Clerk Update: This is an earlier version of what is not musings into Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices. The following article does not hold completely, but does provide a solid foundation of truth.
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
By: Señor El Once
Date: 2012-12-21
{This is Part 2 to "9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW" (2012-11-22).}
Please forgive me for this minor detour in topic from the recent "slaughter of lambkins" and how it represents a new thesis of the Helgian Dialectic, for which there will be an antithesis and final synthesis to lead the sheep astray. We can already see them going after guns and the internet.
I feel compelled to bring up a 9/11 topic mostly just to hedge my bets in case the world really does end on 2012-12-21 as per the Mayan Calendar. I will want to be able to stand before the Supreme Architect of the Universe and say that I sought to reveal (9/11) truth right up until the end.
When, as I expect, we wake up on 2012-12-22, this article about events from 2001-09-11 won't be totally out of place in the sense: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (George Santayana). Participants of this forum already speculate about heinous misdeeds to come, some of it with nuclear aspirations.
A keystone piece of "evidence" leading to Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" conclusions was that only miniscule amounts of tritium were measured. The source he sites is "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams.
The "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" demonstrates similar "bent scoping".
Moreover, tritium is diluted by water. In fact, we know from the document millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile along with several rainfall events, some heavy.
It makes perfect sense that tritium from consumer products (e.g., exit signs, weapons sights) would leach into the water as HTO (tritiated or heavy water), which is how tritium primarily occurs in the environment. However, readers must make assumptions (a) that such consumer products existed in sufficient quantity within the WTC, (b) that the diluting HTO pathways to the scant few measuring locations were as they were so neatly story-boarded, and (c) that the measurements are complete and accurate.
Regarding this last assumption, while the EPA limit for tritium in drinking water is 20 (nCi/L), the normal high background/standard level for tritium prior to 9/11 was 0.065 (nCi/L). Therefore, sample 1 [0.164 (nCi/L)] from the WTC storm sewer was 2.5 times greater than expected, while sample 37 [<0.21 (nCi/L)] from the grass in Brooklyn & Brooklyn Heights (2001-10-27) was 3.2 times greater than expected. Let's not forget the split water sample (2001-9-21) collected from the basement of WTC Building 6 that contained 2.83 and 3.53 (nCi/L), which are 43 and 54 times the expected levels, respectively.
As the conclusion progresses, it buries the fact that its mathematical modeling of the aircraft situation yielded an HTO deposition fraction that was too high in comparison with historical incidents involving fire and tritium, yet was still too small to account for the tritium measurements.
To fill the gap, they turn to the supposition that tritium RL sights on weapons could account for this, whereby their modeling suggests a minimum of 120 so-equipped weapons destroyed with leaking tritium. Alas, this number is not golden by itself, because many weapons were recovered with only minor damage. The study mentions "evidence that weapons belonging to federal and law-enforcement agencies were present and destroyed at the WTC," but does not provide an accurate reporting of how many total weapons needed to be accounted for, of what weapons were found, of their state of damage, or of where they were stored before the destruction.
The extent that measured tritium came from weapons (and watches) becomes a big unsubstantiated assumption, just like the assumptions into the nature of the aircraft.
The conclusion is a bit forced but perfectly in line with the bent scope of the study: "This indicates that the weapons/watches are consistent with the missing source, which would have complemented the airplane source."
The authors succeeded in conveying the message that -- whatever the true source -- the lingering tritium was at benign levels with respect to human health, if indeed reported measurements can be trusted and despite the limited number of samples chosen for the bent scope study.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/tritium.htm
As proven above, Dr. Jones based his "no nukes" paper on a deeply flawed government report that did spotty measurements of tritium at Ground Zero. The government study notes that they were "unable" to test at numerous places, especially deep underground where the high temperatures and molten steel were observed. Should have been a red flag.
Dr. Jones uses the incomplete tritium numbers from "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" and then frames the discussion as a large thermonuclear (fusion) bomb, and writes:
Dr. Jones at various times talks about using his Geiger Counter on dust samples that didn't measure any radiation. Of course not. (a) If there was significant radioactivity released, some such elements have short lives both in terms of time and distance. (b) A Geiger Counter is intended for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation that gives off neutron radiation that requires sophisticated equipment to measure.
Dr. Jones then goes on to challenge:
In other words, large releases of tritium probably did happen on 2001-09-11. Any conclusions that imply otherwise were based on measurements that were not taken systematically in a timely fashion and happened after much dilution in water (or dissipation in HT gas).
The battlefield application would ignite the neutron bomb at some elevation in the atmosphere. Human life is destroyed by neutrons over a certain area under the bomb. As the distance becomes longer between the spot where the bomb is detonated and the ground, the neutron flux also reduces. The blast typically would be confined to a radius of no more than a couple of hundred meters but a massive wave of penetrating neutron radiation would knock out tank crews, infantry and other personnel. Unlike thermonuclear fission weapons, the residual neutron radiation of fusion devices dissipates within hours. The neutron flux can induce significant amounts of short-lived secondary radioactivity in the environment in the high flux region near the burst point. The alloys used in steel armor can develop radioactivity that is dangerous for 24-48 hours.
However, when those same micro-nuke fusion bombs are configured as neutron bombs, the massive neutron radiation energy can be directed upwards, and the remaining blast and heat effects is decreased to a tactical level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design
Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe5.
John Maynard Keynes is credited with saying: "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"
// @ ~4,475 Words
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
By: Señor El Once
Date: 2012-12-21
{This is Part 2 to "9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW" (2012-11-22).}
Truth is a diamond that is surely pure
Truth's an antidote, the virus curer
Truth is the lock on the door - not the keys
Truth is the confession that brings you ease
Truth is the answer to the main question
Truth is the part you forget to mention
~Franklin Ryk 1998 (@ 12 yrs)
Please forgive me for this minor detour in topic from the recent "slaughter of lambkins" and how it represents a new thesis of the Helgian Dialectic, for which there will be an antithesis and final synthesis to lead the sheep astray. We can already see them going after guns and the internet.
I feel compelled to bring up a 9/11 topic mostly just to hedge my bets in case the world really does end on 2012-12-21 as per the Mayan Calendar. I will want to be able to stand before the Supreme Architect of the Universe and say that I sought to reveal (9/11) truth right up until the end.
When, as I expect, we wake up on 2012-12-22, this article about events from 2001-09-11 won't be totally out of place in the sense: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (George Santayana). Participants of this forum already speculate about heinous misdeeds to come, some of it with nuclear aspirations.
The Belief: 9/11 was not a Nuclear Event
Ask the average yeoman in the 9/11 Truth Movement (911TM) why 9/11 was supposedly ~not~ a nuclear event, their answer will undoubtedly reference the works of former BYU professor of (nuclear) physics, Dr. Steven Jones, such as: "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers".A keystone piece of "evidence" leading to Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" conclusions was that only miniscule amounts of tritium were measured. The source he sites is "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams.
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...For the sake of discussion, let's accept these measurements as being truthful. Being truthful in what is revealed is different than being complete. Indeed, what astute researchers will discover is that Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" conclusions are based on incomplete data. "Garbage-in, garbage-out" goes the computer expression.
Bent Scope
This is not to say that "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" is garbage per se, but it can be thought of as being a wormy apple out of which Dr. Jones tries to make lemonade. The worms are visible in the study's "bent scoping" that run very much parallel with the "bent scoping" of the NIST reports on the WTC tower destructions; those NIST reports were restricted to the cause of the "initiation" of the destruction and not any analysis of the pulverization at free-fall speeds in the immediate aftermath that their "(un-)scientific method" had them pre-concluding was airplane impacts, jet fuel fires, and gravity.The "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" demonstrates similar "bent scoping".
"We became interested in the subject of tritium at WTC because of the possibility that tritium RL devices could have been present and destroyed at WTC."In fact, just a few sentences away from the passage that Dr. Jones quotes from this study's abstract (also given above) relating to measured tritium is this:
"Tritium radio luminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that the two Boeing 767 aircraft that hit the Twin Towers contained a combined 34 Ci of tritium at the time of impact in their emergency exit signs. There is also evidence that many weapons from law enforcement were present and destroyed at WTC. Such weaponry contains by design tritium sights."Scientific sleight of hand. When the scope is limited to how tritium RL devices could potentially explain the 9/11 tritium measurements, the authors of the study did an admirable job. Kudos. However, because the authors weren't looking at nuclear weapons as being the destruction or tritium source, (a) they had no requirement or need to measure tritium directly at the lingering hot-spots or other critical places in a timely or more systematic fashion, and (b) nuclear weapons were beyond the scope of their explanation.
No Further Samples Needed?
Allow me to call attention in the follow passage to (a) the time delay in which some measurements were taken, (b) the limited number of samples, and (c) the assumption from those samples that no further samples were needed.Sample 1, measuring 0.164±0.74 nCi/L, is from the WTC sewer, collected three days after the attack, and is just above the detection limit. Samples 6 and 7 of about 3 nCi/L are split samples from WTC 6, basement B5, collected 10 days after the attack. Thus, tritium was detected in these samples from ground zero, but the concentrations are very low. In fact, 3 nCi/L is about 7 times less than the EPA limit in drinking water of 20 nCi/L (17). No health implications are known or expected at such low concentrations (13). As a consequence, no additional ground-zero samples were judged to be necessary.The testing decisions were probably valid for the bent scope of attributing the tritium to RL devices, but they cause problems when this study is re-purposed by Dr. Jones to bolster no-nuke conclusions. Timely and systematic measurements for debunking nuclear causes should have included samples from areas closer to hot-spots.
Moreover, tritium is diluted by water. In fact, we know from the document millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile along with several rainfall events, some heavy.
It makes perfect sense that tritium from consumer products (e.g., exit signs, weapons sights) would leach into the water as HTO (tritiated or heavy water), which is how tritium primarily occurs in the environment. However, readers must make assumptions (a) that such consumer products existed in sufficient quantity within the WTC, (b) that the diluting HTO pathways to the scant few measuring locations were as they were so neatly story-boarded, and (c) that the measurements are complete and accurate.
Regarding this last assumption, while the EPA limit for tritium in drinking water is 20 (nCi/L), the normal high background/standard level for tritium prior to 9/11 was 0.065 (nCi/L). Therefore, sample 1 [0.164 (nCi/L)] from the WTC storm sewer was 2.5 times greater than expected, while sample 37 [<0.21 (nCi/L)] from the grass in Brooklyn & Brooklyn Heights (2001-10-27) was 3.2 times greater than expected. Let's not forget the split water sample (2001-9-21) collected from the basement of WTC Building 6 that contained 2.83 and 3.53 (nCi/L), which are 43 and 54 times the expected levels, respectively.
Transported with the Fire Plume
Indeed, the grass in Brooklyn & Brooklyn Heights (2001-10-27) had tritium measurements 3.2 times greater than expected.There was also a possibility that some HTO would have been transported with the fire plume during the first several days after the attack and deposited downwind.A tritium by-product is not be just HTO but also HT, which is similar to hydrogen gas. Ignoring for a moment the assumption from the passage that the tritium source was consumer products being destroyed by the fire plume at ground zero, neutron nuclear devices could be the source of the fire plume plus HTO as well as HT gas, which would not be measured for a bent scope that assumed only consumer products as a tritium source.
Several sources of tritium were considered and analyzed, as consistent with the experimental data: i) EXIT signs in the buildings, ii) emergency signs on the airplanes, iii) fire and emergency equipment, iv) weaponry, and v) timepieces.
Faults in the Conclusion
Here are some interesting aspects from the study's conclusions highlighted:34 Ci of tritium were released from the emergency tritium RL signs onboard the two Boeing 767s, on impact with the Twin Towers at the WTC. The measurements and modeling are consistent with a prompt creation of HTO in the jet-fuel explosion and fire, deposition of a small fraction of HTO at ground zero, and water-flow controlled removal from the site. The modeling implies that the contribution from the aircraft alone would yield the HTO deposition fraction of 2.5%. This value is too high by a comparison with other incidents involving fire and tritium. Therefore, the source term from the airplanes alone is too small to explain the measured concentrations, and another missing source is needed. ... The exact activity of tritium from the weapons was not determined. The data and modeling are consistent with the tritium source from the weapon sights (plus possibly tritium watches) in the debris, from which tritium was slowly released in the lingering fires, followed by an oxidation and removal with the water flow. Our modeling suggests that such a scenario would require a minimum of 120 equipped weapons destroyed and a quantitative capturing of tritium, which is too high, since many weapons were found with only minor damage and tritium sights are shielded in a metal. Therefore, such a mechanism alone is not sufficient to account for the measured HTO concentrations. This indicates that the weapons/watches are consistent with the missing source, which would have complemented the airplane source.I will re-phrase this conclusion, but beforehand, readers should note that the speed and precision of both aircraft as well as the damage inflicted that was caught on video suggest from physics that they were not commercial aircraft. Therefore, when this study concludes with bold statements about the amount of tritium attributed to "emergency tritium RL signs" in 767's, it is starting from weak assumptions about the nature of the aircraft and what they would contain. (Pilot-less aircraft being used missiles don't need cockpits, seats, or exit signs, among other things.)
As the conclusion progresses, it buries the fact that its mathematical modeling of the aircraft situation yielded an HTO deposition fraction that was too high in comparison with historical incidents involving fire and tritium, yet was still too small to account for the tritium measurements.
To fill the gap, they turn to the supposition that tritium RL sights on weapons could account for this, whereby their modeling suggests a minimum of 120 so-equipped weapons destroyed with leaking tritium. Alas, this number is not golden by itself, because many weapons were recovered with only minor damage. The study mentions "evidence that weapons belonging to federal and law-enforcement agencies were present and destroyed at the WTC," but does not provide an accurate reporting of how many total weapons needed to be accounted for, of what weapons were found, of their state of damage, or of where they were stored before the destruction.
The extent that measured tritium came from weapons (and watches) becomes a big unsubstantiated assumption, just like the assumptions into the nature of the aircraft.
The conclusion is a bit forced but perfectly in line with the bent scope of the study: "This indicates that the weapons/watches are consistent with the missing source, which would have complemented the airplane source."
The authors succeeded in conveying the message that -- whatever the true source -- the lingering tritium was at benign levels with respect to human health, if indeed reported measurements can be trusted and despite the limited number of samples chosen for the bent scope study.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/tritium.htm
The radioactive decay product of tritium is a low energy beta that cannot penetrate the outer dead layer of human skin. Therefore, the main hazard associated with tritium is internal exposure from inhalation or ingestion. In addition, due to the relatively long half life and short biological half life, an intake of tritium must be in large amounts to pose a significant health risk.
Miniscule
Debunkers try to explain WTC tritium away as miniscule, insignificant, and with negligent health impacts. With respect to where and how it was measured for the goals of their report to speculate about consumer RL devices, this does not have to be false. But with regards to the significance of even a miniscule amount being larger than expected, it does not have to be the complete story on 9/11 tritium, either.No warranty, liability, or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information...
Before we end a review of the study, let's highlight its wonderful disclaimer:This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the University of California nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. ... This work was performed under the auspices of the United States Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.
Dr. Jones spinning it further
Now let us return to Dr. Jones' report, "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers".As proven above, Dr. Jones based his "no nukes" paper on a deeply flawed government report that did spotty measurements of tritium at Ground Zero. The government study notes that they were "unable" to test at numerous places, especially deep underground where the high temperatures and molten steel were observed. Should have been a red flag.
Dr. Jones uses the incomplete tritium numbers from "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" and then frames the discussion as a large thermonuclear (fusion) bomb, and writes:
Many millions of curies of tritium are present in even a small thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb. (Note that tritium can be generated during the blast from the reaction of neutrons on lithium deuteride.) Yet the observed tritium levels at GZ were in the billionth of a curie range.Assuming we can trust the measurements given in that report [a big assumption], it re-defines "trace" or "background" levels of tritium to be 55 times greater than it was prior to 9/11 in order to downplay any adverse health effects. Dr. Jones in his paper accepts this report unchallenged, re-iterates "trace" as the re-defined level, supports the contention of its negligent health effects, and then introduces a blatant logic error best summarized as follows:
"Nuclear weapons of type X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures of A, B, and C. Radiation signature D was measured. Thus, the cause of the WTC destruction was not nuclear weapons of X, Y, or Z nor any other nuclear device."Other than airplane exit signs and police gun sights, Dr. Jones does not speculate much into the radiation signature D (tritium), which is a signature of a fusion device.
Dr. Jones at various times talks about using his Geiger Counter on dust samples that didn't measure any radiation. Of course not. (a) If there was significant radioactivity released, some such elements have short lives both in terms of time and distance. (b) A Geiger Counter is intended for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation that gives off neutron radiation that requires sophisticated equipment to measure.
Dr. Jones then goes on to challenge:
Can proponents of the WTC-mini-nuke hypothesis explain how large releases of tritium did NOT happen on 9/11/2001?This question is malframed in many ways: the nature of the device, how the energy and radiation were directed (e.g., upwards), and that large releases of tritium did not happen.
In other words, large releases of tritium probably did happen on 2001-09-11. Any conclusions that imply otherwise were based on measurements that were not taken systematically in a timely fashion and happened after much dilution in water (or dissipation in HT gas).
Brief Detour into Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear weapons differ in how much heat, blast, light, pressure and radiation they produce. By altering the physical structure of the device and the proportion of its explosive components, different effects can be achieved. Let's take a brief detour into nuclear weapons, because 9/11 misconceptions are purposely created by mixing concepts of one with another to supposedly debunk that 9/11 was nuclear.Fission Nuclear Weapons
9/11 did not employ conventional thermonuclear weapons based on the fission process, "in which isotopes of uranium or plutonium are compressed into a "critical mass or fissile core) and then split by heavy, sub-atomic particles called neutrons. The energized neutrons reproduce themselves in an explosive chain reaction. Each fission neutron reaction releases an average of three neutrons, yet these account for only a minimal proportion of the weapon's total energy output. By far the largest share is transmitted through the thermal heat and blast of recoiling fragments of radioactive uranium and plutonium atoms, which comprise most of the weapon's fall-out." [Source for quotations.] It is an uncontrolled chain reaction and thus a fraction of fissile material is fissioned. Fission products that are produced along with enormous amount of energy, disperse in the environment.Fusion Nuclear Weapons
9/11 did not employ conventional thermonuclear based on the standard fusion process, in which the isotopes of the lightest element, hydrogen, namely deuterium and tritium, are combined into a slightly heavier atoms of helium through a reaction that is "triggered" by the tremendous temperatures (between 10-100 million degrees) and pressures generated by a fission explosion. At the instant of detonation, fusion weapons release about 5% of their energy in the form of prompt radiation, and the rest is dispersed in the thermal pulse and blast effects. A standard thermonuclear device will destroy buildings in a vast shockwave of heat and pressure. In addition to fission products we also have neutron-induced radioisotopes that are also dispersed along with enormous amount of energy in the environment.Battlefield Neutron Weapons
9/11 did not employ a neutron weapon as intended for the battlefield. A neutron weapon is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon in which the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally not absorbed inside the weapon, but allowed to escape. A neutron bomb requires considerable amounts of tritium. It releases 80% of its energy in the prompt radiation (lethal to living tissue high-energy neutrons and gamma rays) while blast effects are kept to a very low level. Some neutrons do react with other material and produce radioisotopes. The fission bomb is kept as small as one can assemble and the amount of tritium and deuterium is kept large. Once the fission bomb raises the temperature so as to initiate tritium-deuterium (D-T) reaction, the fusion energy evolved in the D-T reaction keeps the temperature high for a longer duration and thus keeps the reaction going for relatively a longer time. 14.6-MeV neutrons shoot out in all direction, but can be deflected to some extent. The ones that are directed toward the sky do not harm humans or cause property damage.The battlefield application would ignite the neutron bomb at some elevation in the atmosphere. Human life is destroyed by neutrons over a certain area under the bomb. As the distance becomes longer between the spot where the bomb is detonated and the ground, the neutron flux also reduces. The blast typically would be confined to a radius of no more than a couple of hundred meters but a massive wave of penetrating neutron radiation would knock out tank crews, infantry and other personnel. Unlike thermonuclear fission weapons, the residual neutron radiation of fusion devices dissipates within hours. The neutron flux can induce significant amounts of short-lived secondary radioactivity in the environment in the high flux region near the burst point. The alloys used in steel armor can develop radioactivity that is dangerous for 24-48 hours.
Tactical Neutron Weapons
9/11 changed the application of the fusion-based neutron weapons. Fusion nuclear weapons of tactical yield are hard to design and implement, with the probability of "nuclear fizzle" increasing as the explosive yield decreases. As the debunkers readily point out, even the smallest known conventional fusion bombs would be too energetic for the tactical destruction of 9/11.However, when those same micro-nuke fusion bombs are configured as neutron bombs, the massive neutron radiation energy can be directed upwards, and the remaining blast and heat effects is decreased to a tactical level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design
Officially known as enhanced radiation weapons, ERWs are more accurately described as suppressed yield weapons. When the yield of a nuclear weapon is less than one kiloton, its lethal radius from blast, 700 m (2300 ft), is less than that from its neutron radiation. However, the blast is more than potent enough to destroy most structures, which are less resistant to blast effects than even unprotected human beings. Blast pressures of upwards of 20 PSI are survivable, whereas most buildings will collapse with a pressure of only 5 PSI.
High Temperatures during the Destruction
Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction bySteven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe5.
The temperatures required for the observed spherule-formation and evaporation of materials observed in the WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures reachable by the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings. The temperatures required to melt iron (1,538 °C) and molybdenum (2,623 °C), and to vaporize lead (1,740 °C) and aluminosilicates (~2,760°C), are completely out of reach of the fires in the WTC buildings (maximum 1,100 °C).A neutron nuclear bomb could do this.
...
The formation of numerous metal-rich spherules is also remarkable, for it implies formation of high-temperature droplets of the molten metals, dispersed in the air where they cool to form spherules.
We observe spherules with high iron and aluminum contents, a chemical signature which is not consistent with formation from melted steel.
...
The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings.
Under-Rubble Hot-Spots
"Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials" by Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones:For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero (GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts.
- Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC
buildings.
- Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile.
- Several rainfall events occurred at GZ, some heavy; and
- A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles (Lipton and Revkin 2001).
What the Dust Reveals
From Jeff Prager's work. The contents of dozens of dust samples acquired by the US Geological Survey: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 in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes.
Dispelling the Error in the Belief: 9/11 was a Nuclear Event
From Veteran's Today:To sum up the WTC1 and 2 operation: a series of shape charged mini-neutron bombs are detonated from the top of the buildings to the bottom to simulate a free fall collapse. Material is ejected upward and outward due to the shaping of the mini-nuke charges. Two giant 110 floor 500,000 ton skyscrapers are destroyed in 9 and 11 seconds respectively. Cement and steel are turned into very small particles while paper blows down the street.My beliefs regarding the causes of 9/11 destruction have morphed "all over the place" over time, as is fitting for how nuggets of truth reveal themselves in the 9/11 dis- and mis- information streams [which this very article is probably one.] This duped useful idiot apologizes in advance for any potential misleading. 9/11 neutron nuclear DEW changes the information and provides a new frame that is not yet fixed.
Why didn't the paper catch on fire? First it's hard to light a piece of paper on fire in a wind tunnel. Second the paper's high tensile strength to weight ratio allowed the lightweight paper to blow away in the blast wave while the heavier material was vaporized. Paper has give to it.
...
Why was there no flash? When small bombs are detonated inside of giant skyscrapers the flash is hidden from view.
When it's over, nuclear fissile material is leftover and it reacts for months creating 1,500 °F ground temperatures (China Syndrome).
Hundreds of dump trucks of dirt are required to be hauled in and out to clean up the mess.
The USGS collects dust samples that show elevated levels of uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium and chromium which indicates fission has taken place.
The DOE collects water samples that have elevated levels of tritium, which indicates fusion has taken place.
So a fission triggered fusion bomb such as a neutron bomb would explain the USGS and DOE samples quite nicely. So we have a text book case of nukes being used but the manner they were deployed in is so far from what the average person suspects that it takes years for the mini-nuke theory to gain prominence.
John Maynard Keynes is credited with saying: "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"
// @ ~4,475 Words
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
No comments:
Post a Comment