Rainbow in the Dark: Powerful Proof of 9/11 Nukes

New research falsifies the nanothermite and DEW alternatives while confirming the mini-nuke hypothesis

New-featured-image-on-911

by Don Fox (with Jim Fetzer)

In accounting for the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11, there are three contending factions within the 9/11 research community. While virtually everyone agrees that WTC-7 was brought down in a (classic) controlled demolition, they differ with respect to how the Twin Towers were destroyed, which was obviously not by means of any kind of collapse, which we know, given their design, would have been impossible, but which the government has told the American people was the case. These three factions advance different alternative hypotheses of how it was done:

(h1) the nanothermite hypothesis, supported by A&E911, Steve Jones and Christopher Bollyn;

(h2) the mini-nuke hypothesis, supported by Scholars for 9/11 Truth and others here at VT;

(h3) the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) hypothesis, supported by Judy Wood and her associates.

A&E911 has received enormous support from the public, which has allowed its head, Richard Gage, to travel around the country and lead a comfortable life-style. His critics, however, are skeptical that A&E911 is on the up-and-up because its commitment to nanothernmite has been established to be inadequate as an explanation for the destruction of the Twin Towers, not least of all because in (its extant versions) nanothermite has an explosive force 1/13 as powerful as TNT. While A&E911 apologists maintain the organization does not deny other explosives may have been involved, it has made no effort to ascertain what those “other explosives” could possibly have been, which is inexcusable.

That is rather astonishing, all things considered, because (h1) has been based (virtually exclusively) upon dust samples that were gathered from an apartment in close proximity to “Ground Zero”, where the US Geological Survey has done overwhelmingly more through, detailed and extensive studies of dust samples take from a wide range of locations around Manhattan and subjected them to spectrographic analysis, which has revealed many elements whose presence in the quantities and correlations only appear to be explicable if 9/11 was nuclear event as (h2) asserts:
Barium and Strontium: Neither of these elements should ever appear in building debris in these quantities. The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and reach over 3000ppm for both in the dust sample taken at Broadway and John Streets.
Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more “tell tale” signature of a nuclear detonation.
Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another “tell tale” sign of nukes.

These findings expose the pseudo-scientific pretensions of the proponents of (h1) and of (h3) alike, neither of whom take the USGS data into account. That is especially ironic in the case of the “thermite sniffers”, since Steven Jones and A&E911 pride themselves on being “scientific” in their approach, when science requires that reasoning be based upon all the available evidence, yet they ignore more copious and detailed “dust sample” evidence than that upon which they base their own theory. And the “DEW huggers” display their incompetence in precisely the same way by failing to adjust their theory to new evidence and alternative hypotheses. Since I published my review on amazon.com in mid-2012, I have been assailed by an astounding 5,000 attacks by her fans:

Review of Judy's book

 

Donald Fox has done a brilliant job of exposing the role of Judy Wood as a “gatekeeper extraordinaire”, where the A&E911 (h1) group cannot be far behind. Unfortunately, a gullible public swoons over an organization composed of a thousand or more architects and engineers, even though they will not address WHO was responsible and WHY 9/11 took place and, like Judy Wood and her (h3) group, do not even provide an adequate explanation for HOW it was done. Here Don Fox advances a new line of argument confirming the use of nukes on 9/11 in support of (h2). This article has a more scientific and technical character than others, where we conclude with a glossary of terms related to the design, construction and detonation of nuclear weapons, the popularization of which Gordon Duff has pioneered, which, alas, must become part of the working knowledge of informed citizens today.

AveragerelativeThicknessofSteelanditsDistributioninaTwinTowe-640x479

 

Extensive studies by Charles Boldwyn have demonstrated that the Twin Towers could not have collapsed on 9/11

stock-footage-new-york-city-september-smoky-ground-zero-surrounded-by-skyscrapers-at-night

Rainbow in the Dark: Powerful Proof of 9/11 Nukes

by Don Fox

The destruction of the World Trade Center buildings was a high energy event. In the case of the Twin Towers two 110 story buildings were largely converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust in about 20 seconds. What was the source of energy that was responsible for the demise of these behemoths? Kerosene has no ability to produce the results observed at Ground Zero on 9/11.

The evidence collected at Ground Zero tells us 9/11 was a nuclear event. The Department of Energy water samples contained tritium which is a rare hydrogen isotope and a telltale sign of a thermonuclear explosion. The USGS dust samples contained barium, strontium, yttrium and cesium amongst other fission products. The earth and water tell us what happened on 9/11: the WTC was nuked.

Most 9/11 researchers (and the general public) lack a basic understanding of nuclear physics. This lack of physics knowledge has allowed people like Steve Jones and Judy Wood to obfuscate the true method of destruction of the WTC buildings with bogus claims of non-explosive nanothermite and amorphous DEWs. Once one gains an understanding of concepts such as nuclear fission and alpha and beta decay, the destruction of the Twin Towers and the aftermath makes perfect sense.

Nuclear Physics Basics

In order to understand what happened at Ground Zero one must first have a grasp on some basic nuclear physics concepts. Fortunately there is an abundance of nuclear physics knowledge readily available on the internet. From Universe Today.com:

There are three parts of an atom: protons, neutron, and electrons. Protons have a positive charge, electrons have a negative charge, and neutrons possess no net charge.

Electrons are the smallest parts of the atom. They are the most numerous of the three. It has no known components or substructure, so it is an elementary particle. Its mass is 1/1836 of a proton. It is also considered to be a fermion. It has an antiparticle called the positron. The positron is identical to the electron except that it carries opposite charge. When an electron collides with a positron, both particles will either scatter or be destroyed producing gamma ray photons. Electrons can collide with other particles and be diffracted like light. Two electrons cannot occupy the same quantum state based on the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

The proton is the part of an atom that helps to form the nucleus and has a positive charge. Protons must have an equal number of neutrons except in the hydrogen atom where a single proton exists on its own. A proton is composed of 2 up quarks and one down quark. They are considered to be fermions and baryons. They are held together by the strong nuclear force. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom determines the atomic number.

A neutron is the part of an atom that holds no charge. Neutrons and protons occur in equal numbers in stable atoms except in hydrogen. Protons and neutrons are often referred to together as nucleons. If there are more neutrons than protons, then the atom is considered an isotope. If a neutron becomes free of its proton, then it becomes unstable, undergoes beta decay, and will disintegrate in an average of 15 minutes. The neutron is also important in nuclear chain reactions both natural and artificial.

From Chemistry Explained.com:

The nucleus is composed of protons (charge = +1; mass = 1.007 atomic mass units ([μ]) and neutrons. The number of protons in the nucleus is called the atomic number (Z) and defines which chemical element the nucleus represents. The number of neutrons in the nucleus is called the neutron number (N), whereas the total number of neutrons and protons in the nucleus is referred to as the mass number (A), where A = N + Z. The neutrons and protons are referred to collectively as nucleons. A nucleus with a given N and Z is referred to as a nuclide. Nuclides with the same atomic number are isotopes, such as 12 C and 14 C, whereas nuclides with the same N, such as 14 C and 16 O, are called isotones. Nuclei such as 14 N and 14 C, which have the same mass number, are isobars. Nuclides are designated by a shorthand notation in which one writes, that is, for a nucleus with 6 protons and 8 neutrons, one writes, or just 14 C. The size of a nucleus is approximately 1 to 10 × 10 -15m, with the nuclear radius being represented more precisely as 1.2 × A 1/3 × 10 -15m. We can roughly approximate the nucleus as a sphere and thus we can calculate its density where 1.66 × 10-27 kg is the mass of the nucleon. Thus the nuclear density is about 200,000 tons per cubic millimeter and is independent of A. Imagine a cube that is 1 mm on a side. If filled with nuclear matter, it would have a mass of about 200,000 tons. This calculation demonstrates the enormous matter/energy density of nuclei and gives some idea as to why nuclear phenomena lead to large energy releases.
Of the 6,000 species of nuclei that can exist in the universe, about 2,700 are known, but only 270 of these are stable. The rest are radioactive, that is, they spontaneously decay. The driving force behind all radioactive decay is the ability to produce products of greater stability than one had initially. In other words, radioactive decay releases energy and because of the high energy density of nuclei, that energy release is substantial. Qualitatively we describe radioactive decay as occurring in three general ways: α -, β -, and γ -decay. Alpha-decay occurs in the heavy elements, and consists of the emission of a 4 He nucleus. Beta-decay occurs in nuclei whose N/Z ratio is different from that of a stable nucleus and consists of a transformation of neutrons into protons or vice versa to make the nucleus more stable. Gamma-decay occurs when excited nuclei get rid of some or all of their excitation energy via the emission of electromagnetic radiation, or via the radiationless transfer of energy to orbital electrons.

Nuclear Fission

When uranium-235 undergoes fission, the average of the fragment mass is about 118, but very few fragments near that average are found. It is much more probable to break up into unequal fragments, and the most probable fragment masses are around mass 95 and 137. Most of these fission fragments are highly unstable (radioactive), and some of them such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 are extremely dangerous when released to the environment.

frag1

 

Cesium-137 and strontium-90 are the most dangerous radioisotopes to the environment in terms of their long-term effects. Their intermediate half-lives of about 30 years suggests that they are not only highly radioactive but that they have a long enough half-life to be around for hundreds of years. Iodine-131 may give a higher initial dose, but its short half-life of 8 days ensures that it will soon be gone. Besides its persistence and high activity, cesium-137 has the further insidious property of being mistaken for potassium by living organisms and taken up as part of the fluid electrolytes. This means that it is passed on up the food chain and re-concentrated from the environment by that process.

Cesium-137 decay has a half-life of 30.07 years and proceeds by both beta decay and gamma emission from an intermediate state. Both the electron and gamma emissions are highly ionizing radiation. The gamma radiation is very penetrating, and the beta radiation, though very short range, is very dangerous when ingested because it deposits all that energy in a very short distance in tissue.

cs137decay

 

Cesium’s danger as an environmental hazard, damaging when ingested, is made worse by its mimicking of potassium’s chemical properties. This ensures that cesium as a contaminant will be ingested, because potassium is needed by all living things.

Strontium-90 and cesium-137 are the radioisotopes which should be most closely guarded against release into the environment. They both have intermediate half-lives of around 30 years, which is the worst range for half-lives of radioactive contaminants. It ensures that they are not only highly radioactive but also have a long enough half-life to be around for hundreds of years. Strontium-90 mimics the properties of calcium and is taken up by living organisms and made a part of their electrolytes as well as deposited in bones. As a part of the bones, it is not subsequently excreted like cesium-137 would be. It has the potential for causing cancer or damaging the rapidly reproducing bone marrow cells.

Strontium-90 is not quite as likely as cesium-137 to be released as a part of a nuclear reactor accident because it is much less volatile, but is probably the most dangerous component of the radioactive fallout from a nuclear weapon.

Strontium-90 undergoes beta decay, emitting electrons with energy 0.546 MeV with a half-life of 28.8 years. The decay product is yttrium-90.

Beta Decay

Radiation and Radioactive Decay:

Image6

Image7

Beta particles are electrons or positrons (electrons with positive electric charge, or anti-electrons). Beta decay occurs when, in a nucleus with too many protons or too many neutrons, one of the protons or neutrons is transformed into the other. In beta minus decay, a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an anti-neutrino: n Æ p + e – +. In beta plus decay, a proton decays into a neutron, a positron, and a neutrino: p Æ n + e+ +n. Both reactions occur because in different regions of the Chart of the Nuclides, one or the other will move the product closer to the region of stability. These particular reactions take place because conservation laws are obeyed. Electric charge conservation requires that if an electrically neutral neutron becomes a positively charged proton, an electrically negative particle (in this case, an electron) must also be produced. Similarly, conservation of lepton number requires that if a neutron (lepton number = 0) decays into a proton (lepton number = 0) and an electron (lepton number = 1), a particle with a lepton number of -1 (in this case an antineutrino) must also be produced. The leptons emitted in beta decay did not exist in the nucleus before the decay–they are created at the instant of the decay.

To the best of our knowledge, an isolated proton, a hydrogen nucleus with or without an electron, does not decay. However within a nucleus, the beta decay process can change a proton to a neutron. An isolated neutron is unstable and will decay with a half-life of 10.5 minutes. A neutron in a nucleus will decay if a more stable nucleus results; the half-life of the decay depends on the isotope. If it leads to a more stable nucleus, a proton in a nucleus may capture an electron from the atom (electron capture), and change into a neutron and a neutrino.

Proton decay, neutron decay, and electron capture are three ways in which protons can be changed into neutrons or vice-versa; in each decay there is a change in the atomic number, so that the parent and daughter atoms are different elements. In all three processes, the number A of nucleons remains the same, while both proton number, Z, and neutron number, N, increase or decrease by 1.

In beta decay the change in binding energy appears as the mass energy and kinetic energy of the beta particle, the energy of the neutrino, and the kinetic energy of the recoiling daughter nucleus. The energy of an emitted beta particle from a particular decay can take on a range of values because the energy can be shared in many ways among the three particles while still obeying energy and momentum conservation.

Cherenkov Radiation

Is there an equivalent of the sonic boom for light?

 

When a charged particle does move through a medium at a speed higher than the speed of light in that medium, a faint radiation is produced by the medium.  In water, for example, the charged particle excites the water molecules, which then return to their normal state by emitting photons of blue light.  Because the particle is moving faster than the speed of light in water, it can trigger a cascade of photons that are in phase with each other and can interfere constructively to form a visible blue glow.

 

Hanford

 

Nuclear Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility, Cherenkov Radiation, Hanford Site, U.S. Department of Energy, Southeastern Washington State

Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 Capsules

In the early 1970s operators at the Hanford, Washington, site removed a large fraction of the Cs-137 and Sr-90 from the site’s high-level tank waste in order to reduce the requirements for cooling the tanks. The cesium and strontium were concentrated and sealed in stainless steel (SS) capsules for potential uses, for example, thermoelectric generators and sterilizers. The expected applications for the Hanford capsules did not materialize and ceased entirely in 1988 after one capsule being used in the commercial sector was found to be leaking (USNRC, 1989).

In the capsules, cesium is in the form of cesium chloride (CsCl) and strontium as strontium fluoride (SrF2). The chemical composition has been described as being relatively uniform (NRC, 1997b). Each cesium capsule contains on average approximately 35,000 Ci of Cs-137 plus an unspecified amount of Cs-135 estimated to be 0.7 Ci and produces approximately 190 W of heat. Each strontium capsule contains approximately 33,000 Ci of Sr-90 and produces approximately 260 W of heat.

The blue glow from the cesium-137 and strontium-90 capsules is due to Cherenkov radiation.

Cesium-137 Glows Blue

Majia Nadesan has a blog post that discusses the Goiânia accident where a scavenger punctured a radiotherapy device containing cesium-137 with a screwdriver. A deep blue light came out of the hole.

Ground.Zero7

Cesium and Strontium in the USGS Dust Samples

Both cesium and strontium were found in abundance in the USGS dust samples. Both cesium-137 and strontium-90 undergo β− decay. Cesium-137 decays into barium-137m and strontium-90 decays into yttrium-90. Barium and yttrium were also found in abundance in the USGS dust samples. There can be little doubt that the ominous blue glow in the above picture of Ground Zero is from Cherenkov radiation.

Tribute in Light

911-legacy

The Tribute in Light was first presented on March 11, 2002, six months after 9/11. The light memorial was done to provide a cover story for the blue light in the sky.

Conclusions

There can be no doubt that nuclear fission chain reactions took place at Ground Zero on 9/11. Fission products cesium and strontium were found in the USGS dust samples. These radioactive elements underwent beta minus decay and released high energy electrons. This is what caused the blue glow (Cherenkov radiation) over Ground Zero. Jet fuel, nanothermite or a Tesla inspired DEW have no explanatory power for beta minus decay and Cherenkov radiation.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS:

Nuclear Weapons Glossary
©2013 by Ara Barsamian, NNPI

High Explosive:chemical explosive that has high detonation velocity, usually in excess of 6000 m/s
Hohlraum: black body cavity, same as hydrogen bomb radiation confinement case
Hollow Boosting: refers to fission yield enhancement in a hollow fissile material pit filled with D+T boost gas that releases copious amounts of thermonuclear neutrons
Hydrodynamics: branch of Fluid Dynamics that explores behavior of materials under intense shock pressure; extensively used in implosion calculations to calculate time-dependent compression of pit or canned TN assembly, and thus, supercriticality or thermonuclear burn rate
IHE: Insensitive High Explosive, a very safe type of explosive that can be detonated only by a strong shock; a bullet impact will have no effect
Implosion: uniform squeezing of matter by shock waves or radiation. It can be in 3 dimensions (spherical), 2 dimensions (cylindrical), or 1 dimension (linear)
Implosion-type weapon: assembly of fissile core material by explosive-driven implosion
Initiator: device that provides a squirt of neutrons to start or “initiate” a divergent chain reaction in a super-prompt critical fissile core assembly. There are two basic types: internal Polonium-Beryllium types (original name “Urchin”), and external neutron generator tubes (original name “zipper”
Interstage: usually material containing BeO which absorbs the primary x-rays and re-radiates lower wavelength x-rays over longer time for a more complete secondary assembly implosion and compression
Interval Time: time between the fission primary emission of radiation and the production of thermonuclear output
Isentropic Compression: replaces shock compression with a smooth continuous pressure increase using soft, layered impactors, thereby decreasing heating and allowing much greater compression. Increases yields by a factor of 2 or 3…
Lens: a binary explosive device, where the difference in detonation velocity results in refractive shaping of the output detonation wave; used in early implosion weapons to produce spherical implosions. Superseded by air lenses, flat lenses, and multi-point laser detonation systems.
Levitation: method using a gap between fissile core and tamper, allowing tamper to gain momentum before slamming into the pit; the result is much higher compression due to amplification by the hammer (E=mv2/2) effect
Lithium: metal used either to breed Tritium in reactors to make boost gas, or used in Lithium Deuteride thermonuclear fuel; Li6 isotope has higher cross-section than natural Li7 and is the preferred TN fuel in miniaturized warheads, but both produce Tritium. Ignorance of Li7 cross-section caused the Castle Bravo TN bomb test in 1954 to run away by a factor of 3 yielding 15 MT.
Lithium Deuteride: solid gray salt used as TN fuel in the secondary assembly of a thermonuclear explosive. Usually the Li is enriched to 40 to 60% Li6. Sometime the Li6D is spiked with Tritium ( Sakharov’s 1953 Sloika layer cake design used Li6DT)
Margin: the additional yield of a fission explosive beyond what is needed to drive the explosion of the thermonuclear secondary assembly to full yield
Multipoint Detonation System: replaces the bulky lensed spherical high explosive implosion assembly with multiple individual detonators on the surface of HE sphere. Used successfully in UK in very compact and lightweight Octopus/ super-Octopus system; used in China’s first HEU implosion test (252 detonators). Currently implemented using a high power semiconductor laser and fiber optics cables.
Neutron Initiator: see Initiator
Neptunium: produced in reactors as a by-product, isotope 237 is fissile and can also be used in fission explosives
NTS: Nevada Test Site, used for testing nuclear weapons
Neutron Generator: an integrated assembly of a neutron tube, power supply, timers and triggering system. Some power supplies are electronic, some are explosive ferroelectric or magnetocumulative generators
Neutron Tube: see External Neutron Source
Neutronics: branch of nuclear reactor theory concerned with criticality calculations, such as the variation of degree of criticality with core compression by high explosives
NW: Nuclear weapon
PAL: Permissive Action Link, a mechanical or electronic combination lock preventing the use of a nuclear weapon by unauthorized persons; currently using crypto chips
PBX: Plastic Bonded Explosive, a mix of HE powder pressed together with a plastic binder to make easily handled and machined parts
Pit: the central metal core assembly containing an inner fissile shell of Pu or HEU, usually flashed with gold or Nickel, and an outer shell of either stainless steel, Beryllium, or Vanadium, or a combination; see also Core, and FRP
Pit Tube: a thin stainless steel tube carrying boost gas from the reservoir to the hollow core of the pit at the time of detonation
Plasma: fourth state of matter, whereby the material is completely ionized
Plutonium: element 94. The isotope 239 sustains fast neutron chain reaction and is the fissile material used in fission explosives. Reactors also produce the isotope 240 material, fissionable only by fast neutrons, which has high spontaneous neutron emission that could cause pre-initiation and fizzle yield.
PNE: peaceful nuclear explosives; typically minimizes fission products
Polonium: a high emitter of alpha particles with a half life of 138 days; it was used in combination with Beryllium to generate neutrons for initiating a fission chain reaction
Pre-detonation: detonation of fission explosive before the optimum time, usually before achieving maximum compression of fission core because of high rate of spontaneous fission – see Pre-initiation
Pre-heating: the heating of TN secondary assembly by fission primary before radiation implosion is completed, leading to reduced compression and TN fizzle yield
Pre-initiation: initiation before the optimum time, usually before achieving maximum compression of fission core; causes significant decrease in yield, usually a “fizzle” yield
Primary: primary bomb, usually a fission explosive providing the soft x-ray radiation driving the implosion of a secondary (thermonuclear) bomb to achieve high compression
Radiation Case: metal case containing the primary radiation long enough to implode the secondary; usually stainless steel, aluminum, or plastic with Uranium or Lead coating. Also known as a hohlraum
Radiation Implosion: thermal X-rays from a fission explosive cause ablation of the TN secondary assembly surface, thus driving a strong implosion and high compression of the assembly to make it yield most of the explosive energy. AKA Teller-Ulam principle
Radiation Implosion Compression Mechanism: in the initial US design, the radiation heated a radiation channel filler (foam) to a plasma that pushed against the secondary assembly to compress it (like steam pressure against turbine blades). Radiation driven ablation was discovered accidentally when trying to miniaturize a warhead by using a secondary with a Beryllium-reflected HEU wrap around the LiD fuel and sparkplug; Be is a very good ablator (very high velocity of ablated ejecta) thus providing much greater compression and increased yield from a smaller secondary assembly than “exploding” foam. Latest designs used “doped” or profiled ablators to provide a near isentropic compression, similar to laser fusion capsules. In UK and France, the initial design used the “explosive pusher” concept, where the external metal layer (iron) around the secondary was heated by the thermal x-rays, half blowing outwards, the other half pushing inside, for modest compression.
Reactor-grade Plutonium: Plutonium produced in power reactors with a high content (greater than 20%) of the undesirable isotope 240; unfortunately still a good nuclear explosive material
Reflector: material that reflects neutrons; a good reflector surrounding a fissile core decreases the critical mass of fissile material. Best core reflector is Beryllium metal
Reservoirs: metal containers, usually stainless steel, storing boost gas, deuterium and tritium, under high pressure or absorbed in metals as hydrides
RV: missile re-entry vehicle, housing the nuclear warhead and the arming, fuzing, and firing system, and interface to the missile “bus”
Secondary: secondary or auxiliary bomb, a physically separate component containing thermonuclear fuel such as Lithium Deuteride surrounded by a fusion tamper such as natural Uranium or, for increased yield in a compact package, HEU. Known as Canned Sub-Assembly (CSA)
Separation: process of enriching an element in the percentage of the desired isotope
Shocks: a steep pressure wave, generated by explosives, ballistic impact, electrostatic implosion, etc.
Shot: a nuclear test explosion
SNM: special nuclear material, same as fissile material, Plutonium 239, or HEU
Sparkplug: informal term denoting a fissile core inside a thermonuclear (TN) fuel container that is used to start the thermonuclear burn in the previously compressed TN fuel. Initially used Plutonium, currently HEU
Spontaneous Fission: typically natural spontaneous nuclear fission of Uranium 238 or Plutonium 240 nuclei producing high level of neutron background; main cause of pre-detonation
Sprytron: a gas filled triggered spark-gap tube used as an ultra fast switch to fire the detonators
SRD: Secret Restricted Data, one of the numerous information classification categories
Staging: physical separation of the primary fission stage from the TN secondary stage to allow time for radiation implosion and prevent its destruction by primary material debris
Stockpile: quantity of nuclear weapons ready for use
SSS: Science-based Stockpile Stewardship, a program whereby the stockpile can be certified using computer simulations and statistical sampling and dissection of stockpiled weapons that they are reliable and safe without nuclear testing

Hard Evidence Supports the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used to Demolish the WTC Towers

wordpress analytics

by Don Fox and Jeff Prager 

Introduction

Steve Jones penned a letter in 2006 attempting to repudiate the theory that mini-nuclear bombs were used to demolish the WTC Towers. Closer examination of his letter finds that Jones cherry-picked and even glossed over key pieces of evidence collected from Ground Zero to arrive at his faulty conclusions.

Here is a summary of the key points in Jones’ letter:

1. Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis.

2. The fact that radioactive iodine concentrations were actually lower in the upper/WTC debris-filled layers.

3. Radioactive hot-spots in NYC were found to be due to radium, which is traceable to industrial uses (not bombs). This in itself does not rule out mini-nukes, but these data certainly do not support the mini-nuke hypothesis.

4. Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium, actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background level for WTC dust.

5. Nuclear activation or residual “fall-out” radioactivity (above background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131 measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis.

6. No fatalities due to radiation “burning” were reported near ground zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse.

7. No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers.

8. One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.)

The WTC Mini-Nuke Hypothesis

Our hypothesis is that World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2 were demolished by a series of very low-yield micro nuclear devices that were planted in the center columns of the buildings and detonated sequentially from top to bottom and configured or directed to explode upward in order to simulate a free fall collapse. A mini-nuke or series of mini-nukes were also detonated in the basement of WTC 6 and three mini-nukes appear to have been detonated in the basement of Building 7 as well.

The bombs appeared to be fission/fusion devices that had powerful but limited blast effects and had little lingering radioactivity which suggests that they were neutron bombs. There is compelling evidence for both fission and fusion at Ground Zero.

While it is possible that energetic compounds such as nanothermite (NT) or more likely conventional explosives such as RDX or HMX were also used there can be no doubt that the main causal mechanism for the destruction of the WTC buildings was mini or micro nuclear bombs.

We have recently published an article that has a complete breakdown of the US Geological Survey’s dust samples and the Department of Energy’s water samples which formed the basis for our conclusions. That article can found here: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/

Tritiated Water:

From Steve Jones’ letter: Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained (0.164±0.074) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure…”

http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf

Tritium from a thermonuclear (fusion) bomb would be way above these trace levels of a few NANOcuries per liter. (A nanocurie = nCi, 1 billionth of a curie. That is a very tiny amount of radioactivity.)

Jones goes on to state: The graphs below show that hydrogen-bomb testing boosted tritium levels in rain by several orders of magnitude. (Ref.: http://www.science.uottawa.ca/~eih/ch7/7tritium.htm )

Image368Tritium_precipThe data clearly demonstrate the large amount of tritium released due to hydrogen bombs, the first of which was tested in 1951. Thus, tritium is a tracer for hydrogen bombs, the “smoking gun.” Can proponents of the WTC-mini-nuke hypothesis explain how large releases of tritium did NOT happen on 9/11/2001?

Jones is absolutely correct when he states that tritium is the “smoking gun” for a hydrogen bomb detonation. If tritium is detected in large quantities at Ground Zero, there is no way to deny the detonation of thermonuclear devices. It is vitally important to correctly interpret the data in the DOE report. So to help us make sense of the DOE data Ed Ward breaks down what is meant by “traces of tritium” in the basement of WTC 6: http://rense.com/general85/911.htm

1. Trace definition as it applies to quantity: Occurring in extremely small amounts or in quantities less than a standard limit (In the case of tritium, this standard level would be 20 TUs – the high of quoted standard background levels.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trace

2. The stated values of tritium from the DOE report “Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center”. “A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164±0.074 (2ó) nCi/L (164 pCi/L +/- 74 pCi/L – takes 1,000 trillionths to = 1 billionth) of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L ( 3,530.0 pCi/L +/- 170 pCi/L and 2,830 pCi/L +/- 150 pCi/L), respectively. https://e-reportsext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf Pico to Nano converter – http://www.unitconversion.org/prefixes/picos-to-nanos-conversion.html Nano to Pico converter – http://www.unit-conversion.info/metric.html

3. 1 TU = 3.231 pCi/L (trillionths per liter) or 0.003231 nCi/L (billionths per liter) – http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html – (My original TU calculations came out to 3.19 pCi/L, but I will gladly accept these referenced minimally higher values. http://www.clayandiron.com/news.jhtml?method=view&news.id=1022 )

4. In 2001 normal background levels of Tritium are supposedly around 20 TUs (prior to nuclear testing in the 60’s, normal background tritium water levels were 5 to 10 TUs – http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html ). However, groundwater studies show a significantly less water concentration: Groundwater age estimation using tritium only provides semi-quantitative, “ball park” values: • <0.8 TU indicates sub modern water (prior to 1950s) • 0.8 to 4 TU indicates a mix of sub modern and modern water • 5 to 15 TU indicates modern water (< 5 to 10 years) • 15 to 30 TU indicates some bomb tritium http://www.grac.org/agedatinggroundwater.pdf But, instead of “5 to 15 TU” (which would make the increase in background levels even higher), I will use 20 TUs as the 2001 environmental level to give all possible credibility to the lie of “Traces”.

5. Let’s calculate the proven referenced facts. Tritium level confirmed in the DOE report of traces of tritium = 3,530 pCi/L (+/- 170 pCi/L, but we will use the mean of 3,530 pCi/L). 3,530 pCi/L (the referenced lab value) divided by the background level of 20TUs (20 X 3.231 p (1 TU = 3.21 pCi/L) = 64.62 pCi/L as the high normal background/standard level. 3,530 divided by 64.62 pCi/L = 54.63 TIMES THE NORMAL BACKGROUND LEVEL. 3,530 pCi/L divided by 3.231 pCi/L (1 TU) = 1,092.54 TUs

6. This is my ‘fave’ because lies tend to eat their young. Muon physicist Steven Jones states in regard to 1,000 TUs: “The graphs below show that hydrogen-bomb testing boosted tritium levels in rain by several orders of magnitude. (Ref.: http://www.science.uottawa.ca/~eih/ch7/7tritium.htm ) – http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf Yet, calls the EXACT SAME LEVELS quoted in nCi/L as “Traces” and “These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure”. http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf Interesting isn’t it? Concern for human exposure is IRRELEVANT here and why Dr. Jones uses it is unknown.

7. Thomas M. Semkowa, Ronald S. Hafnerc, Pravin P. Parekha, Gordon J. Wozniakd, Douglas K. Hainesa, Liaquat Husaina, Robert L. Rabune. Philip G. Williams and Steven Jones have all called over 1,000 TUs of Tritium, “Traces”. Even at the height of nuclear bomb testing 98% – after thousands of Megatons of nuclear testing – of the rainwater tests were 2,000 TUs or less. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf

8. It is also important to note that the tritium present was diluted by at least some portion of 1 million liters of water accounting for BILLIONS of TUs.

An important point that Jones glosses over is the dilution of water in the basement of WTC 6. If not for copious amounts of water sprayed on the WTC site and two days of rain and water leaking through the damaged sea wall undoubtedly the concentration of tritium would have been higher than the measured 55 times normal background levels.

Ed Ward’s Breakdown of the WTC Rain and Fire Hose Water, 4 Million Gallons of

Dilution: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/136

WTC 6 = 1 acre (approx)

WTC site = 16 acres. Rain = 4 million liters. 4/16 = 1/4 of a million

liters deposits in WTC 6 in its 40 ft (depth) by 120 ft (diameter) crater.

WTC 6 was hot – see thermal images 2nd article on WTC Nukes.

Firemen = 12 million liters. Firemen would mostly be spraying the hot areas.

There are about 5 acres that gradually increase to maybe a total of 6 to 7 acres, but let’s be generous and say they sprayed 8 acres (this will lower the total amount of Tritium Units estimate).

8/16 = 1/2 of 12 million liters = 6 million liters spread over 8 acres = 3/4 of a million liters per acre

Rain plus Firemen = 1 million liters in WTC 6 in the 40 ft. (depth) by 120 ft. (diameter) crater.

1 liter of the pooled water = 1,106 TUs X 1 million liters of water = 1.1066 BILLION TUs JUST IN WTC 6 (no other places were checked.)

This completely ignores 104 Million Liters (30 Million Gallons) pumped out of the bathtub and the drain water of 51 TUs. 120 million liters X 51 = 6.120 BILLION TUs.

This completely ignores the amount of Tritium in gas form that escapes into the atmosphere and gets massive dispersal.

Jones’ statements on the tritium levels are disingenuous. Jones fails to address WHY so much tritium is in the basement of WTC 6 in the first place. A 170 meter high plume of smoke was seen rising from the building, a giant crater was left in the middle of it and “temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in its path.” There can be little doubt that a thermonuclear explosion(s) occurred in Building 6. http://www.tranquilitylane.com/images/WTC6_lava_nuke_evidence.jpg

If one denies nukes then something else must be responsible for all of the tritium found in the basement. The authors of the DOE report attempted to attribute the tritium to EXIT signs, watches and night sights on weapons that were stored in the building although that explanation is absurd in light of what we know happened to Building 6. Jones also fails to take into account all of the rain and fire hose water that diluted the tritium. If the water samples would have been collected on the evening of 9/11 what would the readings have been then?

Iodine-131 in the Hudson River Sediments

Sediment cores pulled from the Hudson River near the World Trade Center site just a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks contain a thin layer of metal-rich ash and pulverized debris. The top 3 cm of silt contained layers with unnaturally high concentrations of copper, strontium, and zinc from the towers, says Sarah D. Oktay, a geochemist… “Oktay and her colleagues also found that the sediments contain small but measurable quantities of iodine-131, a human-made radioactive isotope with a half-life of about 8 days.

Jones himself points out that the samples were collected a month after 9/11 and iodine-131 has a half-life of 8 days. This statement can hardly be used to rule out nuclear fission as most of the iodine-131 from the WTC demolition would have already decayed by the time the samples were collected. And the “high concentrations of copper, strontium, and zinc” ARE indicative of fission (and ternary fission) as we point out in our Mystery Solved article.

Radioactive “hot spots” in New York City

From a news article: “Radioactive ‘hot spots’ threat to city”, BY

JAMES GORDON MEEK, DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU •

“WASHINGTON – A helicopter survey revealed 80 radioactive “hot spots” in New York City, including a Staten Island park with dangerously high levels of radium, a congressional report disclosed yesterday…The GAO did not identify the park, but Brian Feeney of the National Park Service said a 1-acre section of Great Kills Park on Staten Island, part of Gateway National Recreation Area, had been shut down in August 2005 after federal officials discovered old industrial equipment contaminated with radiation.

We’re not sure that these hot spots Jones references have anything to do with 9/11. They could very well be due to industrial waste unrelated to the destruction of the WTC buildings. This point neither proves nor disproves the mini-nuke hypothesis.

Radioactive Isotopes

The USGS study of dust samples show elevated levels of uranium and thorium, elements that are always radioactive and the DOE water samples contain elevated levels of tritium. All of these elements were documented in levels that were far above background.

Neutron Activation

All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials, as the neutrons penetrate building materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided. Much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades. Moreover, the fall-out from even small nuclear weapons is highly radioactive. So we measure the level of radioactivity as proof (or disproof) of the use of nuclear bombs. Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples (from an apartment at 113 Liberty Street, NYC [1]) and a solidified metal sample (from the Clarkson University WTC monument [1]) for radioactivity using a Geiger counter. (Daedalon Corp., model EN-15.) I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY (meaning nothing above background). This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since measured radioactivity was simply at background levels. I used the same counter to measure the radioactivity of sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison – and the Geiger counter showed (2.94 +- 0.15) counts/sec. (The fused-sand was in fact from a New Mexico test site where an atomic bomb was detonated in 1945.) This demonstrates unequivocally the presence and long life of radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs, and the ability of the sensitive Geiger counter to measure that radioactivity. The sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast, yet the WTC dust and slag and steel yield nothing. In addition, a steel member from the WTC (again from the Clarkson University WTC monument [1]) was recently tested for neutron activation by the author. The WTC steel showed 100 counts in 4m 26s, or (0.38 +- 0.04) counts/second. The background counting rate showed 100 counts in 4m 18s, or (0.39+- 0.04) counts/second. These data overlap within the statistical error, meaning that zero counts over background were seen from the WTC steel.

Jones is doing an apples/oranges comparison here. The atomic bomb tests in New Mexico in 1945 were fission devices. The old atom bombs produced a lot of radioactivity by fissioning heavy elements. The devices used at the WTC on 9/11 were likely neutron bombs that used very little uranium and reduced radioactivity by up to 95%. The WTC bombs were also much lower yield than the kiloton+ devices tested in New Mexico. Per Sam Cohen there will be no lingering radioactivity from the neutron bomb.

According to world renowned nuclear physicist Dr. Christopher Busby, and based on his assessment of elements found in craters in Fallujah, Iraq, Lebanon and Ground Zero, the devices used are close to pure fusion devices in which little radioactivity after detonation would be seen. Radioactivity would be present from Tritium H3 which together with He-4 is the product and some short lived gamma radiation from neutron activation products (e.g. Ca-45 from the Ca in concrete, Fe-55 from the steel). These would be radioactive for a few days only.

The concentration of Uranium is a key. This is slightly too high in the dust and much too high in the girder coatings. The activities for 2.7, 3.2, 4.7 and 7.57 are 33, 40, 58 and 93Bq/kg. The graph in the USGS data/Chemistry Table 1 shows that there is too much U on the girder coatings. Normal levels of U are about 12, at most 40Bq/kg.

Dr. Jones never addresses the uranium levels as they relate to increases and decreases, predictable increases and decreases, across 12 USGS sampling locations with the other dozen+ elements. The 12 sampling locations all contained strontium as well as many other fission pathway elements, all of which correlate properly using the Product Momentum Correlation Coefficient to indicate fission occurred in NYC on 911.

Reference: http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html

Jones also neglects to mention all the vehicles that were “toasted” in the vicinity of the WTC. Ted Twietmeyer has an article on Rense’s website about the melted vehicles. Twietmeyer attributes the vehicular damage to EMP which would be generated by neutron bombs. Ed Ward states that “I believe some of what he attributes to EMP was done by neutrons – in particular his linear evaluations (angle computations) would seem more neutron than EMP. EMP should tend to flow around – seems to be a correlation of dust cloud carrying EMP. So the linear blockage of cars protecting other cars would seem to be more appropriate for neutrons.”

meltdd

So it appears that neutron bombs exploding in the Towers are responsible for the vehicular damage which serves to further reinforce our mini-nuke theory. The USGS dust samples also show signs of neutron activation per Jeff Prager:

The natural balance of elements at the WTC samples has changed into heavier isotopes. Some nuclear force has been able to inject neutrons into the nucleus of various elements present at the WTC area. See the table below.

List of Elements in the USGS analysis of WTC debris that should show readily detectable Neutron Activation:

Element Isotopes Isotope Percentages in Nature Mean Percentage in USGS analysis
Silicon 28 Si 92.23%, 29 Si 4.67% 15%
Carbon 2 C 98.9%, 13 C 1.1% stable 2%
Sulfur 32 S 95.02%, 33 S 0.075% 3%
Iron 56 Fe 91.72%, 57 Fe 2.2%, 58 Fe 0.28%  1.63%
Nickel 58 Ni 68.08%, 59 Ni 1/2 life 7600 years, 60 Ni 26.22%, 61 Ni 1.14% 37 ppm
Niobium 93 Nb 100%, 94 Nb 1/2 life 20,000 years 8.3 ppm
Beryllium 9 Be 100%, 10 Be 1/2 life 1.5 mil years 3 ppm
Potassium 39 K 93.256%, 40 K only plant animal 0.5%
Titanium 48 Ti 73.8%, 49 Ti 5.5% 0.25%
Chromium 52 Cr 83.79%, 53 Cr 9.5% 116 ppm
Cobalt 59 Co 100%, 60 Co 1/2 life 5 years 6 ppm

For an example, Iron is expected to have the Fe (58) isotope, which contains two additional neutrons, 0.28% naturally, but somehow there were 1.63% of these heavier, but still stable iron isotopes in the WTC sample.

A Note on Pulverization

Jones collected dust samples from Janette MacKinlay’s apartment which was near the South Tower. Jones states that the dust contained larger chunks so that disproves the mini-nuke hypothesis. A couple of points here: first, the smallest particles would have been carried a mile or more away from Ground Zero. No known samples were collected that far away so one cannot conclude that fine particles were not produced by the Ground Zero detonations. Secondly, we are not claiming that the buildings were completely pulverized into nano-sized particles. Indeed a 300 ton chunk of the North Tower was ejected 600+ feet into the Winter Garden as documented in the movie 911 Eyewitness. Could conventional explosives account for this? Perhaps but the quantities of conventional explosives required to perform that feat would not be practical to have been placed in the buildings undetected.

300 ton chunk of debris smashes into the Winter GardenPeople and Glass as Detectors for Nuclear Bomb Radiation

Finally, people themselves become “detectors” for the radiations associated with nuclear bombs. Glass also is known to melt in the intense heat of a nuclear bomb blast. All nuclear bombs produce copious x-rays, gamma-rays and fast neutrons, which are fatal at close range with a distinctive ‘burning’ of the victims. This applies to fusion as well as fission bombs.

This person had severe burns indicative of nukes:

P200333-1Jones attributes molten material at Ground Zero to thermate. Jones also portraits the temperatures at Ground Zero as occasionally spiking and not a constantly high temperature. Jones’ view contradicts people that worked the site for months:

Not only was this laborious for the firefighters, but the working conditions were hellish, said Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. of Norwalk, Conn.

For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. ‘In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,’ Fuchek said.

It should be noted that the sole reason for constructing a nano-style thermitic material is to increase burn rate creating a rapid burning material that uses all of its source material in milliseconds. A nano-thermite is specifically designed to burn rapidly and exhaust its supply of fuel immediately. It CANNOT burn for more than a few seconds at best, let alone minutes, hours, days, weeks and months.

Could thermite heat a several acre area to a 600 – 1,500 °F temperature for six months? Absolutely not. The only thing that could explain this is fission/fusion. No other fire can burn underground that long.

wtc1summary01

There were massive underground explosions before the North Tower was demolished. It appears that mini-nukes were used to demolish the foundations of the WTC Towers and the residual heat from the explosions caused the elevated temperatures.

As an example of retained heat from a nuclear explosion, Ed Ward references The Project GNOME detonation on December 10, 1961 near Carlsbad, New Mexico:

Measurements of an earlier underground detonation had indicated that roughly 1/3 of the energy was deposited in the melted rock at temperatures above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. This information encouraged hopes that a nuclear detonation in a dry medium might cause heat to be stored long enough to permit efficient recovery. GNOME was developed with the idea that a nuclear detonation in a salt deposit would create a large volume of hot melted salt from which heat might be extracted. The possibilities to be investigated for the production of power were the tapping of the steam created by detonation itself and the generation of high-density, high-pressure steam by the circulation of some heat-absorbing fluid, like water, over the heated salt. This generated steam would be used to drive a steam or hot gas turbine coupled with an electric generator.

When workers reentered that cavity on May 17, 1962, they found temperatures around 140 degrees Fahrenheit but only small amounts of residual radiation. The earlier intense radiation had colored the salt of the cavity wall various shades of blue, green, and violet.

A nuclear bomb will only explode 1-6% of its fissionable material. The unexploded fissionable material at the WTC appears to have been going through a low-level fission process and as it fissioned it burrowed deep underground. This is known as the China Syndrome and may have been responsible for some of the hot spots. Only nuclear bombs can explain this phenomenon. Hundreds of dump trucks of dirt were hauled in and out of Ground Zero to clean up the mess similar to the Chernobyl meltdown.

Building 7

There is evidence that three mini-nukes were detonated in the sub-basement of Building 7 as well. An anonymous video shows the destruction of Building 7: https://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/jim-fetzer-real-deal-appearance-7912/. It appears that conventional demolition charges were used to take out the support columns in the building. But as the building “collapses” massive pyroclastic clouds erupt once again covering Lower Manhattan in a fine dust powder.

Ed Ward observes: So, I went back and examined the thermal images – no evidence of tampering was noted (nothing like the crude blackening of WTC 6). Indeed, there is minimal heat right after 7 was demolished and it still looks more like WTC 2 residue. But, very shortly after that, 3 large heat zones appear – linear, even spaced – 1 dead center and one on each side. It just took a while for the heat to transfer up. This would correlate with 3 surface to slightly sub-surface micro nukes in WTC 7. Set to explode just after/during the regular demolition would account for the more lateral flow of the pyroclastic flow. http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/correction-9-11-wtcs-1-2-6-and-7-neutron-nuked/

Conclusions

The hard physical evidence presented strongly supports the hypothesis that mini-nukes destroyed the WTC Towers:

1. Tritium levels in the basement of WTC 6 are 55 times greater than background 11 days after 9/11 and after substantial water had been sprayed into the area. Only a thermonuclear (fusion) explosion can account for tritium levels this high. Temperatures in Building 6 were so high that “cement flowed like lava.” Nothing but a NUCLEAR EVENT can cause ‘tritium’ formation – basic physics fact.

2. Three Massive WTC Craters – See us government LIDAR proof: It’s 100% classic textbook nuclear event residue – ZERO ANOMALIES. Proven 9-11 Nukes http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/proven-9-11-nukes-us-government-involvement/

3. The damage done to WTC 6: a 170 meter plume of smoke seen rising from the building, a massive crater left in the center and cement that was so hot it “flowed like lava” is consistent with the use of mini-nukes.

4. Uranium, always radioactive, under scanning electron microscopy was found at 7.57 parts per million (93 Becquerels per kilogram) in the dust taken from the girder coatings by USGS personnel. Normal uranium content on earth is between 12 Bq/kg as a low and 40 Becquerels per kilogram as the maximum high making this girder coating uranium level between 2 and 7.75 times the expected level. What is the source of the increased levels of uranium found in this girder coating dust that was then surrounded by tons of building construction?

5. There are significant uranium anomalies elsewhere. Readings of 2.7, 3.2, 4.7 and 7.57 or 33, 40, 58 and 93Bq/kg are found in the USGS dust samples.

6. Lithium: The graph of thorium versus lithium including the Girder Coatings has exactly the same form as the graph showing thorium versus uranium, also including the Girder Coatings. Without the two Girder Coatings the correlation of thorium to lithium in the dust is completely linear. We therefore have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of uranium to thorium and helium, with subsequent decay of the helium into lithium, has indeed taken place. It is out of the question that all of these correlations which are the signature of a nuclear explosion could have occurred by chance. This is impossible. http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html

7. Only nuclear fission explains the correlations and predictability of levels of numerous elements found by the USGS.

8. A 300 ton chunk of the North Tower was ejected upwards at a 45° angle and out 600 feet into the Winter Garden. Only extremely powerful explosives can account for this. It would be nearly impossible to plant enough conventional explosives to perform this feat.

9. 1,500 °F and sometimes higher ground temperatures six months after 9/11 cannot be explained by nanothermite or conventional explosives. Below ground nuclear detonations and nuclear criticalities reacting underground explain the high temperatures that persisted for months. An Impossible “Fire” (Combustion Process). See Laws of Physics for Fire/Combustion Process and Dr. Cahill’s data on ‘anaerobic incineration’.

10. Five Acres (1.2 Billion Pounds = Weight of Residue of 3 WTC Buildings (WTC 1, 2, 6 and 7) of WTC Land Brought to Searing Temperatures in a Few Hours by an ’Anaerobic, Chlorine Fueled “Fire” – Impossible by Basic Laws of Physics. See US government Thermal Images proof – See: Update http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/correction-9-11-wtcs-1-2-6-and-7-neutron-nuked/

11. Engineers estimate that 1/3 of the Twin Towers were completely vaporized. 3 Billion pounds of building instantly turned into 2 Billion pounds of micronized dust. Only the mini-nuke hypothesis can explain this.

12. First Responder Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia reported in 2005 that his teeth were falling out – a common symptom of nuclear radiation exposure.

13. WTC employee Felipe David reported “hanging skin” another common symptom of nuclear radiation exposure after the North Tower was demolished.

14. 16 inch steel Spires that withstood 1/2 a Billion pounds of building falling on them and 15 seconds later suddenly turn into limp noodles and partially vaporize.

15. Hiroshima effect cancers in responders and locals. Nothing else known to man can leave ALL the WTC debris and this particular evidence in the length of time needed, except a third generation Micro Nuke – Mini Nuke – Nuke. It’s 100% classic textbook nuclear event residue – ZERO ANOMALIES.

Mystery Solved: The WTC Was Nuked on 9/11

By Don Fox, Ed Ward MD and Jeff Prager

wordpress analytics

The debate has raged for more than a decade about what caused the Twin Towers to “collapse” in approximately 10 seconds each — 9 seconds for the South Tower, 11 for the North. A large and growing percentage of the public has become skeptical of the conclusion of the government’s official NCSTAR 1 report, according to which, “NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to 9/11.”

Skepticism of NIST’s conclusions is well founded. There is eyewitness testimony as well as abundant video and audio evidence of explosions at the WTC on 9/11. There is also seismic data that demonstrates that high powered explosives were used to demolish the Twin Towers. The gross observable video evidence — if you are willing to believe your own eyes — shows that the Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down and the inside out.

We believe that only mini-nukes — which were probably neutron bombs — planted in the center columns of the buildings, detonated from top to bottom and configured to explode upward, can explain what is observed. If they were used to blow apart one ten-floor cube per second, for example, then, since the North Tower stood at 110 floors, that would have taken 11 seconds, while, since the top three cubes of the South Tower tilted over and were blown as one, in that case, it would have taken only 9, which coincides with NIST’s own times.

This is a controversial contention. Judy Wood, Ph.D., has proclaimed that a Tesla-inspired directed energy weapon (DEW) was responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings and has vehemently denied nuclear bombs were used. Steve Jones, Ph.D., and his followers promote the theory that an incendiary (nanothermite) was the cause of the destruction of the WTC buildings, while they also deny that nukes were used. So these seemingly opposed camps agree on one thing: nukes were not used on 9/11!

The nanothermite hypothesis has been discredited on multiple occasions in articles by T. Mark Hightower and Jim Fetzer, including “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 community?”, “Is ’9/11 truth’ based upon a false theory?”, and “Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”. Since it is a principle (law) of materials science that an explosive can destroy a material only if it has a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material, where the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s and in steel 6,100 m/s, while the highest detonation velocity that has been attributed to nanothermite is 895 m/s, it should be obvious: You can’t get there from there!

The DEW hypothesis turns out to be difficult to test, since Judy Wood defines DEWs as sources of energy that are greater than conventional and can be directed, which even encompasses micro and mini nukes within its scope. As earlier articles have explained, including “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II” and “Mini Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle”, there are multiple grounds for preferring the mini or micro nuke hypothesis over the DEW alternative, which emerge with particular clarity from a study of the dust samples collected by the US Geological Survey. It is ironic that, while the “thermite sniffers” also focus on dust samples, they seem to have missed what we have to learn from them.

Indeed, the nuclear component of the decimation of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 6 and 7 is the darkest and most closely guarded secret of 9/11. With so many folks claiming different theories it is difficult for average people to know what to believe. Fortunately, we have scientific proof of what happened at Ground Zero. The dust and water samples reveal the true story of what happened on 9/11. This article thus provides more of the scientific evidence–especially from the USGS dust samples–that settles the debate in favor of the demolition of the WTC buildings as having been a nuclear event.

DEBRIS EJECTED OVER 600 FEET

The explosives that demolished the Twin Towers were so powerful that North Tower debris was ejected up at a 45° angle and out over 600 feet into the Winter Garden. This feat alone puts an end to the notion that the buildings were “dustified” where they stood or that an incendiary like nanothermite was the responsible for the destruction of two 500,000 ton 110 story skyscrapers or that the buildings collapsed due to fire.

Debris ejected up at a 45° angle

debris ejected from North Tower

Which lands in the Winter Garden over 600 feet away

300 ton chunk of debris smashes into the Winter Garden

Engineers estimate that 1/3 of the buildings were completely vaporized. And as Judy Wood likes to point out no toilets were found in the rubble. 90% of the debris from the Twin Towers destruction landed outside the building’s footprints. What type of explosives could cause this sort of damage? The only thing known to man that can explain this is nuclear bombs.

PROOF OF FUSION:

The Department of Energy (DOE) collected water samples from the basement of Building 6 eleven days after 9/11 that showed tritium levels 55 times greater than background. How does this prove fusion?

Let’s start with defining tritium: Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen containing one proton and two neutrons. Tritium is radioactive with a half-life of 12.32 years. Also Known As: hydrogen-3, 3H (Helmenstine)

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission provides us some excellent background information on hydrogen:

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, comprising approximately 90% of the luminous universe by weight. Ordinary hydrogen (1H) accounts for greater than 99.985% of all naturally-occurring hydrogen, whereas deuterium (2H) comprises approximately 0.015%. By comparison, tritium (3H) represents only approximately 10-16 percent of hydrogen naturally occurring. Tritium is a rare but natural isotope of hydrogen (H), and is the only natural hydrogen isotope that is radioactive. The tritium atom is sometimes designated T to distinguish it from the common lighter isotope. Notwithstanding the difference in mass, tritium can be found in the same chemical forms as hydrogen. The most important forms, from the perspective of atmospheric behavior of tritium, are tritiated hydrogen gas (HT) and tritiated water (HTO). These tritiated forms behave chemically like hydrogen gas (H2) and water (H2O).

Natural Sources

Tritium is generated by both natural and artificial processes. Tritium is naturally produced primarily through the interaction of cosmic radiation protons and neutrons with gases (including nitrogen, oxygen and argon) in the upper atmosphere.

Anthropogenic Sources

In addition to its natural sources, tritium also has a number of anthropogenic sources which account for the dominant proportion of the global tritium inventory. Anthropogenic tritium sources include fallout from nuclear weapons testing, nuclear reactors, future fusion reactors, fuel reprocessing plants, heavy water production facilities and commercial production for medical diagnostics, radiopharmaceuticals, luminous paints, sign illumination, self-luminous aircraft, airport runway lights, luminous dials, gauges and wrist watches, and others.

Commercial uses of tritium account for only a small fraction of the tritium used worldwide. Instead, the primary use of tritium has been to boost the yield of both fission and thermonuclear (or fusion) weapons, increasing the efficiency with which the nuclear explosive materials are used.

Thermonuclear Detonation during Nuclear Weapons Testing

Nuclear tests have been conducted in the atmosphere since 1945, producing tritium in amounts that greatly exceed the global natural activity, particularly during 1954 to 1958 and 1961 to 1962 when a number of large-yield test series were undertaken. The tritium activity arising from atmospheric nuclear tests can be estimated from the fission and fusion yields of the weapons tests or from environmental measurements. For example, the tritium activity produced per unit yield is dependent upon the attributes of the device, as well as on the characteristics of the detonation site, and tritium generation from fusion reactions is much higher than from fission. The tritium that is produced by a nuclear explosion is almost completely converted to tritiated water (HTO), which then mixes with environmental water. (“Investigation of the,” 2009)

What about WTC-6?

We have established that tritium is a rare hydrogen isotope, the vast majority of the tritium that is produced is used in nuclear weapons and that the tritium produced by a thermonuclear explosion is converted into tritiated water (HTO). Tritiated water WAS found in the basement of Building 6 at concentrations 55 times background levels. Here is Ed Ward’s breakdown of the DOE’s water sample data:

1. Trace definition as it applies to quantity: Occurring in extremely small amounts or in quantities less than a standard limit (In the case of tritium, this standard level would be 20 TUs – the high of quoted standard background levels.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trace

2. The stated values of tritium from the DOE report “Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center”. “A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164±0.074 (2ó) nCi/L (164 pCi/L +/- 74 pCi/L – takes 1,000 trillionths to = 1 billionth) of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L ( 3,530.0 pCi/L +/- 170 pCi/L and 2,830 pCi/L +/- 150 pCi/L), respectively. https://e-reportsext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf Pico to Nano converter – http://www.unitconversion.org/prefixes/picos-to-nanos-conversion.html Nano to Pico converter – http://www.unit-conversion.info/metric.html

3. 1 TU = 3.231 pCi/L (trillionths per liter) or 0.003231 nCi/L (billionths per liter) – http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html – (My original TU calculations came out to 3.19 pCi/L, but I will gladly accept these referenced minimally higher values. http://www.clayandiron.com/news.jhtml?method=view&news.id=1022 )

4. In 2001 normal background levels of Tritium are supposedly around 20 TUs (prior to nuclear testing in the 60′s, normal background tritium water levels were 5 to 10 TUs – http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html ). However, groundwater studies show a significantly less water concentration: Groundwater age estimation using tritium only provides semi-quantitative, “ball park” values: · <0.8 TU indicates sub modern water (prior to 1950s) · 0.8 to 4 TU indicates a mix of sub modern and modern water · 5 to 15 TU indicates modern water (< 5 to 10 years) · 15 to 30 TU indicates some bomb tritium http://www.grac.org/agedatinggroundwater.pdf But, instead of “5 to 15 TU” (which would make the increase in background levels even higher), I will use 20 TUs as the 2001 environmental level to give all possible credibility to the lie of “Traces”.

5. Let’s calculate the proven referenced facts. Tritium level confirmed in the DOE report of traces of tritium = 3,530 pCi/L (+/- 170 pCi/L, but we will use the mean of 3,530 pCi/L). 3,530

pCi/L (the referenced lab value) divided by the background level of 20TUs (20 X 3.231 p (1 TU = 3.21 pCi/L) = 64.62 pCi/L as the high normal background/standard level. 3,530 divided by 64.62 pCi/L = 54.63 TIMES THE NORMAL BACKGROUND LEVEL. 3,530 pCi/L divided by 3.231 pCi/L (1 TU) = 1,092.54 TUs

6. This is my ‘fave’ because lies tend to eat their young. Muon physicist Steven Jones calls 1,000 TUs “The graphs below show that hydrogen-bomb testing boosted tritium levels in rain by several orders of magnitude. (“Tritium in precipitation,”) (Jones, 2006) Yet, calls the EXACT SAME LEVELS quoted in nCi/L as “Traces” and “These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure” (Jones, 2006). Interesting isn’t it.

7. Thomas M. Semkowa, Ronald S. Hafnerc, Pravin P. Parekha, Gordon J. Wozniakd, Douglas K. Hainesa, Liaquat Husaina, Robert L. Rabune. Philip G. Williams and Steven Jones have all called over 1,000 TUs of Tritium, “Traces”. Even at the height of nuclear bomb testing 98% – after thousands of Megatons of nuclear testing – of the rainwater tests were 2,000 TUs or less. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf

8. It is also important to note that the tritium present was diluted by at least some portion of 1 million liters of water accounting for BILLIONS of TUs.

An important point that Jones glosses over is the dilution of water in the basement of WTC 6. If not for copious amounts of water sprayed on the WTC site undoubtedly the concentration of tritium would have been higher than the measured 55 times normal background levels.

Ed Ward’s Breakdown of the WTC Rain and Fire Hose Water, 4 Million Gallons of Dilution: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/136

WTC 6 = 1 acre (approx.)

WTC site = 16 acres. Rain = 4 million liters. 4/16 = 1/4 of a million liters deposits in WTC 6 in its 40 ft. (depth) by 120 ft. (diameter) crater.

WTC 6 was hot – see thermal images 2nd article on WTC Nukes.

Firemen = 12 million liters. Firemen would mostly be spraying the hot areas.

There are about 5 acres that gradually increase to maybe a total of 6 to 7 acres, but let’s be generous and say they sprayed 8 acres (this will lower the total amount of Tritium Units estimate).

8/16 = 1/2 of 12 million liters = 6 million liters spread over 8 acres = 3/4 of a million liters per acre.

Rain plus Firemen = 1 million liters in WTC 6 in the 40 ft (depth) by 120 ft (diameter) crater.

1 liter of the pooled water = 1,106 TUs X 1 million liters of water = 1.1066 BILLION TUs JUST IN WTC 6 (no other places were checked.)

This completely ignores 104 Million Liters (30 Million Gallons) pumped out of the bathtub and the drain water of 51 TUs. 120 million liters X 51 = 6.120 BILLION TUs.

This completely ignores the amount of Tritium in gas form that escapes into the atmosphere and gets massive dispersal.

Just what happened to Building 6? HOW did all of that tritium get in the basement in the first place?

Plume of smoke seen rising from the area where WTC6 stood:

WTC6 explosionPhoto shows WTC6 damaged BEFORE the North Tower “collapsed.”

WTC_6_blackened_prior_to_collapse

Another Bill Biggert photo shows WTC6 blackened BEFORE South Tower debris hits it:

Biggart_WTC6

Overhead photo:

WTC_6_from_overhead

Reminiscent of the OKC Murrah Building:

Murrah Building OKC

Chuck Boldwyn slide shows possible placement of mini/micro neutron bombs:

PotentialplacementofverylowyieldminineutronnukesAnother Chuck Boldwyn slide shows the damage done by upwardly directed shaped mini/micro neutron nukes:

WTC6Infrared photo that shows the huge crater in WTC 6:

noaa_wtc2

To sum this up: we see a plume of smoke rising from Building 6, photos that show the building was blackened and bombed out before ANY debris from the Twin Towers hit it, a massive crater in the middle of the building and the DOE found massive quantities of tritium in the basement eleven days after 9/11. Only a thermonuclear explosion explains all of this, which strongly suggests that WTC-6 was nuked. And there is more proof.

PROOF OF FISSION:

The US Geological Survey collected samples of dust and airfall debris from more than 35 localities within a 1-km radius of the World Trade Center site on the evenings of September 17 and 18, 2001. The USGS was primarily looking for asbestos in the dust but they found a host of elements that when analyzed properly proves that nuclear fission took place at Ground Zero.

A quick glance at the chemistry table and immediately the presence of the elements such as cesium, uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium, rubidium, molybdenum, lanthanum, cerium, chromium and zinc raise suspicions. But deeper analysis shows that these elements correlate with each other according to relationships expected in a nuclear fission event.

Jeff Prager has done extensive work with the USGS dust samples and we’ll use some of the slides from his Vancouver Power Point presentation to help us analyze the USGS data:

Barium and Strontium

People might argue that strontium and barium could be found in building debris and they would be correct however strontium and barium could never, under any circumstances, be found as building debris constituents in a demolition in these quantities.

The levels never fall below 400 ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700 ppm for Strontium and they reach over 3000 ppm for both of them at WTC01-16, Broadway and John Streets. Why?

Barium and Strontium are rare Trace elements with limited industrial uses. The enormous peak in Barium and Strontium concentration at WTC01-16 is readily apparent in the chart at right. The concentration of the two elements reaches 3130 ppm for Strontium and 3670 ppm for Barium or over 0.3% by weight of the dust. This means that 0.37% of the sample was Barium and 0.31% of the sample was Strontium by weight at that location, WTC01-16, Broadway and John Streets. The Mean concentration for Barium including the very low girder coating samples is 533 ppm and for Strontium it’s 727 ppm. These are not Trace amounts. They are highly dangerous and extremely toxic amounts. They are also critical components of nuclear fission and the decay process.

Barium and Strontium

Here we’re plotting the concentration of Barium at each location against the Strontium concentration. The correlation between the concentrations of the two elements, Barium and Strontium is extremely high.

The Coefficient of Correlation between the concentration of Barium and Strontium at the outdoor and indoor sampling locations is 0.99 to 2 decimal places (0.9897 to 4 decimal places). So we have a Correlation Coefficient between the concentration of Barium and the concentration of Strontium of 0.9897, or near perfect. The maximum Correlation Coefficient that is mathematically possible is 1.0 and this would mean we have a perfect match between the two factors we’re examining and the data points would lie on a straight line with no variation between them. To obtain a Correlation Coefficient of 0.9897 with this number of measurements (14) around Lower Manhattan is very, very significant indeed. What this means is that we can say that there’s a 99% correlation in the variation in the concentration between these two elements. They vary in lockstep; they vary together. When one element varies so does the other. We can state with absolute mathematical certainty that any change in the concentration of one of these elements, either the Barium or Strontium, is matched by the same change in the concentration of the other. Whatever process gave rise to the presence of either the Barium or the Strontium must have also produced the other as well. Fission is the only process that explains this.

concentration of barium and strontiumThorium and Uranium

Next we come to the detection of measurable quantities of Thorium and Uranium in the dust from the World Trade Center, elements which only exist in radioactive form. The graph below plots the concentration of Thorium and Uranium detected at each sampling location. Again, the last two locations, WTC01-08 and WTC01-09, are for the two girder coating samples. The Uranium concentration follows the same pattern as Thorium, although the graph scale does not show this markedly. Uranium follows the dip at WTC01-03 and WTC01-16 but the highest concentration of Uranium also matches Thorium in the second girder coating, WTC01-09, at 7.57ppm. 7.57 greatly exceeds normal Trace element levels. This equals 93 Becquerels per kilogram. Normal background radiation is approximately 12Bq/kg to 40Bq/kg with 40Bq/kg the highest level we would expect to see. This girder contains more than twice the expected level of uranium. The second girder contained 30.7 ppm of Thorium, 6 times as high as the lowest level of that element detected. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place. As we said earlier, Thorium is formed from Uranium be alpha decay. An alpha particle is the same as a Helium nucleus, so this means we have one of the favored fission pathways: Uranium fissioning into a Noble Gas and the balancing elements, in this case Helium and Thorium.

thorium and uraniumThe graph of Thorium versus Lithium including the Girder Coatings has exactly the same form as the graph showing Thorium versus Uranium, also including the Girder Coatings. Without the two Girder Coatings the correlation of Thorium to Lithium in the dust is completely linear. We therefore have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium, has indeed taken place. It is out of the question that all of these correlations which are the signature of a nuclear explosion could have occurred by chance. This is impossible. The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum is enough to raise eyebrows in themselves, let alone in quantities of 50 ppm to well over 100 ppm. When the quantities then vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission, it is beyond ALL doubt that the variations in concentration are due to that same common process of nuclear fission. When we also find Barium and Strontium present, in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400 ppm to over 3000 ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships, the implications are of the utmost seriousness. Fission occurred in NYC on 911.

thorium vs lithiumThe graph (below) shows that (apart from the very high peak in Sodium levels for one of the indoor dust samples) the Sodium and Potassium concentrations both display this now characteristic peak at location WTC01-16, the corner of Broadway and John Street. Sodium has the same peak as Zinc at WTC01-22, the corner of Warren and West, and like Zinc, falls to a minimum in the girder coatings – far below the concentrations found in the dust. Potassium is very similar except its concentration was not a peak at WTC01-02, Water and New York Streets, but somewhat lower than the next location, WTC01-03, State and Pearl Streets. There are clear correlations and relationships here which show that the Potassium and Sodium concentrations did not arise at random. They are products of radioactive decay. Remember that Strontium is produced by a fission pathway that proceeds through the Noble Gas Krypton and then the Alkali Metal Rubidium. Similarly, Barium is produced through Xenon and the Alkali Metal Cesium. We know that Uranium fission favors these pathways through the Noble Gases. Just as radioactive isotopes of Krypton and Xenon decay by beta particle emission to produce Rubidium and Cesium, radioactive isotopes of Neon and Argon also decay by beta emission to produce Sodium and Potassium. We would indeed expect to find anomalous levels of these elements present – what was found is again consistent with the occurrence of nuclear fission.

zinc sodium potassium

We know beyond doubt that the only process that can cause Barium and Strontium to be present in related or correlated quantities and any process that can also cause Barium and Strontium to have such strong relational concentrations across different samples, is nuclear fission. We know that if nuclear fission had occurred that Barium and Strontium would be present and a strong statistical correlation between the quantities of each would be found, and we have that, in spades. What else do we have? Quite a lot.

About 400 ppm of Barium and Strontium were measured in two samples of insulation girder coatings (WTC01-08 and 01-09). The concentration of Strontium actually falls somewhat below that of Barium in the second girder sample, WTC01-09, as at WTC01-16, whereas in every other sample the level of Strontium discovered was higher than Barium. Given the elevated levels of Barium daughter products found in the second girder and even the highest level of Uranium found (7.57ppm just West of and behind Tower One) this shows that active fission was still ongoing in the second girder coating, in the very same way as at WTC01-16 and therefore more Barium was found then Strontium. In other samples where the rate of fission had slowed down to give way to decay, the concentrations of Barium and Strontium reverse, due to the different half-lives. Barium isotopes have a shorter half-life then Strontium isotopes so they decay more quickly and after a period of time when no new Barium or Strontium has been deposited, Strontium will exceed Barium. The fact that more Barium then Strontium was still found at WTC01-16 and WTC01-09 shows that the overall nuclear processes taking place were somewhat favoring Barium over Strontium and hence Zinc as well. The tighter cluster of Barium (400-500 ppm) and Strontium (700-800 ppm) concentrations across widely separated sampling locations in Lower Manhattan is cast iron proof that Nuclear Fission occurred. We know that Barium and Strontium are the characteristic signature of fission; they are formed by two of the most common Uranium fission pathways. The fact that their concentrations are so tightly coupled means that their source was at the very epicenter of the event which created the dust cloud that enveloped Manhattan. This was not a localized preexisting chemical source which would only have contaminated a few closely spaced samples and left the remaining samples untouched. The very high concentrations of Barium and Strontium at location WTC01-16 shows that active nuclear fission was still ongoing at that spot; the dust was still “hot” and new Barium and new Strontium were being actively generated, actively created by transmutation from their parent nuclei.

The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship – and to the other radionuclide daughter products such as sodium, potassium, zinc, lithium, strontium and barium – leaves nothing more to be said. This type of data has probably never been available to the public before and it’s an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device. September 11th, 2001, was the first nuclear event within a major United States city that we have incontrovertible proof for and this is without question the most closely held secret surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001.

Anyone seriously interested in 911 truth will naturally be compelled to fully and thoroughly investigate the serious implications raised by this report personally, and I strongly encourage this. The material is complex yet if I can understand it anyone can.

No one promised us that the answers to 911 would come easily.

There’s more compelling and incontrovertible evidence I’d like to cover now. We’ll discuss the elements:

Lanthanum

Vanadium

Yttrium

Chromium

Nickel

Copper

Lead

Zinc

In this graph Zinc has been divided by a factor of 10 to avoid losing all the detail in the scaling if the ‘Y’ axis instead went up to 3000 ppm. The variation in Lead is matched by the variation in Zinc almost perfectly across all sampling locations, including the Indoor and Girder Coating samples.

The concentration of Copper follows that of Zinc with one distinct exception at WTC01-15, Trinity and Cortlandt Streets, just several hundred feet East of Building Four. There seem to be two Copper-Zinc relationships. If some of the Zinc was being formed by beta decay of Copper, then the high Copper at WTC01-15 could reduce Zinc, since formation of Zinc by that decay pathway would be retarded by material being held up at the Copper stage, before decaying on to Zinc. Therefore this graph does confirm that some of the Zinc was indeed being formed by beta decay of Copper.

This would at least be a very small mercy for the civilian population exposed in this event since the Zinc isotopes formed from Copper are stable, i.e. they are not radioactive.

zinc lead copper

The copper found in the Ground Zero dust is indicative of nuclear fission. If we plot the concentration of Copper against Zinc and Nickel, we obtain the graphs pictured here. The concentration of Nickel was almost the same everywhere, except for the peak of 88 ppm matched by the Copper peak of 450 ppm.

The Copper – Zinc relationship is very interesting, showing in fact two distinct relationships again depending on isotopic composition. There are two radioactive isotopes of Copper (Cu 64 and Cu 67) with short half-lives of 12.7 hours and 2.58 days respectively which decay into Zinc isotopes. The other two isotopes (Cu 60 and Cu 61) decay the other way by positron emission into Nickel and in fact Cu 64 goes both ways, into both Nickel and Zinc. This would explain why there strongly appear to be two Copper – Zinc relationships.

The decay of radioactive Copper by beta particle emission into Zinc would have been another source for the extraordinarily high concentrations of Zinc found in the World Trade Center Dust.

copper vs zincLanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of Barium, situated between Barium and Cerium. The concentration of Barium versus Lanthanum is plotted in the graph below.

This graph is almost identical in form to the relationship between Barium and Cerium. A similar inverse exponential (cubic) relationship is clearly visible. In this case, Lanthanum is approximately equal to 5 times the cube root of Barium.

Lanthanum has a much shorter half-life then Cerium; most of its isotopes have a half-life of only a few hours whereas beta decay by Cerium is measured in half-life periods of a month to 10 months. Cerium’s beta decay going back to Lanthanum occurs more quickly but Lanthanum’s beta decay going back to Barium occurs in a similar time-scale to that – a few hours, so we are left with the net effect of Lanthanum’s beta decay being much quicker than that of Cerium, so the concentration of Cerium remaining was higher than that of Lanthanum.

barium vs lanthanumYttrium is also a very rare element and should not be present in dust from a collapsed office building. Yttrium is the next decay element after Strontium. If we plot concentration of Strontium against Yttrium, we see what happens in the graph below. Strontium 90 has a much longer half-life (28.78 years) than most Barium isotopes so we would not expect to see as high a concentration of Strontium’s daughter products as those that are produced from Barium. This is in fact what we see – the concentration of Cerium (next daughter product to Barium) is higher than Yttrium, the next daughter product to Strontium.

strontium vs yttriumThe presence of Chromium is also a telltale signature of a nuclear detonation. Its concentration is shown plotted against Zinc and Vanadium in the graphs below.

There is a strong correlation between the Zinc and the Chromium concentration. The Coefficient of Correlation is high, 0.89.

There is also an indication of strong correlation between Chromium and Vanadium within 6 points of lying on an almost perfect exponential curve, with one outlier, WTC01-03, the corner of State and Pearl Streets, of 42.5 ppm where the Vanadium concentration reached its highest level.

chromium vs zincLooking at the data for Zinc we see that the Zinc concentration for WTC01-02, Water Street at the intersection of New York, is 2990 ppm and this immediately stands out. In fact, for the outdoor samples, Zinc is the most common Trace element at all sampling locations, with generally between 1000 ppm and 2000 ppm except for this spike of nearly 3000 ppm at WTC01-02.

This equates to an enormous concentration of Zinc. 0.1% to 0.2% of Zinc in the dust overall and at WTC01-02, 0.299% of the dust was Zinc. This exceeds the concentration of the supposed “non-Trace” element Manganese and Phosphorous and almost equals the elevated Titanium concentration of 0.39% at that same location.

What process produced the zinc?

If we include the data for WTC01-16, the Correlation Coefficient between the Zinc and Barium concentration is 0.007 to 3 decimal places, from which we can conclude that there is absolutely no correlation at all. But if we exclude that one sampling location, where Barium and Strontium concentrations peaked, the correlation coefficient between Zinc and Barium is 0.96 to two decimal places and between Zinc and Strontium, 0.66 to two decimal places. So what happened?

zinc strontium

This shows that the Zinc and Barium concentrations are closely related and if we exclude what must have been an extraordinary event at WTC01-16 as an outlier, the correlation is very good. The Product Moment Correlation Coefficient is 0.96. The concentration of Zinc is now 3 times the concentration of Barium but the correlation between Zinc and Strontium is not so clear, showing that the relationship must be more indirect. This is to be expected since Barium and Strontium are produced by different nuclear fission pathways.

In spent nuclear fuel, Strontium is found as Strontium Oxide (SrO) – the Strontium produced by the nuclear fission explosion under the Twin Towers will certainly have been oxidized to SrO by the heat. SrO is extremely soluble in water, so some of the Strontium concentration results obtained may have been distorted by the rain water which fell on New York a few days after the towers were destroyed.

There is a very strong linear relationship between Barium and Zinc found at the World Trade Center. This may indicate that a closely related nuclear sub-process gave rise to them, which produced 3 times as much Zinc as Barium by weight. If so, that would be a very unusual nuclear event.

There is a lesser known nuclear process that accounts for this, which would be indicative of very high energies indeed. This process is known as Ternary Fission.

What is ternary fission? From Wikipedia: Ternary Fission is a comparatively rare (0.2 to 0.4% of events) type of nuclear fission in which three charged products are produced rather than two. As in other nuclear fission processes, other uncharged particles such as multiple neutrons and gamma rays are produced in ternary fission.

Ternary fission may happen during neutron-induced fission or in spontaneous fission (the type of radioactive decay). About 25% more ternary fission happens in spontaneous fission compared to the same fissioning system formed after thermal neutron capture, illustrating that these processes remain physically slightly different, even after the absorption of the neutron, possibly because of the extra energy present in the nuclear reaction system of thermal neutron-induced fission.

True Ternary Fission: A very rare type of ternary fission process is sometimes called “true ternary fission.” It produces three nearly equal-sized charged fragments (Z ~ 30) but only happens in about 1 in 100 million fission events. In this type of fission, the product nuclei split the fission energy in three nearly equal parts and have kinetic energies of ~ 60 MeV (Wikipedia contributors, 2013)

Mini-Neutron Bombs

We have evidence of nuclear fission and fusion taking place at Ground Zero. Fission triggered fusion bombs fit the evidence. These bombs had limited but powerful blast effects, a burst of neutron radiation as well as EMP effects. Mini-neutron bombs appear to be what was used.

What is a neutron bomb? A neutron bomb, also called an enhanced radiation bomb, is a type of thermonuclear weapon. An enhanced radiation bomb is any weapon which uses fusion to enhance the production of radiation beyond that which is normal for an atomic device. In a neutron bomb, the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape using X-ray mirrors and an atomically inert shell casing, such as chromium or nickel. The energy yield for a neutron bomb may be as little as half that of a conventional device, though radiation output is only slightly less. Although considered to be ‘small’ bombs, a neutron bomb still has a yield in the tens or hundreds of kilotons range. Neutron bombs are expensive to make and maintain because they require considerable amounts of tritium, which has a relatively short half-life (12.32 years). Manufacture of the weapons requires that a constant supply of tritium of be available. Neutron bombs have a relatively short shelf-life. (Helmenstine)

Per Sam Cohen “In a broad sense, the neutron bomb is an explosive version of the sun; that is, the relevant energy it emits comes from thermonuclear, or fusion, reactions involving the very lightest elements. To be specific, its fuel consists of the two heavier nuclei of hydrogen, named deuterium and tritium. By means of a fission trigger, a mixture of these two nuclei is compressed and heated, as happens in a hydrogen bomb, to cause nuclear reactions whose principle output is in the form of very high energy neutrons. Also produced will be blast and heat, but so predominant are the neutron effects against human beings, who are a hundred to a thousand times more vulnerable to radiation than blast and heat, that by bursting the weapon high enough off the ground the only significant effects at the surface will come from radiation. In so doing, the blast and heat effects will not be strong enough to cause significant damage to most structures. Hence, a bomb which, accurately but misleadingly, has been described as a weapon that kills people but spares buildings.” (Cohen, 2006)

Neutron Radiation and EMP Effects at Ground Zero

Neutron radiation and EMP appears to be responsible for the “toasted cars” found near Ground Zero. What is neutron radiation? From the Shots Across the Bow Blog: To understand neutron radiation, imagine a pool table set for the start of a game. 15 balls are in the middle of the table, with the cue ball set for the break. The cue ball is a free neutron. When the neutron hits the nucleus, one of three things might happen. First, if the cue ball doesn’t have enough energy, or hits at the wrong angle, it caroms off, barely disturbing the pack of balls. Second, if the ball has too much energy, it slams through the pack, breaking it up. This is fission, and results in fission products, more free neutrons, and energy. Third, if the ball has just the right amount of energy, it just makes it to the pack and joins in, becoming another neutron in the nucleus. Here is where our analogy breaks down, because many times, when a nucleus gets another neutron, it becomes unstable, and begins to decay, emitting alphas, betas, or gammas. This is called activation, and is one of the trickier problems with neutron irradiation and the physical properties of the irradiated matter can be quite different from the original. (“A nuclear power,”)

A large quantity of high energy neutrons bombarding an object will cause the atoms in the material to move i.e. heat up. This is why so few bodies were found at Ground Zero – most of the people that were near the Towers were vaporized either by the blast and heat effects of the bombs or the neutron radiation that was released.

The “Toasted” Cars

Ted Twietmeyer has a post on Rense’s website that goes a long way towards explaining the toasted cars found near Ground Zero. Twietmeyer attributes the damage to aluminum vehicle parts such as engine blocks and mirrors to strong EMP eddy currents produced by nuclear detonations at Ground Zero: “and what else do eddy currents create? HEAT if the currents are strong enough. The stronger the eddy currents, the more heat which will be generated. Although magnetic fields are being created, they are temporary in aluminum because it is not magnetic, but paramagnetic. This means aluminum will be affected by magnetism, but it cannot be magnetized.

meltdd

“SACRIFICIAL VEHICLES” PROVIDE SHIELDING FOR OTHER VEHICLES AND SHOW PULSE VECTORS

A vector is simply a line that shows direction and usually has an arrow. Arrows are not shown above, in an attempt to simplify the image. The direction of force is from upper left to lower right. The notated image above provides a possible explanation for the location of the source of the magnetic pulse, and why some vehicles were damaged and others were not. This parking lot may be the best evidence in support of my theory.

Yellow lines indicate the pulse(s) blocked by the rear row of vehicles. It appears the entire outside of all rear vehicles were destroyed. Note how several hoods on the rear row of vehicles have white dust or ash, indicating an intense heat originating from under the hood. This is probably caused by the engine block vaporizing, and the white dust may be aluminum oxide. If the vehicles are still around somewhere in a junk yard, some simple lab tests will confirm this.

White lines show the pulses that reached the vehicles in the foreground.
Orange shapes around each car show the damage threshold line. The cars are basically undamaged below these lines and some might be repairable. If it wasn’t for “sacrificial” vehicles at the rear, those in the foreground would have been completely burned.
Note that white and yellow lines are not meant to be a literal interpretation to show size of the pulse, how many lines of force hit each vehicle, etc… Each line is intended to show only the direction the pulse(s) came from. Regardless of whether this parking lot is close to the WTC or not, it clearly shows that the nuclear device (or pulse source) was high above the ground. If the pulse source were close to the Earth, then vehicles in the foreground would have been completely shielded from the pulse.” (Twietmeyer, 2007)
Ed Ward’s take: I believe some of what he attributes to EMP was done by neutrons – in particular his linear evaluations (angle computations) would seem more neutron than EMP. EMP should tend to flow around – seems to be a correlation of dust cloud carrying EMP. So the linear blockage of cars protecting other cars would seem to be more appropriate for neutrons. Other than that seems on the money, IMO.

The Temperature of the Pile

Temperatures at Ground Zero were 600 to 1,500 °F or even higher for 6 months after 9/11. Firemen were fighting fires at Ground Zero for 99 days after 9/11. AVRIS data showed that temperature in one spot was 1,341 °F on 9/16/01. These high temperatures could be attributed to neutron bombs that were detonated underground in order to destroy the foundations of the Twin Towers. Some of the hotspots may have been unexploded nuclear fissile material reacting underground.

The workers at Ground Zero experienced hellish working conditions. One Ground Zero worker, Charlie Vitchers, describes the nightmare “The fires were very intense on the pile, the heat was very intense. In some places you couldn’t even get onto it. In some areas where you could walk, you’d travel another five feet and then you could just feel the heat coming up and you would have to just back off. You’d say to yourself, “I can’t see a fire, but I can feel the heat, so something’s wrong here,” and you’d back off.

That was one of the concerns we had about putting equipment on the pile, because the operators were sitting eight or ten feet up above the debris pile in their cabs and couldn’t feel the heat. But they’re carrying a hundred gallons of diesel fuel, hydraulic hoses, and other flammables, and there was nothing to stop the heat from wrecking the machine. If they got stuck in a place where the heat was so intense that it set his machine on fire, that operator wasn’t going to make it out.

We were so lucky. We didn’t lose anyone. We lost a lot of equipment, mostly due to collapses, but didn’t have any piece of equipment catch on fire or anything like that. But hoses melted, and there was a lot of damage to tires- some of them melted just from being too close. I mean, the bottom of your shoes would melt on some of the steel. Some of that was so hot you could feel the hair on the back of your neck start to burn when you walked by. There were cherry-red pieces of steel sticking out of the ground. It was almost like being in a steel-manufacturing plant. You just couldn’t physically go near that stuff.

Every time a grappler grabbed a piece of steel and shook it out, it would just fan the fire, like a fan in the fireplace. All of a sudden there’d be smoke billowing out.

The Army Corps of Engineers eventually supplied us with infrared aerial shots of where the heat was. It was like looking at the blob. The fire was moving under the pile. One day it would be here, it would be 1,400 degrees, the next day it would be 2,000 degrees, then five days later it wouldn’t register over 600 degrees.” (Stout, Vitchers & Gray, 2006)

Conclusions of this Study

Evidence for fission and fusion abounds at Ground Zero. Tritiated water in any significant quantity is a telltale sign of a thermonuclear explosion. A 170 meter high plume of smoke was observed rising from Building 6, and massive amounts of tritiated water were found in the basement. It appears to be beyond reasonable doubt that this building was nuked, because no alternative explanation is reasonable.

The Twin Towers were 500,000 tons each and destroyed in 9 and 11 seconds respectively with debris ejected hundreds of feet out. There can be no doubt that the Twins Towers were nuked as well.

The USGS dust samples prove beyond all doubt that nuclear fission took place at Ground Zero. Fission triggered fusion bombs such as mini or micro neutron bombs explain the dust and water sample evidence perfectly.

The destruction of the Twin Towers was an unprecedented use of nuclear bomb technology. The public had never before witnessed anything like it. While Steve Jones and Judy Wood, among others, have added to uncertainty over what happened to the WTC buildings on 9/11, the mystery has finally been solved. The World Trade Center was nuked on 9/11.

Donald Fox has done extensive research on the role of mini-nukes by Dr. Ed Ward and on work by The Anonymous Physicist on the towers and has formulated an account of how it was done and why there is more to this story relative to very low-yield thermonuclear devices. See his blog at https://donaldfox.wordpress.com.

Jeff Prager, founder of an award winning magazine for Senior Citizens, in 2002 he tried to prove 19 Muslims hijacked four planes and attacked us. By 2005, he realized this was false, sold his business, left the US and began to investigate 9/11 full-time. See 9/11 AMERICA NUKED, Part 1, Part 2.

Ed Ward, M.D., among the leading experts on the use of nukes on 9/11, maintains an extensive archive about them at his “Weblog of Tyranny”, http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/, and has also appeared as a guest on “The Real Deal”, which you can hear at radiofetzer.blogspot.com

References

Semkow, T., Hafner, R., Parekh, P., Wozniak, G., Haines, D., Husain, L., Rabun, R., & Williams, P. U.S. Department of Energy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (2002). Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center (UCRL-JC-150445). Retrieved from llnl.gov website: https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf

Clark, R., Green, R., Swayze, G., Meeker, G., Sutley, S., Hoefen, T., Livo, K., Plumlee, G., Pavri, B., Sarture, C., Wilson, S., Hageman, P., Lamothe, P., Vance, J., Boardman, J., Brownfield, I., Gent, C., Morath, L., Taggart, J., Theodorakos, P., & Adams, M. USGS Spectroscopy Lab, (2001). Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center Area After the September 11, 2001 Attack (Open-File Report 01-0429). Retrieved from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/

Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, (2009). Investigation of the Environmental Fate of Tritium in the Atmosphere (INFO-0792). Ottawa: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/pubs_catalogue/uploads/Investigation_of_Environmental_Fate_of_Tritium_in_the_Atmosphere_INFO-0792_e.pdf

Tritium in Precipitation. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.science.uottawa.ca/eih/ch7/7tritium.htm

Jones, S. (2006, September 28). Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis That Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers. Retrieved from http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

Ternary fission. (2013, March 22). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved April 19, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ternary_fission&oldid=546177060

Helmenstine, A. M. What is a Neutron Bomb? Retrieved from http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/neutronbomb.htm

Cohen, S. (2006). F*** you! Mr. President: Confessions of the Father of the Neutron Bomb. (3rd ed., pp. 123-124). Retrieved from http://www.AthenaLab.com/Confessions_Sam_Cohen_2006_Third_Edition.pdf

Stout, G., Vitchers, C., & Gray, R. (2006). Nine Months at Ground Zero: The Story of the Brotherhood of Workers Who Took on a Job Like No Other. (Google eBook ed., pp. 64-65). Simon and Schuster. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=4VD–5-T5IcC&lpg=PA62&ots=I8PEz77ZPT&dq=ground zero grappler&pg=PA64

A Nuclear Power Primer: Part 3: How Does Radiation Hurt Us and How Much Does it Take? (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/a_nuclear_power_primer_part_3_how_does_radiation_hurt_us_and_how_much_does_/

Twietmeyer, T. (2007, March 24). What May Have Melted the WTC Vehicles. Retrieved from http://rense.com/general75/melt2.htm

Jim Fetzer Real Deal Appearance 3/25/13: Evidence of Ternary Fission at Ground Zero

wordpress analytics

Most 9/11 researchers lack a basic understanding of nuclear physics. This lack of physics knowledge has allowed people like Steve Jones and Judy Wood to obfuscate the destruction of the WTC buildings with bogus claims of nanothermite and DEWs. After reading the tutorial below a researcher should have a sufficient grasp of nuclear physics to be able to determine that nuclear fission occurred at Ground Zero. The chemistry table of the USGS Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center Area After the September 11, 2001 Attack (Open-File Report 01-0429) provides irrefutable proof that fission occurred at Ground Zero.

Click here for the sample location map.

The .mp3 for this show is available here. Right click Save target as… to download the .mp3

periodic_table-colorRead the points below then the slides from Jeff Prager’s Vancouver PowerPoint presentation are more easily understood.

1. Nuclear physics is the field of study that concentrates on understanding the atomic nucleus. http://www.universetoday.com/56750/atomic-nucleus/#ixzz2MLJsgkby

2. The diameter of an atoms nucleus varies a great deal: a hydrogen nucleus, the lightest atom, is about 1.6 x 10-15m while the nucleus of the atoms of the heaviest elements can have a diameter of 15 x 10-15m. http://www.universetoday.com/56750/atomic-nucleus/#ixzz2MLJsgkby

3. The atomic nucleus is a tiny massive entity at the center of an atom. Occupying a volume whose radius is 1/100,000 the size of the atom, the nucleus contains most (99.9%) of the mass of the atom. http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Ar-Bo/Atomic-Nucleus.html

4. Proton – Along with neutrons, protons make up the nucleus, held together by the strong force. The proton is a baryon and is considered to be composed of two up quarks and one down quark. It has long been considered to be a stable particle, but recent developments of grand unification models have suggested that it might decay with a half-life of about 1032 years. Experiments are underway to see if such decays can be detected. Decay of the proton would violate the conservation of baryon number, and in doing so would be the only known process in nature which does so.

protonhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html#c1

5. Neutron: Along with protons, neutrons make up the nucleus, held together by the strong force. The neutron is a baryon and is considered to be composed of two down quarks and one up quark. A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes but it is stable if combined into a nucleus. The decay of the neutron involves the weak interaction as indicated in the Feynman diagram below. This fact is important in models of the early universe. The neutron is about 0.2% more massive than a proton, which translates to an energy difference of 1.29 MeV.

neutrondecneu

6. The decay of the neutron is associated with a quark transformation in which a down quark is converted to an up by the weak interaction. The average lifetime of 10.3 min/0.693 = 14.9 minutes is surprisingly long for a particle decay that yields 1.29 MeV of energy. You could say that this decay is steeply “downhill” in energy and would be expected to proceed rapidly. It is possible for a proton to be transformed into a neutron, but you have to supply 1.29 MeV of energy to reach the threshold for that transformation. In the very early stages of the big bang when the thermal energy was much greater than 1.29 MeV, we surmise that the transformation between protons and neutrons was proceeding freely in both directions so that there was an essentially equal population of protons and neutrons. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html#c3

7. When we say that a proton is made up of two up quarks and a down, we mean that its net appearance or net set of quantum numbers match that picture. The nature of quark confinement suggests that the quarks are surrounded by a cloud of gluons, and within the tiny volume of the proton other quark-antiquark pairs can be produced and then annihilated without changing the net external appearance of the proton. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html#c3

8. The nucleus is composed of protons (charge = +1; mass = 1.007 atomic mass units ([μ]) and neutrons. The number of protons in the nucleus is called the atomic number (Z) and defines which chemical element the nucleus represents. The number of neutrons in the nucleus is called the neutron number (N), whereas the total number of neutrons and protons in the nucleus is referred to as the mass number (A), where A = N + Z. The neutrons and protons are referred to collectively as nucleons. A nucleus with a given N and Z is referred to as a nuclide. Nuclides with the same atomic number are isotopes, such as 12 C and 14 C, whereas nuclides with the same N, such as 14 C and 16 O, are called isotones. Nuclei such as 14 N and 14 C, which have the same mass number, are isobars. Nuclides are designated by a shorthand notation in which one writes, that is, for a nucleus with 6 protons and 8 neutrons, one writes, or just 14 C. The size of a nucleus is approximately 1 to 10 × 10 −15 m, with the nuclear radius being represented more precisely as 1.2 × A 1/3 × 10 −15 m. We can roughly approximate the nucleus as a sphere and thus we can calculate its density where 1.66 × 10 −27 kg is the mass of the nucleon. Thus the nuclear density is about 200,000 tons/mm 3 and is independent of A. Imagine a cube that is 1 mm on a side. If filled with nuclear matter, it would have a mass of about 200,000 tons. This calculation demonstrates the enormous matter/energy density of nuclei and gives some idea as to why nuclear phenomena lead to large energy releases. http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Ar-Bo/Atomic-Nucleus.html

9. Of the 6,000 species of nuclei that can exist in the universe, about 2,700 are known, but only 270 of these are stable. The rest are radioactive, that is, they spontaneously decay. The driving force behind all radioactive decay is the ability to produce products of greater stability than one had initially. In other words, radioactive decay releases energy and because of the high energy density of nuclei, that energy release is substantial. Qualitatively we describe radioactive decay as occurring in three general ways: α -, β -, and γ -decay. Alpha-decay occurs in the heavy elements, and consists of the emission of a 4 He nucleus. Beta-decay occurs in nuclei whose N/Z ratio is different from that of a stable nucleus and consists of a transformation of neutrons into protons or vice versa to make the nucleus more stable. Gamma-decay occurs when excited nuclei get rid of some or all of their excitation energy via the emission of electromagnetic radiation, or via the radiationless transfer of energy to orbital electrons. http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Ar-Bo/Atomic-Nucleus.html

10. If a massive nucleus like uranium-235 breaks apart (fissions), then there will be a net yield of energy because the sum of the masses of the fragments will be less than the mass of the uranium nucleus. If the mass of the fragments is equal to or greater than that of iron at the peak of the binding energy curve, then the nuclear particles will be more tightly bound than they were in the uranium nucleus, and that decrease in mass comes off in the form of energy according to the Einstein equation. For elements lighter than iron, fusion will yield energy. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fission.html

11. In one of the most remarkable phenomena in nature, a slow neutron can be captured by a uranium-235 nucleus, rendering it unstable toward nuclear fission. A fast neutron will not be captured, so neutrons must be slowed down by moderation to increase their capture probability in fission reactors. A single fission event can yield over 200 million times the energy of the neutron which triggered it!

fis2http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fission.html#c2

12. For a chain reaction of nuclear fission, such as that of uranium-235, is to sustain itself, then at least one neutron from each fission must strike another U-235 nucleus and cause a fission. If this condition is just met, then the reaction is said to be “critical” and will continue. The mass of fissile material required to achieve this critical condition is said to be a critical mass. The critical mass depends upon the concentration of U-235 nuclei in the fuel material as well as its geometry. As applied for the generation of electric energy in nuclear reactors, it also depends upon the moderation used to slow down the neutrons. In those reactors, the critical condition also depends upon neutrons from the fission fragments, called delayed neutrons. For weapons applications, the concentration U-235 must be much higher to create a condition called “prompt criticality”. This means that it is critical with only the neutrons directly produced in the fission process. For U-235 enriched to “bomb-grade” uranium, the critical mass may be as small as about 15 kg in a bomb configuration. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/moder.html#c1

13. Fissionable Isotopes: While uranium-235 is the naturally occurring fissionable isotope, there are other isotopes which can be induced to fission by neutron bombardment. Plutonium-239 is also fissionable by bombardment with slow neutrons, and both it and uranium-235 have been used to make nuclear fission bombs. Plutonium-239 can be produced by “breeding” it from uranium-238. Uranium-238, which makes up 99.3% of natural uranium, is not fissionable by slow neutrons. U-238 has a small probability for spontaneous fission and also a small probability of fission when bombarded with fast neutrons, but it is not useful as a nuclear fuel source. Some of the nuclear reactors at Hanford, Washington and the Savannah-River Plant (SC) are designed for the production of bomb-grade plutonium-239. Thorium-232 is fissionable, so could conceivably be used as a nuclear fuel. The only other isotope which is known to undergo fission upon slow-neutron bombardment is uranium-233. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fission.html#c2

14. Uranium Fuel: Natural uranium is composed of 0.72% U-235 (the fissionable isotope), 99.27% U-238, and a trace quantity 0.0055% U-234. The 0.72% U-235 is not sufficient to produce a self-sustaining critical chain reaction in U.S. style light-water reactors, although it is used in Canadian CANDU reactors. For light-water reactors, the fuel must be enriched to 2.5-3.5% U-235. Uranium is found as uranium oxide which when purified has a rich yellow color and is called “yellowcake”. After reduction, the uranium must go through an isotope enrichment process. Even with the necessity of enrichment, it still takes only about 3 kg of natural uranium to supply the energy needs of one American for a year. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fission.html#c2

15. Beta decay: Beta particles are electrons or positrons (electrons with positive electric charge, or anti-electrons). Beta decay occurs when, in a nucleus with too many protons or too many neutrons, one of the protons or neutrons is transformed into the other. In beta minus decay, a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an anti-neutrino: n Æ p + e – +. In beta plus decay, a proton decays into a neutron, a positron, and a neutrino: p Æ n + e+ +n. Both reactions occur because in different regions of the Chart of the Nuclides, one or the other will move the product closer to the region of stability. These particular reactions take place because conservation laws are obeyed. Electric charge conservation requires that if an electrically neutral neutron becomes a positively charged proton, an electrically negative particle (in this case, an electron) must also be produced. Similarly, conservation of lepton number requires that if a neutron (lepton number = 0) decays into a proton (lepton number = 0) and an electron (lepton number = 1), a particle with a lepton number of -1 (in this case an antineutrino) must also be produced. The leptons emitted in beta decay did not exist in the nucleus before the decay–they are created at the instant of the decay.

16. To the best of our knowledge, an isolated proton, a hydrogen nucleus with or without an electron, does not decay. However within a nucleus, the beta decay process can change a proton to a neutron. An isolated neutron is unstable and will decay with a half-life of 10.5 minutes. A neutron in a nucleus will decay if a more stable nucleus results; the half-life of the decay depends on the isotope. If it leads to a more stable nucleus, a proton in a nucleus may capture an electron from the atom (electron capture), and change into a neutron and a neutrino.

17. Proton decay, neutron decay, and electron capture are three ways in which protons can be changed into neutrons or vice-versa; in each decay there is a change in the atomic number, so that the parent and daughter atoms are different elements. In all three processes, the number A of nucleons remains the same, while both proton number, Z, and neutron number, N, increase or decrease by 1.

18. In beta decay the change in binding energy appears as the mass energy and kinetic energy of the beta particle, the energy of the neutrino, and the kinetic energy of the recoiling daughter nucleus. The energy of an emitted beta particle from a particular decay can take on a range of values because the energy can be shared in many ways among the three particles while still obeying energy and momentum conservation.

(15-18) http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/03/2.html

19. Beta Radioactivity: Beta particles are just electrons from the nucleus, the term “beta particle” being an historical term used in the early description of radioactivity. The high energy electrons have greater range of penetration than alpha particles, but still much less than gamma rays. The radiation hazard from betas is greatest if they are ingested.

radioact

Beta emission is accompanied by the emission of an electron anti-neutrino which shares the momentum and energy of the decay.

betarad

The emission of the electron’s antiparticle, the positron, is also called beta decay. Beta decay can be seen as the decay of one of the neutrons to a proton via the weak interaction. The use of a weak interaction Feynman diagram can clarify the process.

betawhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/beta.html#c1

20. Fission Fragments: When uranium-235 undergoes fission, the average of the fragment mass is about 118, but very few fragments near that average are found. It is much more probable to break up into unequal fragments, and the most probable fragment masses are around mass 95 and 137. Most of these fission fragments are highly unstable (radioactive), and some of them such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 are extremely dangerous when released to the environment. frag1http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fisfrag.html#c1

21. Cesium-137 and strontium-90 are the most dangerous radioisotopes to the environment in terms of their long-term effects. Their intermediate half-lives of about 30 years suggests that they are not only highly radioactive but that they have a long enough half-life to be around for hundreds of years. Iodine-131 may give a higher initial dose, but its short half-life of 8 days ensures that it will soon be gone. Besides its persistence and high activity, cesium-137 has the further insidious property of being mistaken for potassium by living organisms and taken up as part of the fluid electrolytes. This means that it is passed on up the food chain and re-concentrated from the environment by that process.

Cesium-137 decay has a half-life of 30.07 years and proceeds by both beta decay and gamma emission from an intermediate state. Both the electron and gamma emissions are highly ionizing radiation. The gamma radiation is very penetrating, and the beta radiation, though very short range, is very dangerous when ingested because it deposits all that energy in a very short distance in tissue.

cs137decay22. Cesium’s danger as an environmental hazard, damaging when ingested, is made worse by its mimicking of potassium’s chemical properties. This ensures that cesium as a contaminant will be ingested, because potassium is needed by all living things. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fisfrag.html#c4

23. Strontium-90 and cesium-137 are the radioisotopes which should be most closely guarded against release into the environment. They both have intermediate half-lives of around 30 years, which is the worst range for half-lives of radioactive contaminants. It ensures that they are not only highly radioactive but also have a long enough halflife to be around for hundreds of years. Strontium-90 mimics the properties of calcium and is taken up by living organisms and made a part of their electrolytes as well as deposited in bones. As a part of the bones, it is not subsequently excreted like cesium-137 would be. It has the potential for causing cancer or damaging the rapidly reproducing bone marrow cells.

24. Strontium-90 is not quite as likely as cesium-137 to be released as a part of a nuclear reactor accident because it is much less volatile, but is probably the most dangerous component of the radioactive fallout from a nuclear weapon.

25. Strontium-90 undergoes beta decay, emitting electrons with energy 0.546 MeV with a half-life of 28.8 years. The decay product is yttrium-90.

(23-25) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fisfrag.html#c5 

26. Ternary Fission: is a comparatively rare (0.2 to 0.4% of events) type of nuclear fission in which three charged products are produced rather than two. As in other nuclear fission processes, other uncharged particles such as multiple neutrons and gamma rays are produced in ternary fission.

27. Ternary fission may happen during neutron-induced fission or in spontaneous fission (the type of radioactive decay). About 25% more ternary fission happens in spontaneous fission compared to the same fissioning system formed after thermal neutron capture, illustrating that these processes remain physically slightly different, even after the absorption of the neutron, possibly because of the extra energy present in the nuclear reaction system of thermal neutron-induced fission.

28. True Ternary Fission: A very rare type of ternary fission process is sometimes called “true ternary fission.” It produces three nearly equal-sized charged fragments (Z ~ 30) but only happens in about 1 in 100 million fission events. In this type of fission, the product nuclei split the fission energy in three nearly equal parts and have kinetic energies of ~ 60 MeV. (26-28) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_fission

29. Howard Morland wrote a magazine article explaining how an “H-Bomb” — or “thermonuclear bomb” — is made, using only publicly available information. In the photo, he is standing on the steps of the US Supreme Court holding a cut-away model of the H-bomb

30. An H-bomb is a three-stage weapon: fission, fusion, and then fission again. The first stage, called the “trigger” (the black ball at the top), is a small plutonium bomb similar to the one dropped on Nagasaki in 1945. The energy release at this stage is mainly due to nuclear fission — because the atoms of plutonium are split. Tritium is often added to the center of the plutonium core to “boost” the fission explosion with some additional fusion energy. Boosted or not, however, the only importance of this first-stage explosion is to irradiate and heat the material in the central column to 100 million degrees Celsius so that a much more powerful fusion reaction can be started there.

31. The second stage explosion is due to nuclear fusion in the central column. The main fusion reaction involves concentrated deuterium and tritium (both heavy isotopes of hydrogen) — which become spontaneously available when neutrons from the first stage explosion bombard a solid material called “lithium deuteride” located in the central column. When this hydrogen-rich mix is heated to 100 million degrees, the deuterium and tritium atoms “fuse” together, releasing enormous amounts of energy. This is the “H” or “thermonuclear” part of the bomb.

32. Then comes the third stage. The fusion reaction gives off an incredible burst of extremely powerful neutrons — so powerful that they can split or “fission” atoms of uranium-238 (called “depleted uranium”) — which is impossible at lower energy levels. This third stage more than doubles the power of the explosion, and produces most of the radioactive fallout from the weapon.

33. Unlike fission bombs, which rely only on nuclear fission, and which can achieve explosions equivalent to thousands of tons of TNT (“kilotons”), the power of an H-bomb or thermonuclear weapon has no practical limit — it can be made as powerful as you want, by adding more deuterium/tritium to the second stage. Most H-bombs are measured in “megatons” (equivalent to the explosive power of MILLIONS of tons of TNT — hundreds of times, or even a thousand times more powerful than a fission bomb).

(29-33) http://www.ccnr.org/Howard_Morland.html

Slides From Jeff Prager’s PowerPoint

People might argue that strontium and barium could be found in building debris and they would be correct however strontium and barium could never, under any circumstances, be found as building debris constituents in a demolition in these quantities.

The levels never fall below 400ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700ppm for Strontium and they reach over 3000ppm for both of them at WTC01-16, Broadway and John Streets. Why?

Barium and Strontium are rare Trace elements with limited industrial uses. The enormous peak in Barium and Strontium concentration at WTC01-16 is readily apparent in the chart at right. The concentration of the two elements reaches 3130ppm for Strontium and 3670ppm for Barium or over 0.3% by weight of the dust. This means that 0.37% of the sample was Barium and 0.31% of the sample was Strontium by weight at that location, WTC01-16, Broadway and John Streets. The Mean concentration for Barium including the very low girder coating samples is 533ppm and for Strontium it’s 727ppm. These are not Trace amounts. They are highly dangerous and extremely toxic amounts. They are also critical components of nuclear fission and the decay process.

Barium and Strontium

Here we’re plotting the concentration of Barium at each location against the Strontium concentration. The correlation between the concentrations of the two elements, Barium and Strontium is extremely high.

The Coefficient of Correlation between the concentration of Barium and Strontium at the outdoor and indoor sampling locations is 0.99 to 2 decimal places (0.9897 to 4 decimal places). So we have a Correlation Coefficient between the concentration of Barium and the concentration of Strontium of 0.9897, or near perfect. The maximum Correlation Coefficient that is mathematically possible is 1.0 and this would mean we have a perfect match between the two factors we’re examining and the data points would lie on a straight line with no variation between them. To obtain a Correlation Coefficient of 0.9897 with this number of measurements (14) around Lower Manhattan is very, very significant indeed. What this means is that we can say that there’s a 99% correlation in the variation in the concentration between these two elements. They vary in lockstep; they vary together. When one element varies so does the other. We can state with absolute mathematical certainty that any change in the concentration of one of these elements, either the Barium or Strontium, is matched by the same change in the concentration of the other. Whatever process gave rise to the presence of either the Barium or the Strontium must have also produced the other as well. Fission is the only process that explains this.

concentration of barium and strontium

Next we come to the detection of measurable quantities of Thorium and Uranium in the dust from the World Trade Center, elements which only exist in radioactive form. The graph below plots the concentration of Thorium and Uranium detected at each sampling location. Again, the last two locations, WTC01-08 and WTC01-09, are for the two girder coating samples. The Uranium concentration follows the same pattern as Thorium, although the graph scale does not show this markedly. Uranium follows the dip at WTC01-03 and WTC01-16 but the highest concentration of Uranium also matches Thorium in the second girder coating, WTC01-09, at 7.57ppm. 7.57 greatly exceeds normal Trace element levels. This equals 93 Becquerels per kilogram. Normal background radiation is approximately 12Bq/kg to 40Bq/kg with 40Bq/kg the highest level we would expect to see. This girder contains more than twice the expected level of uranium. The second girder contained 30.7ppm of Thorium, 6 times as high as the lowest level of that element detected. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place. As we said earlier, Thorium is formed from Uranium be alpha decay. An alpha particle is the same as a Helium nucleus, so this means we have one of the favored fission pathways: Uranium fissioning into a Noble Gas and the balancing elements, in this case Helium and Thorium.

thorium and uranium

The graph of Thorium versus Lithium including the Girder Coatings has exactly the same form as the graph showing Thorium versus Uranium, also including the Girder Coatings. Without the two Girder Coatings the correlation of Thorium to Lithium in the dust is completely linear. We therefore have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium, has indeed taken place. It is out of the question that all of these correlations which are the signature of a nuclear explosion could have occurred by chance. This is impossible. The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum is enough to raise eyebrows in themselves, let alone in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. When the quantities then vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission, it is beyond ALL doubt that the variations in concentration are due to that same common process of nuclear fission. When we also find Barium and Strontium present, in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400ppm to over 3000ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships, the implications are of the utmost seriousness. Fission occurred in NYC on 911.

thorium vs lithium

This graph (below) shows that (apart from the very high peak in Sodium levels for one of the indoor dust samples) the Sodium and Potassium concentrations both display this now characteristic peak at location WTC01-16, the corner of Broadway and John Street. Sodium has the same peak as Zinc at WTC01-22, the corner of Warren and West, and like Zinc, falls to a minimum in the girder coatings – far below the concentrations found in the dust. Potassium is very similar except its concentration was not a peak at WTC01-02, Water and New York Streets, but somewhat lower than the next location, WTC01-03, State and Pearl Streets. There are clear correlations and relationships here which show that the Potassium and Sodium concentrations did not arise at random. They are products of radioactive decay. Remember that Strontium is produced by a fission pathway that proceeds through the Noble Gas Krypton and then the Alkali Metal Rubidium. Similarly, Barium is produced through Xenon and the Alkali Metal Cesium. We know that Uranium fission favors these pathways through the Noble Gases. Just as radioactive isotopes of Krypton and Xenon decay by beta particle emission to produce Rubidium and Cesium, radioactive isotopes of Neon and Argon also decay by beta emission to produce Sodium and Potassium. We would indeed expect to find anomalous levels of these elements present – what was found is again consistent with the occurrence of nuclear fission.

zinc sodium potassium

We know beyond doubt that the only process that can cause Barium and Strontium to be present in related or correlated quantities and any process that can also cause Barium and Strontium to have such strong relational concentrations across different samples, is nuclear fission. We know that if nuclear fission had occurred that Barium and Strontium would be present and a strong statistical correlation between the quantities of each would be found, and we have that, in spades. What else do we have? Quite a lot.

About 400ppm of Barium and Strontium were measured in two samples of insulation girder coatings (WTC01-08 and 01-09). The concentration of Strontium actually falls somewhat below that of Barium in the second girder sample, WTC01-09, as at WTC01-16, whereas in every other sample the level of Strontium discovered was higher than Barium. Given the elevated levels of Barium daughter products found in the second girder and even the highest level of Uranium found (7.57ppm just West of and behind Tower One) this shows that active fission was still ongoing in the second girder coating, in the very same way as at WTC01-16 and therefore more Barium was found then Strontium. In other samples where the rate of fission had slowed down to give way to decay, the concentrations of Barium and Strontium reverse, due to the different half-lives. Barium isotopes have a shorter half-life then Strontium isotopes so they decay more quickly and after a period of time when no new Barium or Strontium has been deposited, Strontium will exceed Barium. The fact that more Barium then Strontium was still found at WTC01-16 and WTC01-09 shows that the overall nuclear processes taking place were somewhat favoring Barium over Strontium and hence Zinc as well. The tighter cluster of Barium (400-500ppm) and Strontium (700-800ppm) concentrations across widely separated sampling locations in Lower Manhattan is cast iron proof that Nuclear Fission occurred. We know that Barium and Strontium are the characteristic signature of fission; they are formed by two of the most common Uranium fission pathways. The fact that their concentrations are so tightly coupled means that their source was at the very epicenter of the event which created the dust cloud that enveloped Manhattan. This was not a localized preexisting chemical source which would only have contaminated a few closely spaced samples and left the remaining samples untouched. The very high concentrations of Barium and Strontium at location WTC01-16 shows that active nuclear fission was still ongoing at that spot; the dust was still “hot” and new Barium and new Strontium were being actively generated, actively created by transmutation from their parent nuclei.

The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship – and to the other radionuclide daughter products such as sodium, potassium, zinc, lithium, strontium and barium – leaves nothing more to be said. This type of data has probably never been available to the public before and it’s an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device. September 11th, 2001, was the first nuclear event within a major United States city that we have incontrovertible proof for and this is without question the most closely held secret surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001.

Anyone seriously interested in 911 truth will naturally be compelled to fully and thoroughly investigate the serious implications raised by this report personally, and I strongly encourage this. The material is complex yet if I can understand it anyone can.

No one promised us that the answers to 911 would come easily.

There’s more compelling and incontrovertible evidence I’d like to cover now. We’ll discuss the elements:

 Lanthanum

Vanadium

Yttrium

Chromium

Nickel

Copper

Lead

Zinc

In this graph Zinc has been divided by a factor of 10 to avoid losing all the detail in the scaling if the ‘Y’ axis instead went up to 3000ppm. The variation in Lead is matched by the variation in Zinc almost perfectly across all sampling locations, including the Indoor and Girder Coating samples.

The concentration of Copper follows that of Zinc with one distinct exception at WTC01-15, Trinity and Cortlandt Streets, just several hundred feet East of Building Four. There seem to be two Copper-Zinc relationships. If some of the Zinc was being formed by beta decay of Copper, then the high Copper at WTC01-15 could reduce Zinc, since formation of Zinc by that decay pathway would be retarded by material being held up at the Copper stage, before decaying on to Zinc. Therefore this graph does confirm that some of the Zinc was indeed being formed by beta decay of Copper.

This would at least be a very small mercy for the civilian population exposed in this event since the Zinc isotopes formed from Copper are stable, i.e. they are not radioactive.

zinc lead copper

The copper found in the Ground Zero dust is indicative of nuclear fission. If we plot the concentration of Copper against Zinc and Nickel, we obtain the graphs pictured here. The concentration of Nickel was almost the same everywhere, except for the peak of 88ppm matched by the Copper peak of 450ppm.

The Copper – Zinc relationship is very interesting, showing in fact two distinct relationships again depending on isotopic composition. There are two radioactive isotopes of Copper (Cu 64 and Cu 67) with short half-lives of 12.7 hours and 2.58 days respectively which decay into Zinc isotopes. The other two isotopes (Cu 60 and Cu 61) decay the other way by positron emission into Nickel and in fact Cu 64 goes both ways, into both Nickel and Zinc. This would explain why there strongly appear to be two Copper – Zinc relationships.

The decay of radioactive Copper by beta particle emission into Zinc would have been another source for the extraordinarily high concentrations of Zinc found in the World Trade Center Dust. copper vs zinc

Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of Barium, situated between Barium and Cerium. The concentration of Barium versus Lanthanum is plotted in the graph below.

This graph is almost identical in form to the relationship between Barium and Cerium. A similar inverse exponential (cubic) relationship is clearly visible. In this case, Lanthanum is approximately equal to 5 times the cube root of Barium.

Lanthanum has a much shorter half-life then Cerium; most of its isotopes have a half-life of only a few hours whereas beta decay by Cerium is measured in half-life periods of a month to 10 months. Cerium’s beta decay going back to Lanthanum occurs more quickly but Lanthanum’s beta decay going back to Barium occurs in a similar time-scale to that – a few hours, so we are left with the net effect of Lanthanum’s beta decay being much quicker than that of Cerium, so the concentration of Cerium remaining was higher than that of Lanthanum.

barium vs lanthanum

Yttrium is also a very rare element and should not be present in dust from a collapsed office building. Yttrium is the next decay element after Strontium. If we plot concentration of Strontium against Yttrium, we see what happens in the graph below. Strontium 90 has a much longer half-life (28.78 years) than most Barium isotopes so we would not expect to see as high a concentration of Strontium’s daughter products as those that are produced from Barium. This is in fact what we see – the concentration of Cerium (next daughter product to Barium) is higher than Yttrium, the next daughter product to Strontium.

yttrium

The presence of Chromium is also a telltale signature of a nuclear detonation. Its concentration is shown plotted against Zinc and Vanadium in the graphs below.

There is a strong correlation between the Zinc and the Chromium concentration. The Coefficient of Correlation is high, 0.89.

There is also an indication of strong correlation between Chromium and Vanadium within 6 points of lying on an almost perfect exponential curve, with one outlier, WTC01-03, the corner of State and Pearl Streets, of 42.5ppm where the Vanadium concentration reached its highest level.

chromium vs zinc

Looking at the data for Zinc we see that the Zinc concentration for WTC01-02, Water Street at the intersection of New York, is 2990ppm and this immediately stands out. In fact, for the outdoor samples, Zinc is the most common Trace element at all sampling locations, with generally between 1000ppm and 2000ppm except for this spike of nearly 3000ppm at WTC01-02.

This equates to an enormous concentration of Zinc. 0.1% to 0.2% of Zinc in the dust overall and at WTC01-02, 0.299% of the dust was Zinc. This exceeds the concentration of the supposed “non-Trace” element Manganese and Phosphorous and almost equals the elevated Titanium concentration of 0.39% at that same location.

What process produced the zinc?

If we include the data for WTC01-16, the Correlation Coefficient between the Zinc and Barium concentration is 0.007 to 3 decimal places, from which we can conclude that there is absolutely no correlation at all. But if we exclude that one sampling location, where Barium and Strontium concentrations peaked, the correlation coefficient between Zinc and Barium is 0.96 to two decimal places and between Zinc and Strontium, 0.66 to two decimal places. So what happened?  zinc strontium

This shows that the Zinc and Barium concentrations are closely related and if we exclude what must have been an extraordinary event at WTC01-16 as an outlier, the correlation is very good. The Product Moment Correlation Coefficient is 0.96. The concentration of Zinc is now 3 times the concentration of Barium but the correlation between Zinc and Strontium is not so clear, showing that the relationship must be more indirect. This is to be expected since Barium and Strontium are produced by different nuclear fission pathways.

In spent nuclear fuel, Strontium is found as Strontium Oxide (SrO) – the Strontium produced by the nuclear fission explosion under the Twin Towers will certainly have been oxidized to SrO by the heat. SrO is extremely soluble in water, so some of the Strontium concentration results obtained may have been distorted by the rain water which fell on New York a few days after the towers were destroyed.

There is a very strong linear relationship between Barium and Zinc found at the World Trade Center. This may indicate that a closely related nuclear sub-process gave rise to them, which produced 3 times as much Zinc as Barium by weight. If so, that would be a very unusual nuclear event.

There is a lesser known nuclear process that accounts for this, which would be indicative of very high energies indeed. This process is known as Ternary Fission.

Project GNOME

wordpress analytics

Temperatures at Ground Zero were 600 to 1,500 °F for 6 months after 9/11. Ed Ward has pointed out this most likely due to retained heat from an underground nuclear explosion rather than a fission process advocated by the Anonymous Physicist. The MASSIVE explosion heard 17 seconds before the North Tower came down is a good candidate for the explosion that caused the elevated ground temperatures:

wtc1summary01

As an example of retained heat from a nuclear explosion, Ed references The Project GNOME detonation on December 10, 1961 near Carlsbad, New Mexico:

Measurements of an earlier underground detonation had indicated that roughly 1/3 of the energy was deposited in the melted rock at temperatures above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. This information encouraged hopes that a nuclear detonation in a dry medium might cause heat to be stored long enough to permit efficient recovery. GNOME was developed with the idea that a nuclear detonation in a salt deposit would create a large volume of hot melted salt from which heat might be extracted. The possibilities to be investigated for the production of power were the tapping of the steam created by detonation itself and the generation of high-density, high-pressure steam by the circulation of some heat-absorbing fluid, like water, over the heated salt. This generated steam would be used to drive a steam or hot gas turbine coupled with an electric generator.

When workers reentered that cavity on May 17, 1962, they found temperatures around 140 degrees Fahrenheit but only small amounts of residual radiation. The earlier intense radiation had colored the salt of the cavity wall various shades of blue, green, and violet.

Project GNOME was part of Operation Plowshare. Plowshare was an attempt to use nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes like excavating ditches and canals and mining. Concerns such as blighted land, relocated communities, tritium-contaminated water, radioactivity, and fallout from debris being hurled high into the atmosphere created public opposition to the program and it was terminated in 1977 after $770 million had been spent.

The YouTube video below has a lot of useful information for 9/11 researchers. One minute into the video you see a nuclear explosion.

You can see similar shaped comet trails of dust at the WTC. Chunks of earth turn to dust before landing which is also observed at the WTC as chunks of steel disintegrate before hitting the ground. Judy Wood calls this “dustification” caused by some unknown DEW weapon but here we see the same phenomenon in an early 1960s nuke bomb test.

WTC1 Exploding

Pyroclastic cauliflower shaped dust clouds also appear in the video and those type of dust clouds are also observed at the WTC:

new911-04

Also observed in the video are rows of underground nukes being detonated sequentially. At the WTC they were detonated sequentially from the tops of the buildings to the bottom to simulate a free fall collapse. I heard from a lot of people that was impossible in 2001 yet here in the video we’re seeing it in the early 1960s.

The Plowshare video was produced by the US Atomic Energy Commission. Per Wikipedia: “The AEC was furthermore in charge of developing the United States’ nuclear arsenal, taking over these responsibilities from the wartime Manhattan Project. Over the course of its first decade, the AEC oversaw the operation of Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, devoted primarily to weapons development, and, in 1952, the establishment of a second weapons laboratory in California (the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory). It also implemented the “crash” program to develop the hydrogen bomb.”

When looking at who had the technology to pull off the WTC demolitions names to keep in mind include Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos, Sandia and Oak Ridge – the nuke labs. A lot of the same names you see in the Plowshare video should be familiar to serious 9/11 researchers.