The Real Deal Ep # 63 MUST SEE 911 Debate Round 2


This is probably the best nukes vs. nanothermite 9/11 debate you will find on YouTube. Wayne does about a good of a job as anyone could defending the nanothermite theory. His problem (the same as all of the nuke-deniers) is that he has to describe a nuclear event while denying nukes. That contradiction is insurmountable but Wayne puts as good of a spin on it as anyone I’ve seen.

You can download Wayne and Tim’s PowerPoint here: Fetzer_Real_Deal_0601_Final_2

My PowerPoint can be downloaded here: 6-1 Real Deal

The audio mp3 can downloaded here


Jim Fetzer Real Deal Appearance 2/10/14

You can listen to the show either by playing the clip in your browser or by downloading it from here.

Simon Shack and the “researchers” at the September Clues Forum have constructed their own mythology of the events of September 11, 2001. This blog post will further deconstruct the phony 9/11 mythology of the Clues Forum.

For the record here is the Myth that September Clues is advocating:

“TOUR GUIDE” to the September Clues research

It is fair to say the September Clues research has established these 4 main points:

1- The 9/11 imagery was nothing but a Hollywood-style film production, complete with actors in the role of ‘eye-witnesses’ or ‘firefighters’, staged ‘running crowds’, 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. The ’9/11 movie’ was split into a number of short clips and sold to the TV audience as ‘newscasts’. The few clips featuring ‘airplanes’ (or dull silhouettes thereof) were computer-generated images – all of which in stark conflict with each other, as now comprehensively demonstrated in every imaginable manner, angle and method.

2- No commercial airliners were hijacked or – much less – crashed into the WTC towers, the Pentagon or the Shanksville field. No valid/verifiable records exist for : their airport logs/schedules, their numbered parts, their alleged passengers. Their reported speeds at near sea-level as well as the absurd visuals of their total, effortless disappearance into the WTC façades defy the laws of mechanics and physics – and the absence of visible wake vortexes in the WTC impact imagery also defies the laws of aerodynamics.

3- The World Trade Center Complex (9 buildings in all) were demolished with powerful explosives. No image-analyses of the tower collapses can help determine just what type of explosives were employed – since the videos are 3D animations and do not represent the real-life events. In reality, as they collapsed, the WTC complex was most likely enveloped by military-grade smoke obscurants. No real/private imagery exists of the morning’s events – ‘thanks’ to electromagnetic countermeasures.

4- No “3000″ people were trapped in the top floors/nor perished in the WTC towers. Only one thing was more important to the perps than avoiding a mass murder of 3000 US citizens : to sell the notion that “bogeyman Bin Laden” killed 3000 US citizens. We have renamed the ‘victims’ of these psy-operations “VICSIMS” (SIMulated VICtims). In fact, our research has seen the same pattern emerge in all the so-called “Al-Qaeda Terror Attacks” around the world (LONDON 7/7, MADRID 11, BALI, MUMBAI, etc…). In all logic, the very last aggravation the plotters behind these false-flag operations wish to have, are scores of real families hounding them forever with real questions and real class actions. Hence: NO real terror victims = Logical PsyOp rationale.

9/11 is but a giant – and still ongoing – money-making scam. It rotates around the most well-funded and profitable hoax of modern history. Everyone involved in the scheme is reaping a sizable return from their ‘investment bond’ which, naturally, has “SILENCE” printed all over it. For anyone to ‘speak out’ would be both ruinous and suicidal – a most distasteful option. To be sure, ‘suicidal heroics’ only exist in journalistic fairy-tales such as the outlandish news media’s narrative of 9/11 and its “nineteen religious fanatics”. The skeptics objecting that “too many people would have had to be in on this” fail to account for the most fundamental aspect of human nature: our survival instinct.

The master plan of 9/11 was to demolish the redundant, asbestos-filled WTC complex in Lower Manhattan – 9 buildings in all. The area would naturally be evacuated (as for all such demolitions) in order to prevent a slaughterhouse of dreadful proportions – not a good idea at all. To be sure, this was no mass murder scheme – just a formidable opportunity for massive financial gains and military propaganda. The military (and its various intelligence affiliates) would manage the ground logistics, such as securing the area, raising smokescreens to hide the proceedings from public view, and last but not least, electromagnetic countermeasures to keep any private cameras from filming the mayhem. The WTC complex was thus ‘safely’ destroyed in bright daylight. It was a magician’s trick, pulled off by sleight of hand to fool the few (the NY onlookers) – and with computer graphics to fool the world (the TV viewers).

Simon Shack: Twin Towers were Demolished by Dynamite

Below is an audio clip of Ab Irato reading a Simon Shack post.

Here are the main points:

1. All of the 9/11 events were fake including the collapse of the Twin Towers. Television viewers were shown pre-produced movie footage.

2. The actual collapse of the Twin Towers wouldn’t be shown on TV.

3. Support for theories that claim exotic demolition methods were used on the WTC were derived from fake images and videos so those theories must be rejected.

4. WTC complex was hidden from view by military grade smoke obscurants before the demolition took place.

5. 12 years of bickering and circular debates about what explosives were actually used.

6. Dynamite has been used in all building demolitions. Dynamite was up for the job in 2001.

7. Biltmore hotel was demolished in 1977. The Biltmore was a 245 foot, 28-story high steel framed building. CDI needed to place charges on both sides of steel beams.

8. Most New Yorkers probably watched the Twin Towers getting demolished on TV.

Father Frank Morales Describes Ground Zero

Below is an audio clip of Frank Morales w/ Jim Fetzer from 10/2/07 describing first hand what he witnessed at Ground Zero in the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the WTC buildings. Compare what Frank has to say versus the September Clues version of Ground Zero. The Clues Forum guys would have you believe that the WTC complex was merely a movie set. That stands in stark contrast to the horror show that Frank and many other witnesses described at Ground Zero.

1. No chairs or desks found at Ground Zero.

2. The soil was rich and moist from the bodies of the dead.

3. 1,100 bodies vaporized. DNA was mixed in from different bodies.

4. Collapse of the buildings wouldn’t vaporize 1,100 people.

5. Very little debris found. Jet fuel can’t explain this.

6. The North Tower was referred to as the “2,000 degree pit.” The cherry picker removed pieces of molten steel from below ground level.

7. Workers were going around with red 1 lb bags collecting 1 inch or less pieces of bodies.

Can dynamite or kerosene explain the kind of devastation that Frank describes at Ground Zero? Of course not. Frank is clearly describing behemoth skyscrapers that were reduced to dust and 1,100 people that were completely vaporized. Only nuclear bombs can account for what was witnessed at Ground Zero.

Ground Zero

The term ground zero (sometimes also known as surface zero as distinguished from zero point describes the point on the Earth’s surface closest to a detonation. In the case of an explosion above the ground, ground zero refers to the point on the ground directly below the detonation (see hypocenter).

The term has often been associated with nuclear explosions and other large bombs, but is also used in relation to earthquakes, epidemics and other disasters to mark the point of the most severe damage or destruction. The term is often re-used for disasters that have a geographic or conceptual epicenter.

The term was military slang, used at the Trinity site where the weapon tower for the first nuclear weapon was at “point zero”, and moved into general use very shortly after the end of World War II. At Hiroshima, the hypocenter of the attack was Shima Hospital.

45hiroshima a-bomb

Ground Zero at Hiroshima

El Buggo and a number of other shills on the internet are claiming that nuclear weapons don’t exist. El Buggo states that he isn’t able to find Ground Zero at Hiroshima (no big crater) so he doubts that Hiroshima was actually nuked. El Buggo states that Hiroshima was merely firebombed and that the government is claiming it was nuked as an intimidation tactic. El Buggo is completely full of it. He’s most likely a paid shill so anything he says can be discounted.

The nuke-denying disinformationists attempt to play on the ignorance of the public of the actual effects of nuclear weapons. In this case an air-burst atomic weapon not leaving a crater at Ground Zero.

For the record here is a link to a 360° panorama taken by the US Army at Ground Zero in Hiroshima.

Hiroshima after the Atomic Bomb – Ground Zero (5 of 5) by US Army in Japan

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a 15 kiloton bomb that was primitive by today’s standards. Only 1.38% of its uranium actually fissioned. The main effect of the bomb was fire. The mass fire burned for 6 hours and consumed 4.5 square miles of the city.

The Little Boy Bomb:

Dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, it was the first nuclear weapon used in a war. Following are some approximate statistics for Little Boy. If you require more extensive information on this weapon, please contact us:

Weight: 9,700 lbs

Length: 10 ft.; Diameter: 28 in.

Fuel: Highly enriched uranium; “Oralloy”

Uranium Fuel: approx. 140 lbs; target – 85 lbs and projectile – 55 lbs

Target case, barrel, uranium projectile, and other main parts ferried to Tinian Island via USS Indianapolis

Uranium target component ferried to Tinian via C-54 aircraft of the 509th Composite Group

Efficiency of weapon: poor

Approx. 1.38% of the uranium fuel actually fissioned

Explosive force: 15,000 tons of TNT equivalent

Use: Dropped on Japanese city of Hiroshima; August 6, 1945

Delivery: B-29 Enola Gay piloted by Col. Paul Tibbets

Nuclear Weapon Thermal Effects

Large amounts of electromagnetic radiation in the visible, infrared, and ultraviolet regions of the electromagnetic spectrum are emitted from the surface of the fireball within the first minute or less after detonation. This thermal radiation travels outward from the fireball at the speed of light, 300,000 km/sec. The chief hazard of thermal radiation is the production of burns and eye injuries in exposed personnel. Such thermal injuries may occur even at distances where blast and initial nuclear radiation effects are minimal. Absorption of thermal radiation will also cause the ignition of combustible materials and may lead to fires which then spread rapidly among the debris left by the blast.

The fireball from a nuclear explosion reaches blackbody temperatures greater than 107 °K, so that the energy at which most photons are emitted corresponds to the x-ray region of the electromagnetic spectrum. For detonations occurring below 30,000 m (100,000 ft) these X-rays are quickly absorbed in the atmosphere, and the energy is reradiated at blackbody temperatures below 10,000 °K. Both of these temperatures are well above that reached in conventional chemical explosions, about 5,000 °K. For detonations below 100,000 feet, 35 percent to 45 percent of the nuclear yield is effectively radiated as thermal energy.

In addition to the high temperature of the nuclear fireball, the blackbody radiation is emitted in a characteristic two-peaked pulse with the first peak being due to the radiating surface of the outrunning shock. As the fireball expands and its energy is deposited in an ever-increasing volume its temperature decreases and the transfer of energy by thermal radiation becomes less rapid. At this point, the blast wave front begins to catch up with the surface of the fireball and then moves ahead of it, a process called hydrodynamic separation. Due to the tremendous compression of the atmosphere by the blast wave, the air in front of the fireball is heated to incandescence. Thus, after hydrodynamic separation, the fireball actually consists of two concentric regions: the hot inner core known as the isothermal sphere; and an outer layer of luminous shock-heated air.

The outer layer initially absorbs much of the radiation from the isothermal sphere and hence the apparent surface temperature of the fireball and the amount of radiation emitted from it decreases after separation. But, as the shock front advances still farther, the temperature of the shocked air diminishes and it becomes increasingly transparent. As the shock front temperature drops below 6,000 °K, thermal radiation decreases when the shock front becomes transparent to radiation from the interior. This occurs between 10-5 and 10-2 seconds after detonation. At about 0.1 second after detonation, the shock front becomes sufficiently transparent that radiation from the innermost, hottest regions becomes visible, producing a second thermal peak. This results in an unmasking of the still incandescent isothermal region and an increase in the apparent surface temperature of the fireball. This phenomena is referred to as breakaway. Before the second peak begins the fireball has radiated only about one quarter of its total energy. About 99 percent of the total thermal energy is contained in the second pulse. The duration of this pulse depends on the yield of the weapon and the height of burst (HOB); it ranges from only about 0.4 s for a 1 KT air burst to more than 20 s for a 10 MT explosion.

The rate of thermal emission from the fireball is governed by its apparent surface temperature. The thermal output of a nuclear air burst will then occur in two pulses), an initial pulse, consisting primarily of ultraviolet radiation, which contains only about 1% of the total radiant energy of the explosion and is terminated as the shock front moves ahead of the fireball, and a second pulse which occurs after breakaway.

The Ground Zero “Pothole”

Below is an excerpt from pages 390-3 of Khalezov’s 9/11thology:

Independent confirmations of the nuclear demolition. Molten rock, thermal maps, “Ice Age glaciers” and “hard evidence”

One might ask probably another question – are there any independent sources that could confirm that there were indeed three underground nuclear explosions in Lower Manhattan, apart from the ravings of the author of these lines and other “conspiracy theorists” of similar kind – such as above mentioned Mr. Tahil?

Firstly, I would like to state that Mr. Tahil claims that there were only two underground nuclear explosions, not actually three. This is, by the way, yet another clear indication that he might be closely related to those culprits from the WTC demolition team. If he were an honest researcher, then, considering his supernatural shrewdness, he would never fail to notice the third nuclear demolition event – in regard to the WTC-7. To answer the actual question – yes, there are some independent sources, which indirectly testify to the same effect as the author of these lines.

An unprecedented article titled “Pictured: The 40ft ‘pothole’ that shows Ground Zero was once the site of an Ice Age glacier” appeared simultaneously in several newspapers, for example, in the UK “Mail”, published online on September 23, 2008.

The article featured quite an interesting photograph showing the excavated “bathtub” at “Ground Zero” along with an odd, giant, so-called “pothole” in the spot of one of the former Twin Towers. Edges of the “pothole” appeared to be covered in molten rock. There were actually three pictures of the so-called “potholes” – two of them inserted into the above mentioned article, and one more photo of the same series was used in another news article dealing with the same issue. Below is one of the first two:


Here is the second photograph from that article:


Proof of ice: The giant ‘pothole’, seen in the lower half of this picture, is proof the World Trade Centre towers stood on what was once ground covered by an Ice Age glacier

You could really appreciate the description under the above photo… I mean, you could really appreciate the level of the desperation of the U.S. Government officials and their spin-doctors, who were tasked with the near impossible task – to say something comprehensible in regard to the incriminating cavities that had nothing to do with either the “kerosene”, nor with the supposed “mini-nukes”.

Yet, an even more seditious picture was leaked to the public at about the same time; it belonged to the same series of the so-called “potholes” photos. This one came with the Associated Press’ article published by “Science on”. The article was named “Ice Age geology revealed at Ground Zero. World Trade Center dig uncovers 20,000-year-old, 40-foot-deep pothole”. The actual article could be found on this MSNBC news web page (at least, it was still there in the last days of December 2012).

The below one is that seditious photo showing the smooth edges of the molten rock I am talking about.


These utterly seditious pictures were apparently taken illegally, since it was strictly prohibited to bring any photographic equipment into “ground zero” area, even when these words were still spelled with low-case letters, and when there were thousands of ground zero responders clearing enormous piles of the debris and searching for survivors.

It would be even more illegal to make such pictures of “Ground Zero” when the majority of the initial responders were banned from the site and only less than a hundred of the highly trusted people remained there to fix the unexplainable underground cavities.

Dimitri’s footnote:

On November 2nd, 2001, NY Mayor Giuliani suddenly and without any seeming reason has ordered city officials to limit the number of rescue workers trying to recover victims’ bodies to 25 each from the Port Authority police, NYPD and FDNY, and an additional 10 firefighters for fire suppression – which caused deep resentment among the firefighters and even some scuffles with the police – deployed to protect “Ground Zero” from those unwanted firefighters.


Can conventional explosive charges explain the massive pothole at Ground Zero?

Is it even remotely plausible that the “pothole” was a natural formation? That’s the spin this New York Times article tries to put on it:

This monumental carving was the work of glaciers, which made their last retreat from these parts about 20,000 years ago, leaving profound gouges in the earth and rocks from the Palisades, the Ramapo Mountains and an area of northern New Jersey known as the Newark Basin.

Plumbing these glacial features and souvenirs has been critical in preparing the foundation for Tower 4 of the new World Trade Center, being built by Silverstein Properties. The concrete footings from which its columns rise must rest on firm bedrock. Engineers need a clear understanding of the rock’s contours.

“You want to make sure you’re not perching something on a ledge,” said Andrew Pontecorvo, a supervising structural engineer at Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, which is working on the trade center project.

Engineers knew in advance that there were “discontinuities” in the bedrock at the southeast corner of the trade center site, where Tower 4 is situated. Some of these were revealed in the 1960s during the construction of the original slurry wall. (George J. Tamaro, who supervised that job for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is a retired partner of Mueser Rutledge.)

And when parts of the slurry wall were rebuilt after 9/11, engineers found areas where the rock anchors that stabilize the wall would not hold, meaning there were voids in the bedrock.

Borings through the ground also showed large discrepancies in the elevation of the rock underneath. “It was extreme from the variation you would interpret to what we actually encountered,” Mr. Pontecorvo said.

Obviously, the bedrock topography could not be mapped with enough precision until all the soil was removed and the surface was fully exposed. But besides being an engineering necessity, the unearthing of geological features, especially a 40-foot depression known as a pothole, has offered scientists a rare window into the deep past.

“There are areas in local parks that have small vertical potholes exposed,” said Cheryl J. Moss, the senior geologist at Mueser Rutledge, “but I’m not aware of anything in the city with a whole, self-contained depression on this scale.”

Ms. Moss and Mr. Pontecorvo are scheduled to give an illustrated lecture on the site at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Tribute W.T.C. Visitor Center, 120 Liberty Street, opposite the pothole.

It’s been called the Grand Canyon of Lower Manhattan,” Mr. Pontecorvo said.

Charles Merguerian, chairman of the geology department at Hofstra University and a consultant to Mueser Rutledge on the trade center project, put it even more simply: “Beautiful!”

It is very unusual to see such features near sea level,” he added.

Shown photographs of the rocks, Sidney Horenstein, a geologist and environmental educator emeritus at the American Museum of Natural History, said, “You don’t find such an array of rock types in the few places in the city that the glacial deposits are exposed.”

Across much of the trade center site, bedrock level is roughly 70 feet below street level. In the southeast corner, however, the pothole adds another 40 feet to the depth, meaning that its bottom is about 110 feet below street level.

Yet when the pothole filled with rainwater this summer, it looked like nothing so much as a little mountain pond. Crevices around the edge were filled with pockets of densely packed cobblestones, possibly some of the very stones that the glaciers used to do the carving.

“As the ice passed over New Jersey,” Ms. Moss explained, “it picked up local rocks such as red shale and sandstone and gray basalt from the Palisades. As ice melted from the advancing glacier, raging streams of water flowed in front of it. The strong currents picked up the sand, gravel and boulders and carried them downstream across the World Trade Center site.

“As these rocks bounced across the bedrock, essentially sandblasting the surface, the softer layers started to erode out and the harder rock left behind became polished. In places, the water swirled in whirlpools of varying sizes, carving out deep potholes and larger basins.”

Along the east side of the pothole, the rock layers run vertically — not horizontally. The result, where the surface has been carved away in a concave form, is an abstract canvas of swirling, concentric rings; not unlike a gouge in a wall that reveals many layers of old paint.

This speaks of a period far more ancient than the glaciers, about 500 million years ago, when the edges of the colliding North American and African continental plates got shuffled together.

“That’s when all this got pushed into a vertical orientation,” Dr. Merguerian said. He estimated that the rock around the pothole had once been 20 miles below the surface, based on the presence of a high-pressure mineral called kyanite.

Here are some pictures of the “Glacial Rock Formation at WTC Site





Busting 9/11 Myths: Nanothermite, Big Nukes and DEWs

wordpress analytics

by Don Fox (with Jim Fetzer)

On the 12th observance of 9/11 there are still many questions surrounding the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings.

The Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) put forth by NIST and the 9/11 Commission posits that 19 hijackers (5 of whom turned up alive AFTER 9/11) flew commercial planes in to the Twin Towers and the damage from the impacts of the planes and resulting fires caused the Towers to collapse at free fall speed.

These magical planes also caused a third skyscraper (Building 7) to collapse at free fall speed in a vacuum some 25 minutes after the BBC had announced that it had collapsed even though no plane had hit it.

debris ejected from North TowerObviously the government’s account is blatantly false. It stands to reason that if the government’s account of the events of 9/11 is not physically possible then it cannot be historically accurate. Historical events on the level of 9/11 shape the future for years, even generations to come. You will not be able to properly understand current events if you do not understand 9/11.

Once you come to the realization that the Zionists and Neocons in the Bush Regime acting at the behest of Israel were responsible for 9/11, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria make a lot more sense.

The Big Lies of 9/11 have been used to launch wars of Zionist Aggression abroad and erode our civil rights here in the US. The 9/11 Wars have killed over a million innocent civilians and drained the US treasury of trillions of dollars. All so that Israel can maintain hegemony over the Middle East.

In recent years these Big Lies have given way to several Alternate Myths. As the OCT loses credibility alternative theories such as nanothermite, directed energy weapons and Big Nukes have tried to bridge the gap. Just as the OCT has imploded so will these Alternate Myths.

The “Collapse” Theory

 According to the government, the Twin Towers collapsed because the intense heat from the jet-fuel fires caused the steel to weaken (or, in some versions, the trusses to bow) to the extent that the top floors collapsed onto lower floors (or the trusses to collapse on other trusses), in a cascade of floors (or trusses) falling upon one another until both buildings were completely destroyed. Here is a schematic representation of the official theory, but there are also animated versions:

TTofficial1-320x289For anyone who has actually looked at the video sequence of their destruction, however, this theory is easily the least defensible. Gravity operates in one direction: down! But the Twin Towers are exploding in every direction from the top down. The buildings are being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. And when it was done, there was no stack of pancakes: they were destroyed below ground level! And, even worse, on the truss version, the core columns would have remained standing, like the spindle on a 45rpm record player after the records had been played.

Moreover, NIST studied 236 samples of steel from the Twin Towers and discovered that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F and the other three not above 1200*F. Insofar as UL had certified the steel used in the towers to 2,000*F for three to four hours without incurring any adverse effects (either weakening or melting) and the fires in the South Tower only endured for about a hour and in the North an hour and a half, they could have burned forever at those temperatures and not caused any damage. If we want truth, we must consider other 3>

Major and minor dust samples

The group that dominates A&E911 and produced “Explosive Evidence”–Richard Gage, Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and Neils Harrit, especially–have insisted that the key to understanding 9/11 is tiny chips of unexploded energetic material found in dust samples from apartments in the vicinity of “Ground Zero”, to which they refer as “nanothermite”. The catch turns out be that nanothermite is a feeble explosive that has 1/13 the force of TNT, the universal standard. Research by T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer, moreover, has shown that it only has a detonation velocity of 895m/s, which is far from the speed of sound in concrete and steel, which are 3,200m/s and 6,100m/s, respectively. Since it is a law of materials science that an explosive cannot destroy a material unless it has a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. You can’t get there from there.

The-Myth-of-Explosive-nanothermiteIn 2002 Jeff Prager 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 his 9/11 America Nuked.) In “Proof of Ternary Fission in New York City on 9/11″ he observes (1) that dust samples are the best evidence of what happened on 9/11; (2) that the US Geological Survey samples taken over a dozen locations show how various elements interacted prove that fission reaction(s) had taken place; (3) that Multiple Myeloma in the general population at a rate of 3-9 incidents per 100,000 people, but the rate was 18 per 100,000 among first responders; (4) that other cancers relatively unusual cancers have appeared among the responders, including non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, prostate, esophageal and blood and plasma cancers; and (5) that, as of March 2011 no less than 1,003 first responders died from various cancers.

The elements that have been found in these dust samples provide an astonishing array of proof that the destruction of the WTC was a nuclear event. How ironic that dust samples, which have been touted as the key to understanding 9/11, ARE the key, but not those studied by Gage, Jones, Ryan and Harrit! Consider the range and variety of the elements in the US Geological Survey’s dust samples, found at “Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center Area After the September 11, 2001 Attack” (Open-File Report 01-0429). Here’s a link to the chemistry table and another to the DOE report, “Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center” (UCRL-JC-150445):

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.

No Denying Nukes

Indeed, the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11 appears to have been a nuclear event. 1/3 of the Twin Towers and a thousand bystanders were completely vaporized. Some 1,400 cars were toasted in the vicinity of the WTC. Chunks of debris were ejected hundreds of yards. No desks, chairs, computers or toilets were found in the rubble of the Twin Towers. Temperatures at Ground Zero were between 600 and 2,000°F for six months after 9/11.

The clinchers though are the USGS dust samples and the Department of Energy (DOE) water samples. The USGS dust samples not only show elevated levels of elements such as uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium, chromium, copper, zinc, sodium and potassium, they show that the quantities of a dozen elements rising and falling predictably over a dozen sample locations. The only process that can explain this is nuclear fission. The DOE collected water samples from the basement of Six World Trade 11 days after 9/11 that contained tritium at 55 times background levels. This proves nuclear fusion took place.

Dimitri Khalezov recently published an article where he makes the case that three 150 kt nukes were detonated 100 meters underground on 9/11 (aka the Big-Nuke Theory). In order to maintain the viability of his theory he states that several pieces of evidence including seismic readings, toasted cars and photographs were faked. Our approach has been to come up with a theory that fits the evidence rather than having to claim this photo or that report was faked. The WTC Mini-Nuke Theory explains what was observed at Ground Zero. Khalezov’s Big-Nuke theory simply cannot account for the gross observable evidence.

Recap of the Mini-Nuke Theory

After reading Dimitri’s article it appears that he believes that we are stating that merely one or two mini-nukes were placed in the basement of the Twin Towers and that was responsible for all of the destruction. Obviously that scenario could not explain what is observed at Ground Zero. Our philosophy is that the destruction was caused by multiple low-yield nuclear bombs and not three big ones. The perpetrators objective was to nuke the WTC buildings without making it look like they nuked the buildings. This schematic is not intended to illustrate the specific way in which it was done but rather to give a visual indication of some of the available options: demolition+plan3The WTC Mini-Nuke Theory postulates that there were perhaps 5-11 mini-neutron nukes placed the core columns of the Twin Towers as well as several underground mini-nukes. There were a series of underground explosions before each Tower starts coming down. The mini-nukes in the core columns were detonated sequentially from top to bottom and configured to explode upward. The top to bottom demolition sequence was intended to simulate a free fall gravitational collapse which was the cover story.

If they took out one cube of 10 floors per second, then the time of destruction of the North Tower would have been 11 seconds and of the South–where the top three cubes tilted and were blown as one–9, which agrees with NIST’s own time estimate.The charges were shaped to explode upward so that the bombs in the top of the building would not destroy the bombs below before they had a chance to explode. Mini-nukes exploding upward also serves to explain the low seismic readings of 2.1 for the South Tower and 2.3 for the North Tower.

Some may question whether mini-nukes can be configured to explode directionally. Shape charging explosives has been around for a long time. Friedwardt Winterberg of Cornell University has proposed using deuterium microbombs to transport payloads between planetary orbits. This amounts to exploding mini-nukes in a cylindrical tube to direct the blast to propel the spacecraft. This explains what is observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers: material is being ejected upward and outward, 1/3 of the buildings are completely vaporized, and steel, cement and gypsum are converted into a pyroclastic surge cloud that covers Lower Manhattan in fine dust. Retained heat from the underground mini-nukes produce the high temperatures that persisted for six months after 9/11. Conventional explosives were used as well in the Twin Towers but mini-nukes did the heavy lifting.

In the case of Building 6 mini-nukes were detonated in the basement of the building and configured to explode upward. This explains the scooped out crater in the center of the building and the tritiated water found in the basement 11 days after 9/11.

Building 7 was also a combination of conventional and nuclear demo charges. Unlike the Twin Towers, no above ground nukes were used on 7. Conventional charges took out the support columns of the building which caused it to fall at free fall speed in a vacuum and three mini-nukes detonated in the basement vaporized much of the contents of the building. This explains the low seismic reading of .6. We will have a full break down on Building 7 in a future article.

What Would 150 Kiloton Blasts Have Done?

As a comparison to Khalezov’s theory let’s use the Storax Sedan nuclear test which was a 104 kt nuke detonated 190 meters deep. It lifted a dome of earth 90 m (300 ft.) above the desert floor before it vented at three seconds after detonation, exploding upward and outward displacing more than 11,000,000 tons of soil.

nuke1000The resulting crater is 100 m (330 ft.) deep with a diameter of about 390 m (1,280 ft.). A circular area of the desert floor five miles across was obscured by fast-expanding dust clouds moving out horizontally from the base surge, akin to pyroclastic surge. The blast caused seismic waves equivalent to an earthquake of 4.75 on the Richter scale.Sedan_Plowshare_CraterThere were no giant craters observed at Ground Zero in New York so on this point alone Khalezov’s theory can be rejected.

The Winter Garden: Where DEWS, Nanothermite and Big-Nuke Theories Go To Die

Atriumdestroyed1The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down and the inside out. No big flash was visible and no other buildings were flattened by the blasts so by definition any above ground nuclear detonation had to be low yield. Photos and videos of the destruction of the Twin Towers clearly show that there were indeed above ground nuclear detonations. As we can see below the chunks of debris that are being ejected from the North Tower into the Winter Garden originated several stories above the top of Building 7. Other material is being ejected straight up; the North Tower is clearly being demolished by an above ground mini-nuke. The bottom 60 floors of the North Tower are clearly still intact when the material that landed in the Winter Garden was ejected. Khalezov’s account of large underground nukes simply cannot account for the observed top down demolition of the North Tower.

The Winter Garden was destroyed on 9/11 from debris ejected from the North Tower. Judy Wood denies that explosives were used to demolish the Towers and that through some unknown process they simply turned to dust where they once stood. This is patently absurd. The Twin Towers exploded and Wood cannot account for a 300 ton chunk of debris being ejected into the Winter Garden 600+ feet out. It was traveling at an estimated 70+ miles per hour. Judy Wood’s DEW non-theory has no explanatory power for the destruction of the WTC buildings and can be rejected.

Since nanothermite is not explosive it cannot account for the destruction of the Winter Garden. Nanothermite has no ability to explode concrete or steel or eject steel assemblies weighing hundreds of tons up at a 45° angle and out into the Winter Garden. The nanothermite theory can also be rejected.

The Winter Garden is the end of the line for any theory except the mini-nuke theory.

Six World Trade: The Mini-Nuke Poster Child

Six World Trade Center was the US Custom House, an 8 story building that stood between the North Tower and Building 7. The new One World Trade Center stands on the site where Six World Trade once stood. Khalezov’s theory does not even take Building 6 into account even though the building was clearly nuked. Before either Tower came down on 9/11 a 170 high meter plume of smoke was seen rising from the building: WTC6 explosionThe blast left a giant crater in the middle of the building:

WTC_6_from_overheadTritium was found at levels 55 times background in the basement of the building 11 days after 9/11. Firefighters sprayed a million liters of water on Building 6 diluting the water samples. Per Ed Ward’s breakdown had the water samples been collected on the evening of 9/11 there could have potentially been 6 BILLION tritium units present. That is the equivalent to a leaking nuclear power plant. Temperatures were so high that “cement flowed like lava” according to the plaque in the New York Police Museum:


EXIT signs, gun sights and cold fusion cannot explain the tritium found in the basement of Building 6. The only thing that can explain this evidence is a thermonuclear explosion. It is apparent that one or more mini-nukes were detonated in Building 6. A 150 kiloton nuke buried under another building cannot account for the damage inflicted upon Six World Trade. Neither can thermite, cold fusion or a Judy Wood style DEW.

Cars Were Toasted by Above Ground Nukes

meltddTed Twietmeyer’s post on Rense’s website sheds considerable light on the toasted cars. Vector forces show that the source of the EMP that toasted the cars (and neutrons per Ed Ward) is clearly above ground.

Khalezov’s Big-Nuke Theory falls short in several areas: It cannot account for evidence of above ground nuclear detonations, low seismic readings of the destruction of WTC-1, 2 and 7, the lack of giant craters at Ground Zero, the destruction of WTC-6 and the 1,400 toasted cars. The WTC Mini-Nuke Theory can account for all of these things without resorting to claiming seismic reports and photographs were faked or that the police and FBI were burning their own cars. Khalezov is correct that the destruction of the WTC buildings was a nuclear event. He is much closer to the mark than are the thermite sniffers and DEW cultists.

The time has come to reject all of the Myths surrounding 9/11 and come to grips with what really happened: the Zionist / Neocon Cabal nuked buildings in Lower Manhattan to justify Zionist Wars of Aggression in the Middle East. The Killing Machine will keep going with wars in Syria and Iran if we are unable to reject the lies and myths and face up to the truth of 9/11.


Dr. Judy Wood: 9/11 Gatekeeper Extraordinaire

wordpress analytics

Abstract: Dr. Judy Wood steadfastly denies that bombs were used in the destruction of the WTC buildings. Indeed Wood attempts to eliminate ALL of the prominent theories of the WTC destruction including nuclear bombs, nanothermite and controlled demolition. While she claims not to have a theory she clearly attempts to persuade readers that directed free-energy technology was used to destroy the WTC buildings. After closely examining what she says in interviews and presentations and what she writes it has become clear that she is a 9/11 gatekeeper. I don’t have a paystub with her name on it from Langley to confirm this, but it is still reasonable to conclude that, if Judy Wood is not an operative or a “shill,” she acts as if she were one. If she is not getting a paycheck from Langley, she should be!

And, as Jim Fetzer and I have previously observed, Wood and her followers have the
characteristics that define a pseudo-scientific cult that claims to possess
privileged knowledge of 9/11, where they treat her book as though it were a
sacred text and refuse to engage in an open, scientific exchange about it’s
merits, which has become all too apparent from the discussion thread of the
Fetzer review on

For the record here is her bio from the script that her cult works from: “Dr. Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry.”

Whatever Judy Wood is, she is NOT a 9/11 Truther. She makes that clear. As their script says “The truth does not depend on who supports it. Truth is not a club or a matter of “opinion” or “belief”. Neither is truth a political or economic objective. Truth doesn’t have sides. The truth is singular and the truth is unifying. By reading Dr. Wood’s research and collection of evidence as compiled in her textbook the truth is known, so there is no need to “Re-investigate 9/11”. If you want unity, then seek the truth by reading her textbook.”

On January 5th, 2013 Pete Santilli interviewed Jim Fetzer about the events of 9/11. It appears that Santilli was trying to work himself into a lather and confront Fetzer about his suppressing Judy Wood’s “evidence.” Although what Judy Wood presents in her book Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11 cannot be classified as evidence.

As Ben Collet so adroitly points out in the discussion thread of Fetzer’s review of Wood’s book on “In fact nothing in Dr. Wood’s book is evidence. They are facts, but they are not evidence. As Dr. Fetzer explained, facts are only evidence if they contribute to showing the truth or falsity of a theory or hypothesis. Since Dr. Wood says she has no theory or hypothesis, therefore, by definition, she has no evidence. So either stop claiming the book contains evidence, or else tell us what definition of the word “evidence” you are using – because it’s not the one used by everyone else.”

Hurricane Erin: Irrelevant to the Events of 9/11

The first item on Santilli’s script was hurricane Erin. However Wood never explains to us how Erin is relevant to the events of 9/11.

On Andrew Johnson states: “One of the most striking pieces of the data presented is that from a set of magnetometers monitored by the University of Alaska. Several instruments show significant deviations from “background” or “normal” readings as the events of 9/11 were unfolding. A further selection of this data is presented in relation to variations during the hurricane seasons of 2001, 2004 and 2005. A later part of the study examines some of the data relating to patterns of earthquakes in 2008 and possibly associated unusual weather patterns, which may be related to secret or partially disclosed environmental modification technology (such as HAARP). However, the study does not establish any clear links between HAARP and the events in New York on 9/11.

The National Hurricane Center’s website states: A few hours later, the eye of the hurricane passed within about 90 n mi east-northeast of Bermuda, which was Erin’s point of closest approach to the island. After brushing Bermuda, the hurricane continued to move mainly toward the north-northwest. On 10 September, Erin began to weaken, however the weakening was slower than usual over the ensuing days, due in part to slightly warmer than normal waters over the western subtropical Atlantic. A series of short-wave troughs weakened the western portion of the Atlantic subtropical ridge. This caused the motion of the hurricane to turn toward the right, with a decrease in forward speed, on the 11th. Erin’s heading veered toward the east-northeast and east on the 12th. Then, a broad, amplifying mid- to upper-level trough over eastern Canada accelerated Erin toward the northeast. The center passed just east of Cape Race, Newfoundland at 0000 UTC, while the system was weakening to just below hurricane strength. Then, Erin lost its tropical characteristics. The extratropical storm accelerated north-northeastward and passed over southern Greenland on 16 September, and merged with high-latitude cyclonic flow over eastern Greenland on the 17th. There were no reports of damage or casualties associated with Erin.

From the Weatherwise Magazine website: Several hundred miles out in the Atlantic, Hurricane Erin—the first Atlantic hurricane of the 2001 season—was weakening as it began to turn toward the north-northeast, away from the East Coast. Though it posed no threat to land, Erin had been producing large swells along local beaches and was one of the main headlines early that morning. In fact, The New York Times weather report on September 11 included a special “Focus” write-up on what it called “Hurricane Day,” explaining how in “9 out of 10 years since 1886, at least one tropical storm or hurricane has raged in the Atlantic on Sept. 11.”

“For those heading to an airport,” the 9/11 Commission report stated, “weather conditions could not have been better for a safe and pleasant journey.” The 8:51 a.m. temperature reading was 68°F at Central Park, 72°F at La Guardia, and 73°F at both JFK and Newark Airports.”

Erin caused no precipitation let alone physical damage to New York. Erin WAS reported in the New York Times weather section so it was NOT ignored in the media. A hurricane spinning out in the Atlantic happens 9 out of 10 years on September 11 so this was routine and hardly worthy of front page headlines. Wood fails to demonstrate HOW the hurricane was used to demolish the WTC buildings. The material on Wood’s website certainly is intended to lead a reader to believe that the hurricane played some role in the events of 9/11 but they DO NOT attempted to explain what that role is. How can we be accused of covering up evidence they don’t even present? One can conclude that they are using the hurricane as a distraction from what really happened to the WTC buildings.

Evidence for Mini-Nukes: Proof of Fission at the WTC

If the Hurricane didn’t have anything to do with the destruction of the WTC buildings then what did? Two government reports and a government IT article shed considerable light on this matter. First we will look at the dust and girder coating samples analyzed in the US Geological Survey report Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center Area After the September 11, 2001 Attack (Open-File Report 01-0429). Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson never make an attempt to explain the data in this report.

Jeff Prager has done extensive work with this data and we will use his analysis to help us understand the findings of this report. Jeff states: It is critical to remember that we follow over a dozen elements across just as many locations and these elements must be viewed as they interact together, not as separate elements. The elements we’re about to examine work together, as we should expect. Thus, one might expect to see the presence of uranium refuted. One might expect to see the presence of strontium or other elements refuted individually. Yet when the elements are studied together as they increase and decrease predictably across a dozen locations the outcome is clear. Fission occurred in NYC on 911.

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. 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.

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.

Ground Zero Temperatures Elevated for Six Months after 9/11

An article on the Government Computer News website Handheld app eased recovery tasks by Trudy Walsh September 09, 2002 states “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.”

What fire can burn underground for six months? The only process that can explain this is fission. The temperatures stayed elevated until hundreds of dump truck loads of dirt had come and gone from Ground Zero and removed the nuclear material.

Proof of Fusion at the WTC

The next report we will look at is from the U.S. Department of Energy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (2002) Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center (UCRL-JC-150445). Tritium is an extremely rare hydrogen isotope. Hydrogen-3 or 3H is known as tritium and contains one proton and two neutrons in its nucleus. It is radioactive, decaying into helium-3 through β− decay with a half-life of 12.32 years. Small amounts of tritium occur naturally because of the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric gases. Tritium has also been released during nuclear weapons tests. It is used in thermonuclear fusion weapons, as a tracer in isotope geochemistry, and specialized in self-powered lighting devices. The most common method of producing tritium is by bombarding a natural isotope of lithium, lithium-6, with neutrons in a nuclear reactor. The presence of tritium in large quantities is a telltale sign of a hydrogen bomb.

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:

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.)

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. Pico to Nano converter – Nano to Pico converter –

3. 1 TU = 3.231 pCi/L (trillionths per liter) or 0.003231 nCi/L (billionths per liter) – – (My original TU calculations came out to 3.19 pCi/L, but I will gladly accept these referenced minimally higher values.

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 – 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  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. (Ref.: – 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”. 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.

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.

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

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 = 6.12 BILLION TUs.

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

Conclusions on Tritium

Tritium levels in the basement of WTC 6 were still 55 times greater than background 11 days after 9/11 and a million liters of rain and firehouse water had diluted the samples. Had the samples been collected before it rained twice and the fireman sprayed all of the water they could have potentially been above 6.12 billion TUs. That level would be equivalent to a leaking nuclear power plant (hot fusion). Wood offers no explanation for where the tritium came from. She has a graph in her book that shows the tritium levels were below EPA limits. Wood fails to explain HOW the tritium got there if not for nuclear bombs.

Synopsys of the WTC Mini-Nuke Theory

The basic tenants of the mini-nuke theory are that there were mini-nukes placed in the basements of the Twin Towers and buildings 6 and 7. There were also a series of mini-nukes placed in the core columns of the Twin Towers. The mini-nukes in WTC1 and 2 were configured to detonate from top to bottom to simulate a free fall collapse and to explode upward. This explains what is observed: a series of massive underground explosions precede the destruction of each tower, the buildings are destroyed from the top to bottom and the inside out and debris is ejected upward and outward. 90% of the debris from the Twin Towers destruction lands outside of the buildings’ footprint, destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance, 1/3 of the towers are completely vaporized, pyroclastic flow made up of a fine powder of gypsum, cement and steel covers Lower Manhattan.

Stairwell B

The Wood cult promotes the story of the North Tower survivors as proof nukes were not used. From the website: Sixteen people survived inside the collapse of the World Trade Center, and they were all in Stairwell B of the North Tower, in the center of the building. The survivors were spread out between floors 22 and 1. A step or two slower meant death, but so, too, did a step or two faster. Captain Jay Jonas and five of his firefighters from Ladder Six, based in Chinatown, had been on the 27th floor of the North Tower when they heard a rumble, felt the staircase sway, watched as the lights flickered off and on. A captain from another company let Jonas know the cause of the disturbance: The South Tower had just collapsed.

“I’m pulling the plug,” Jonas said, and gave the order to evacuate. He didn’t tell his men why; they didn’t know that the South Tower was gone. “For me, that was the scariest point,” said Jonas. “I’m thinking, we’re not going to make it out.”

September 11 overran the usual defenses. Jonas and his men, finally freed from their stairwell, looked around at fires and flattened buildings. They thought they were witnessing a nuclear attack. “We usually show up at a chaotic situation, we make it better and we go home, almost every time,” says Jonas. “In the World Trade Center that really didn’t happen.” Well-disciplined emotions were suddenly impossible to contain.


Wood denies that the buildings exploded. She believes that they somehow just “turned to dust” in a process known as “dustification.” This is patently absurd. The buildings clearly exploded. Below is a YouTube video of a Wood presentation. At 2:00 of the presentation she shows the North Tower EXPLODING and a mushroom cloud rising. And she denies nukes:

The buildings DID NOT TURN TO DUST IN PLACE! Indeed a 300 ton chunk of the North Tower was ejected 600 + feet into the Winter Garden:

300 ton chunk of debris smashes into the Winter Garden

The FEMA debris pattern map demonstrates that the buildings exploded. 90% of the debris landed outside of the buildings’ footprint:GW500H493

Underground explosions precede the destruction of each Tower: wtc1summary01


The Judy Wood bottom line: no explosives, no nukes, no thermite and no need to re-investigate 9/11 because she has already done the investigation. If that isn’t a gatekeeper then what is?

At the WTC the dust and water samples tell the true story of what happened: 9/11 was a nuclear event. There is a reason it’s called Ground Zero folks. The time has come to recognize Judy Wood for what she is: a disinfo agent. She is there merely to confuse and obfuscate. Her group is not interested in free and open debate. They don’t spend any time going after the folks who brought you 9/11. All of their time is spent plugging her book and attacking other researchers. Her purpose is to crush the 9/11 Truth Movement.

To that end they have brought in Pete Santilli to be their new attack dog. Neophyte Pete goes after veteran 9/11 researchers with religious zeal. You can see why he fits right in to Wood’s cult.

Judy Wood has done enough damage to the 9/11 research community.

If you really want to learn what happened on 9/11 get past the gatekeepers and go read the presentations of Jeff Prager, Jim Fetzer, Nick Kollerstrom, Barbara Honegger and Chuck Boldwyn here on my blog. Go read Dr. Ed Ward’s blog. Read the Anonymous Physicist’s blog and the Finnish Military Expert. And while you’re at it watch 9/11 Eyewitness: