 1.14% of its contained fissile material. The Port Chicago type A-Bomb had even less efficiency-- about 0.5%. More recently, 6% efficiency for updated nuclear bombs is cited here. Such a low efficiency is due to the immense difficulty of having an implosion, and then an explosion, whereby the fissile material has only one microsecond before the imploding, fissioning U-235 critical mass with its tremendous number of released neutrons and subsequent energy release (and great heat and pressure), forces the critical mass to explode outward thus terminating its criticality geometry.

What this means is that even a properly functioning, fission bomb will have 94-99% of its highly radioactive, fissile material released into the environment where it will more slowly continue to fission and decay-- and release great heat. Now if a nuclear bomb goes off several thousand feet in the air, a la Hiroshima, the unfissioned U-235 will be widely dispersed and will come down over a huge area. (The heat of the Bomb would even have vaporized the unfissioned U-235, but this will later condense and come down somewhere.) But the micro-nukes--even the properly fissioning ones used inside the WTC-- were, at least partially, contained during the destruction. But as the buildings were being destroyed, even vaporized, the remaining fissile material would be able to reach all around the WTC area, and some would likely reach significantly beyond as well. Some fissile material from the sub-basement nukes, would likely be trapped in the largest concentrations, to be found in the aftermath, in these basement areas. These radioactive fragments would also be inaccessible to the usual radiation-lowering mechanisms that were extensively employed beginning the very next day-- water hosing, and “coating” with sand/earth.

To sum up, my “Many Nukes” and resultant China Syndrome Hypothesis, is well supported by the known concepts of nuclear warhead fratricide, and the low (0.5-6.0%) efficiency of fission bombs. Indeed all the facts involving exploding numerous micro-nukes in an enclosed (or partially enclosed) space appears to make the China Syndrome aftermath not only plausible, but inevitable!

Bookmark and Share

Did Two Nuclear Reactors, not Nuclear Bombs, Destroy the WTC on 9/11?

Review of William Tahil’s Book, “Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the WTC”, and of his Reactor Hypothesis

by The Anonymous Physicist

Tahil’s book is now downloadable for free here: I welcome Tahil’s comments and corrections, if any, to this review and analysis of his work, via email to Spooked, who will forward to me. Tahil was one of the very first to write and publish on the nuclear demolition of the WTC on 9/11. Also, other than myself, he is the only other scientist, or person, to write about the China Syndrome aftermath. As my illness prevented me from writing on 9/11 until 2007, his 2006 book was the first to correctly attribute the great heat and molten metal that existed at the WTC for months afterwards, to the China Syndrome of still-fissioning material. While I discovered that independently, he was the first to demonstrate this in public writing. He deserves much credit for this. The Finnish military expert, Tahil, and myself, are the three people who have written proposed nuclear demolition schemes. My articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC are here and my articles on the China Syndrome are here The Finn believes a single nuclear bomb was used on each tower, via a focused, nuclear shape charge in the basement. I have stated that numerous mini- or micro-nukes were employed in the towers, and in all the other WTC buildings. I have further highlighted that great redundancy was employed, and that numerous nukes either were sabotaged, fizzled on their own, or were impacted (without being triggered themselves), by other exploding nukes. And so many nukes did not go off as planned, and their unused fissile material later gave rise to the China Syndrome. My article on the early attempted nuking of WTC7, which failed, is good evidence of fizzled, or sabotaged nukes. Thus there were many nukes available, whose fissile material was not employed in the destruction, and which gave rise to the China Syndrome, in my hypothesis. Please read all my articles, including the one on "fratricided" nukes here.

Now Tahil is unique among the nuclear 9/11 proponents, in that he alone believes that two nuclear reactors-- not nuclear bombs-- were employed to demolish the two towers. While my 9/11 nuclear scenario is different from Tahil’s, and I have explained in lesser detail before why I think mine is correct, and his is incorrect, I have always stated (and still do) that his work should be read by all, as I could be wrong, and he could be right, or possibly there are elements of truth, where we may both be right. Looking at the different nuclear 9/11 scenarios, the Finn, and I, believe the evidence points to nuclear bombs. The Finn believes a single, fission-free, 4th generation thermonuclear device destroyed each tower. This is based on the govt’s Tritium finding. Tahil does not mention the Tritium evidence, and goes with pure fission at the WTC. I have written several things chronologically as the evidence, and my thinking evolved. First I went with both sets of evidence, namely that either fusion (tritium) enhanced fission bombs, or a fission-triggered fusion bombs, were employed. Later I noted the way the regime has total control of all scientific data, and could block release of the most damning data. I stated that it is possible that the Tritium finding was a red herring to divert people into looking for the fission-less fusion bomb, precisely because this would stop people from realizing there was a "China Syndrome" aftermath, at the WTC-- which the regime wishes to hide at all costs. (Presumably only fission can yield the China Syndrome.) So I have stated it is possible that all nukes employed on 9/11 were fission bombs, and the tritium data is spurious.

One of the nuclear 9/11 proponents, William Deagle, M.D., further lends support to my redundant nuclear bomb hypothesis with his direct knowledge of a Fort Collins U.S. Army Forensics Team member who was immediately sent in to the OKC bombing site in 1995. This man told Deagle (his physician) directly, that he and the team brought out two unexploded micro-nuclear bombs, and one unexploded C4 pineapple bomb, from the 10-story Murrah building, after its destruction. This Army man said that the nukes were emplaced by ATF and FBI personnel. He further stated that his Army team was under armed supervision by Wackenhut guards, who tested that they did not remove any radioactive evidence. We can see from this, that great redundancy (extra nuclear bomb emplacement) was employed at OKC. Remember that Murrah was only 10 stories tall, and nowhere near as wide as the towers or WTC7. Consider the total volume of the WTC towers, the 47 story WTC7, and all the other buildings, and you can see how dozens of redundant nukes may have been employed in the nuclear destruction of the entire WTC. If the matter is linear, given the relative volumes, we might even conclude that 50-100 micro-nukes were emplaced, and they gave rise to the China Syndrome, in my hypothesis.

For now, let’s examine what Tahil has to say particularly on the subjects of his nuclear reactor hypothesis, and the China Syndrome aftermath. Much of Tahil’s hypothesis rests on his interpretation of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Dust Analysis data here. Tahil seems to view the USGS data, and all govt data/studies at face value. He does not seem to realize the possibility, or likelihood, that errors of omission, or commission, were utilized in various Gov’t studies, whereas I have highlighted this in my articles. Tahil particularly mocks those who state that the Seismic records were doctored-- which includes me. I base my view on several things, including eyewitness testimony of those at Ground Zero, and a friend who lived a mile north, and who described books falling off shelves, at the moment of the first CGI “plane hit,”-- or WTC1 basement (nuclear) explosion. Also we know that the Gov’t actually asked one Seismic Lab to “re-do” their calculations.

Let’s get back to the USGS dust study that Tahil uses for much of his hypothesis. I have stated that this study is heavily flawed in many ways. Some of my criticisms, I will now list:

-- Did not test for (or report findings on) Plutonium.

-- Did not look for anything smaller than 2.5 microns, or did not delineate this, when labs had, for years prior, equipment that would have quantified dust down to 10 nanometer size.

-- Only looked at a small area, mostly within 0.5 Km from the towers, when the dust settled much further away, and

-- A good deal of the dust went up in smoke! Thus the smallest particles ended up far away. See my articles again.

-- Samples were taken 5-6 days later, after a rain/wind storm on day 2.

-- Did not differentiate differing isotopes of a given element. (Differing isotopes have the same number of protons, but differing numbers of neutrons in their nuclei. Isotopes behave very differently regarding nuclear processes including radiation release, and further fissioning.)

I have highlighted the reason the regime prevented, or perhaps more likely ALTERED the data on the smallest sized dust particles. It requires far greater energy (only nukes) to create the tiniest dust particle size.

Now Tahil concentrates on the USGS dust study, and in particular its findings regarding the elements Strontium, Barium, Zinc, and several others. He uses the 12-- out of 35-- sample sites that yielded Strontium. He has made some very good findings regarding the near total correlation of Strontium and Barium in the dust samples. This shows a common origin, he asserts, and is likely right. This, he says virtually proves fission occurred as Strontium and Barium are two common “daughter” elements in the fissioning of Uranium. This is likely correct as well. But he also states several things that are not correct. He makes these mistakes throughout the book. He only considers the buildings’ concrete or steel as sources of the dust. This is a serious flaw. The buildings’ entire contents-- from people to furniture, etc., etc.-- must be considered! He also at times, assumes one particular isotope for an element, e.g. Strontium 90, and not its other four naturally occurring isotopes, and its other 15 artificially created isotopes.

On page 24, Tahil states, “These elements [Barium and Strontium] simply should not be present in building rubble or building materials in even a valid trace amount, which would be less than 10 ppm…” In succeeding pages, he elaborates that very high levels of Strontium and Barium in the dust study could only have come from the fissile Uranium in two nuclear reactors, very deep underneath the two towers. But, we shall see that Strontium, Barium, and Zinc are NOT to be unexpectedly found in the vaporized rubble, as Tahil states. Thus their source need not be from massive amounts of fissioned Uranium, as Tahil claims. There are many common, known sources of Strontium. A Strontium compound can make up as much as 10% of the mass in toothpaste for “sensitive teeth.” Strontium is a normal component of everyone’s bones and teeth. And Tahil does not take into account the total vaporization of half of the nearly 3000 human victims, and partial vaporization of the others. Other Strontium sources include pottery, color TVs, aerosol paints, drugs for osteoporosis, and other sources. However there is one source of Strontium that has overarching importance here.

Tahil ignores the fact that Strontium occurs in Limestone. And Limestone is often the major component of concrete. How much Strontium might there be in the 100,000 tons of concrete in each WTC tower? Let us look at one type of limestone called oolite limestone.

Strontium in oolitic limestone can occur at up to 10,800 ppm (parts per million)! This study found a range from 230 to 10,800, with an average of 414 ppm. But is oolitic limestone used in very large structures? Some of the largest buildings ever built have indeed used oolitic limestone. This includes the Empire State Building and the Pentagon!

Then there is the issue of Barium. Wiki notes that Barium is a "getter" in vacuum tubes, is used in glassmaking, and is used in a coating for the electrodes in the ubiquitous fluorescent lamps. Furthermore, Wiki says, “Lithopone, a pigment that contains Barium Sulfate and Zinc Sulfide, is a permanent white that has good covering power…” Here wiki indicates that Lithopone may be commonly “used in interior paints and in some enamels.” Thus we see that if this pigment was used in the WTC, we have a Barium/Zinc linkage, without resorting to Uranium fission. But on page 30, Tahil shows that if one sample site were left out, Barium and Zinc have nearly a 100% (96%) correlation. Tahil speculates that this correlation could only be from nuclear fission, and in particular, lesser known “ternary fission.” He might be right, but you see from my Lithopene example, this one correlation could be explained without fission. The Lithopene example does not disprove fission, but it shows that any one of these correlations is not conclusive of anything. They have limitations.

Also Barium, some analysts assert, is one of the main ingredients in the ubiquitous, and notorious, Chemtrails. These trails have been seen in the skies for the last 15 years or more. As they stay up for great lengths of time, they may be nanoparticles. It’s even possible that by now, their contents have mixed with the atmosphere, and the entire Earth has been saturated with their contents. Of course, ongoing regions getting this “treatment” will have very high doses for some time. The Hair Mineral Analysis, done on people, has shown a great increase in the levels of Barium, over the last 10 years. This means that some Barium compound has gotten into people. Regarding the USGS dust samples, the relatively large percentage of Barium, in the USGS study, could even have come from the vaporized people, or from significant mixing of the WTC dust with atmospheric Barium, or from some local Chemtrail spraying within the 5-6 days of the WTC destruction, before the samples were collected. If the Barium were ubiquitous, say from the atmosphere--and its adherence to the smoke from the WTC, the WTC dust might come down with much Barium in it. Thus there may have been a significant base level of both Strontium and Barium from common, non-nuclear sources.

Zinc is also cited on page 143 when Tahil extrapolates and concludes that a massive amount of Uranium was fissioned on 9/11-- from two reactors. But Zinc is also not rare, as Tahil claims. Zinc is the major metal in pennies and is in batteries, steel, paint pigments, and many other sources.

But again Tahil may be right, because I have not proven that Lithopene was used at the WTC, unless it is/was ubiquitous. Nor have I proven what the level of Strontium in the limestone in the concrete was. However, Tahil’s body of evidence, in this book, which includes several correlations of daughter products of fission, his analysis of the dust from the girders whereby Tahil concludes that elements were blasted onto the girders, and were still fissioning when collected on the girders, and all his other findings, indicate that there was fission in the WTC on 9/11/01. But the amount of fissioned Uranium is impossible to find by extrapolation of the dust, because the amounts of Strontium, Barium and Zinc may have been large, in the WTC, as I have shown above. But thanks to Tahil, we can conclude that the search for the “holy grail” of fission-free fusion (as the Finnish Military Expert has done), is likely a fruitless hangout, or red herring, and should be abandoned. The proof of the fission is in the China Syndrome, and the sum of the findings in Tahil’s book. More strongly put, be wary of any alleged Nuclear-9/11 proponents who do not proclaim the China Syndrome Aftermath of 9/11! There are only four proponents of the China Syndrome: Tahil, myself (the “Anonymous Physicist”), Spooked, and recently Deagle.

The following is the crux of Tahil’s nuclear reactor hypothesis. On pages 144-145, Tahil claims that there were massive amounts of Strontium and Zinc as radioactive fallout, and that then indicates there was a massive amount of Uranium (nearly 500 tons) that had fissioned. And then that this claim of nearly 500 tons of fissioned Uranium implies to him that only a reactor or two could have been the source of the Uranium. All this rests on the USGS dust study, and Tahil’s extrapolations of its data. Now while I think his earlier near 100% correlation of Strontium and Barium, goes a long way toward proving nuclear fission occurred on 9/11, his calculations leading to 500 tons of Uranium-- and subsequent hypothesis that implies two massive reactors were sent critical is flawed. On page 144, Tahil-- via extrapolation of the amounts of these elements in the USGS dust study-- arrives at the estimates of 60 tons of Strontium and 100 tons of Zinc, per tower, in the fallout from the destruction of the WTC. From this, he further estimates that there must have been at least 470 tons of Uranium in each of two reactors deep underground in each tower, that was somehow sent critical, and exploded in nuclear fashion, and caused the destruction of each tower, and gave rise to the China Syndrome. While I, of course, agree with him that the HEAT GENERATION, of up to six months, at the WTC, leaves only the possibility of a China Syndrome, his assumptions and math need scrutiny.

1. I have already pointed out that the USGS is greatly flawed, and likely doctored with numerous errors of omission and commission. See above.

2. He apparently assumes all the Strontium was Strontium 90, and ignores the other isotopes of Strontium, while the USGS study did not differentiate isotopes.

3. He assumes the origin of daughter elements is Uranium, when they could have been fissioned from Plutonium, which was not tested for by the USGS--or else not published

4. He ignores non-nuclear sources for Strontium and Zinc, and assumes all Strontium and Zinc came from nuclear fission. See above where I have strongly disproved this.

So for all these reasons, we arrive at the conclusion that we cannot use the USGS data for a simple weight ratio analysis. Furthermore, Tahil compares his nuclear reactor hypothesis to only one micro-nuclear bomb per tower, and ignores the possibility/probability that

1. Many mini- or micro-nukes were used per tower

2. That the other buildings also were nuked

3. He incorrectly says that a fission nuke has all of its Uranium used up in its use. This is very curious since he cites Peter Vogel’s book, "The Last Wave From Port Chicago." And this book is one source that describes the efficiency of a fission bomb. On page 13-13 Vogel writes that the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb used only 1.14% of its contained fissile material. More recently, 6% efficiency for updated nuclear bombs is cited here. This means that instead of 100% of the U-235 being used up when it goes critical in a bomb, only 1-6% is used up, and thus 94-99% of its U-235 is left over for the China Syndrome!

4. Tahil does not realize other possibilities that I have made original hypotheses on; namely that many redundant nukes were also likely emplaced. And some, or many, of these may have been either sabotaged or fizzled because of various reasons.

5. The actual tower destruction scenario observed, fits the use of numerous small nukes much better than a deep underground set of two massive reactors.

6. Officially physicists have claimed that a fission reactor cannot even yield a nuclear explosion. (However, we must take this with a small grain of salt. If a nuclear reactor could yield a full nuclear explosion, like a fission bomb, the PTB would never let this be known.)

So from this last list, it is clear that not one, but numerous nukes per tower could have been employed, and the scenarios I have described, could have led to a large amount of still-fissioning Uranium or Plutonium fragments, “left” (after WTC destruction) both near the surface, and deep underground.

Now we must analyze the geometry and dynamics of the WTC destruction, to see what fits better: the use of a deep underground nuclear reactor per tower, or numerous small nukes. One problem is the early sub-basement explosions that were timed to go off at the same time as the alleged “plane hits” way above. I have written extensively and cited much evidence, that these were nuclear devices that were exploded and even that EMPs (Electromagnetic Pulses) were yielded at those times. Tahil agrees that these explosions were nuclear. He cites an article that I have cited numerous times written by WTC Engineer Mike Pecoraro. Pecoraro was below the sub-basement C level (presumably at the D level, but not described explicitly), when his colleague saw “flickering lights” (EMP?) and they ascended to the C level. He says, "There was nothing there but rubble, we're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press gone!" Pecoraro and a co-worker then “made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone…” As they then ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they “were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor. Now I have asserted, the only thing that could have done these things is neutron bombardment and/or million-degree temperatures, both from a nuke. Tahil says his nuclear reactors were well below the seven known sub-basement levels of the towers. And the reactors were sent critical at WTC destruct time. But he also says he believes the earlier “Pecoraro explosion” was nuclear.

Thus we have several problems with the nuclear reactor hypothesis:

1. How does a reactor go critical for the earlier Pecoraro basement, nuclear explosion, and still be capable of being used again--in any coherent fashion? And the destruction of the towers was very well controlled.

2. In this light, how can any reactor being melted down, and going critical, be used in such a controlled, coherent, relatively precise and symmetrical fashion, so many floors below what it is to destroy, when a reactor gone critical implies much chaos? As opposed to numerous, strategically placed small nukes.

3. How can Pecoraro have survived a nuclear explosion from a reactor below his level (and not know that that was what happened), and then go above him to two floors that were nuked? Unless small nuclear bomb(s) were utilized at those levels.

4. Now I can see how the observed deep underground flowing metal, weeks and months later, might possibly be from this deep underground reactor, but what about the hot rubble pile and its fissioning material not far from the surface?

5. What about the possibility of breaking through to the Hudson (if not directly underneath, then just a bit West of the WTC) if the reactor were so far down, and made to explode, nuclear-wise?

My “Many Nukes” hypothesis, which includes my “Many Nukes fizzled/sabotaged/impacted/fratricided” hypothesis, that I have authored-- remember the Finn said only one nuke per tower, which thus has some of these same flaws-- seems to fit all that happened to the WTC, on 9/11, better. Numerous redundant, fizzled or sabotaged nukes, higher up may have given rise to the large hot rubble pile. Larger nukes in the sub-basement gave rise to the flowing molten metal seen there months later. There may have been many nukes emplaced in the sub-basement that led to events that appear “reactor-like.” Why compare a reactor only to one nuke? And given that only 1-6% of a fission nuke’s fissile material is used in its explosion, and there were many nukes that did go off, this too allows for a China Syndrome at the WTC, even if there were not any redundant nukes present.

There are numerous other matters that are incorrect. On page 153, Tahil virtually states that Chernobyl was a nuclear explosion when it was not. It resulted from heat from nuclear fission causing steam expansion, which caused an explosion and the China Syndrome of blasted radioactive fragments releasing great heat where they landed. Earlier in the book, he has it right, that Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion, but not on page 153. Tahil apparently believes that the “Plane hits” were real, instead of the impossible CGI, they clearly are. He believes that the earlier 1993 WTC explosion was conventional, when I have highlighted the eyewitness testimony of engineer Phil Schneider who said he saw proof that it was nuclear-- I guess things like Pecoraro described. (See my articles.) Tahil often cites new, or hypothesized Physics for some of the phenomena, when this is precarious at best, and makes it look like the ludicrous DEW hangout. E.g., he states that Koenig’s sphere was involved in the WTC destruction as a “neutron reflector/focuser”. After seeing the documentary on Koenig’s sphere, and its maker, and its creation, and how it was moved, and is still there in a nearby public park, I seriously doubt this speculation, if not also on Physics grounds. His website cites a sewer steam explosion in NYC, miles North of WTC, several years after 9/11, as some proof of a massive nuclear reactor underneath Manhattan. But NYC has had such stream explosions for 150 years.

Tahil seems to want to think there were massive neutron fluxes all about the WTC during or after the destruction. He states that the strangely damaged cars are proof of large neutron fluxes at those spots. But I have amply demonstrated that the evidence fits EMPs, vastly better than anything else. These are the cars whose boundaries of doors caused only part of the car to have heated up, and caught fire. In my analysis of this, I revealed how only an EMP would cause part of a car to intercept the EMP, which becomes current, and then great heat. But this is only in metal, and the boundaries (air), between car doors, prevents said current from flowing across to the other car door. See especially my analyses of EMT Ondrovic’ experience of EMP causing a car door to explode onto her, and the flickering lights in WTC6, before it was nuked. Neutron fluxes would NOT have caused this, as neutron fluxes would not show a distinction with car door boundaries, as we see with several cars! So Tahil appears to try too hard to see neutrons all about, because he wants to fit this to massive reactors under the WTC, and that area of Manhattan.

I think his analysis of his Figure 52, on Page 123, is incorrect. This is not quite like a volcano. Look at the height of the smoke at top, compared to the height of the other extant tower. It has not shot way into the sky yet. Rather it shows that the top part of WTC1 was vaporized. So this could have been from a nuke at the top to start things off. He has, or had, some connection to Alex Jones. His website had said that if you can’t reach him via email, it was NSA interference, and to contact Alex Jones. I have no problem with the NSA inference, but Alex Jones? He has been vehemently anti-nuclear-911, and anti-NPT (the planes were merely CGI). Jones would never have Tahil’s work on his site. Jones was sent in to head the 911truth movement, after the regime assassinated true conspiracy expert Bill Cooper, within two months of 9/11. Why does/did a Nuclear-9/11 proponent have an anti-nuclear-911 person be his contact?

On the other hand, numerous things Tahil says are very intelligent and revealing, even bold. First credit goes to him for his finding of near 100% correlation between Strontium and Barium, on page 26. This indicates nuclear fission occurred at the WTC, but is not proof. His ignoring the Tritium finding may ultimately prove to be both bold and wise. While others, like the Finnish military expert, considered only a pure fusion bomb, this then could not have given rise to the China Syndrome of which the HEAT GENERATION evidence is massive and conclusive. I wrote that the Tritium finding-- or more correctly, its release may have been a red herring to get people to look only for nuclear devices that could not have caused the China Syndrome. So Tahil as I indicated, may be both bold and brilliant here. Tahil also reveals, on page 115, evidence of birth defects after 9/11, in NYC, that I have not seen before.

His motto on the cover is also good: Salus populi suprema lex esti or "The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law." Tahil, of course, asserts that the American regime has the opposite view. He asserts that there was massive radiation, at the WTC, and he makes the bold assertion that Manhattan should still be evacuated! If he is right, how many American cities may have reactors placed underneath them? Now I still think that if this is the goal--and it wouldn’t surprise me if you have read my “Ultimate Truths” series ( could more easily just place nuclear bombs underneath edifices in big cities. Sadly, for reasons my readers may know, I think there is a fair possibility that this could be the case, as above-ground nukes are more easily gauged and intercepted by OTHERS. The Rockefeller owned or controlled WTC land area is far from their only land ownership in this country. Could the Rockefeller-donated United Nations land be next? In this light, and in cohesion with what I wrote above about the OKC bombing, I ask did a China Syndrome result there, if it was nuked? Deagle says his Army agent/patient said that Wackenhut guards measured and prevented anything radioactive from being removed. I trust that means that the regime’s agents removed all things radioactive. How many cancers have there been in OKC responders, or OKC residents, subsequently? How many more buildings or skyscrapers must be nuked before the People wake up?

Then Tahil’s analysis of this photo also appears to be very astute, as far as demonstrating the PTB’s desire to hide the China Syndrome. The photo is of the so-called Light Memorial. This was the extremely bright, double-blue lights, that were turned on for weeks, a few months after 9/11, from dusk to 11 P.M. Tahil surmises that this began when they finally reached the reactor remnant areas, or large areas of fissioning Uranium. And while they were doing something to it, or carting it away, its blue light of the Cherenkov radiation (from nuclear fission) would have been visible. I have written about this in regards to one photo that Steven Jones “orange-ified,” when responders were peering into something underground at the WTC. I related this to the blue light seen when nuclear fissioning elements (cored out sphere and cylindrical insert) were erroneously kept together for too long a time, during the “tickling the dragon’s tail experiments,” at Los Alamos, that killed two nuclear scientists. Tahil asserts that the reactor remnant was uncovered at that time, so they needed to do the light trick. I would say that large areas of fissioning fragments must have been uncovered, for them to do this. But need it have been a reactor, or its remnants? There could have been many nuclear bombs in the sub-basement area that led to a large area, with much fissioning going on. But perhaps this is one item of evidence where his reactor hypothesis may fit better than my many nukes hypotheses. Or could a much smaller reactor have been there, and elements of both hypotheses be true? The blue lights are strictly not proof of anything, we must remember. But this regime does almost everything it does, for a sinister reason. Another photo Tahil uniquely has (page 101) is that of a rescue dog with his responder master walking the WTC grounds. Even the dog is wearing protective boots because of the great heat there and then! Also on page 101, Tahil has a photo of the large congealed mass of bullets from WTC6. He states that 43 days after 9/11 the heat was still so intense, an injury to the face of a responder occurred when at least one of the bullets in the mass discharged. Here is more proof of this great heat weeks and months after 9/11, which the intel agents for “DEW” and the O.C.T. laughably continue to deny.

Thus I conclude this review of Tahil’s book and hypothesis with the following. Tahil deserves much credit for his statistical analysis chapter, which helps demonstrate the likelihood that nuclear fission took place on 9/11 at the WTC, and for first exposing the existence of the China Syndrome at the WTC. His hypothesis that this had to be from two massive, deep underground nuclear fission reactors that were sent critical, and exploded akin to a nuclear fission bomb, is much less compelling, and more evidence fits my “many nukes” hypothesis, with possibly one evidentiary exception. Therefore it is possible that he may still be right, at least in part. For that reason, and other things cited above, I recommend everyone who is not an intel agent, and wishes to know what might have occurred on 9/11, read his book, as well as all my articles. The case for two huge reactors that were made to undergo nuclear explosions has not been made. Neither can we completely rule out that the China Syndrome that existed at the WTC for several months after 9/11/01 was, in part, from a much smaller reactor present. I am not saying I believe this, but that it cannot be excluded. Furthermore, I can even perceive one reason why it would have been there. A breeder reactor could even have produced the fissile material for the coming nuclear bomb destruction of the WTC. Or there could have been both many micro-nukes used, and a fission reactor was also exploded with a micro-nuke at the end. I throw these ideas out for completeness. In conclusion I remain unconvinced that the evidence indicates a large nuclear fission reactor was underneath each of the towers, and suffered a nuclear explosion, as my “Many Nukes” hypothesis appears to better explain the details of the WTC destruction, and the China Syndrome aftermath. I welcome feedback and genuine criticism from Tahil on this review, or of my own nuclear-911 hypotheses, and also the same from any non-intel agent. As Tahil wrote, Salus populi suprema lex esti.

Bookmark and Share