Posted by: Señor El Once | November 22, 2012

9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW

9/11 Tetris

In the game of 9/11 Tetris, the pieces of evidence come down at weird intervals and angles and must be oriented into a “theory stack” that leaves the fewest and smallest gaps. A given piece of evidence might fit equally well in multiple theory stacks. However, all of the valid evidence must be accounted for in a reasonable manner. And to make the game more challenging, disinformation is part of the mix. A piece of evidence coming from a disinformation source is not invalidate by this association. With regards to 9/11 and the shock-&-awe global agenda that 9/11 put into effect, one could argue that all sources of information are in some ways disinformation. Remember that in order to be credible and hence successful, all disinformation must have copious amounts of truth. Owing to this and that some truths are inconvenient to the agenda, some disinformation is fashioned as a straw-man, such that when the deceit of the disinformation vehicle is discovered or purposely exposed, all “Nuggets of Truth” contained therein might be knocked from the table in the hopes of no further public consideration.

When contemplating the WTC destruction, I champion today neutron nuclear directed energy weapons (DEW), which Mr. HybridRogue1 has assisted in crafting the label “neu nookiedoo”. The sources for my bastard beliefs are:

(1) Dr. Judy Wood’s 2010 textbook, “Where Did The Towers Go?” and her website. Yes, it has disinformation, but it also has the best collection of pictorial evidence and nuggets of truth that need to be addressed by any 9/11 theory-du-jour.

(2) Mr. Jeff Prager’s presentation, Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB]. Also his two part eMagazine of a few hundred pages Part 1 [86MB] and Part 2 [56MB]. Disinformation probably exists here, too.

(3) The omissions, misdirections, and logic errors of Dr. Steven Jones starting with his paper “Hard Evidence Rebudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes were used on the WTC Towers” and extending into his research into nano-thermite.

Allow me to start with #3, because this represents heresy for the orthodox 9/11 Truth Movement (9/11TM) that will be hard to get passed. Try.

Logic Error

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.

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.

Nano-Thermite in the Dust

Dr. Jones discovers in the dust energetic particles of nano-thermite. Nano-thermite reacts with steel from which it obtains its oxygen to burn, leaving iron spheres as a by-product. This has two problems in accounting for the WTC destruction. (1) Nano-thermite by itself does not have the brissance to account for the observed pulverization and speed of the towers’ decimation. So Dr. Jones speculates how something more energetic was in the mix. Thereby he exasperates the second problem, which is (2) the amount of unspent thermitic materials (possibly combined with other energetic chemical materials) leftover in the pile and that would be required to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. High School math & chemistry easily calculate the quantities to be massive, with amounts increasing as a function of the materials’ brissance. [Add to this massive amount the initial massive quantities required for pulverization, and “that dog don’t hunt” for Occam Razor.]

Hot-Spots at Ground Zero

When Dr. Jones explores the topic of under-rubble hot-spots in his energetic materials paper with Kevin Ryan, they speculate into the cause of six energetic spikes as being attributable to nano-thermite (NT), but not into what maintained those high temperatures between the spikes. In late September (2012), Dr. Jones writes: “Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).”

Neutron nuclear DEW suggests (ala the Anonymous Physicist) fratricide between some of the multiple ERW devices, such that several of them did not reach their full nuclear neutron-emission yield and were left fizzling in the pile.

Elements in the Dust

Let us return to the dust from which the NT was found to see what other elements it contained, which Dr. Jones, A&E9/11 Truth, and the govt should have done. The following is based on Mr. Prager’s conclusion from Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB], but is modified for this venue.

The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance.

The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. The USGS report shows that these quantities vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission.

The USGS report shows Barium and Strontium present and 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 presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship and to other radionucleide daughter products.

The dust samples provide an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device. Nuclear weapon scientists, such as Dr. Jones, should have seized this data to analyze it and determine exactly what type of device produced it.

Dr. Wood’s Collected Evidence

Let us now introduce the work of Dr. Wood. It is the evidence and not necessarily her analysis that is important.

If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don’t know what happened, keep listening to the evidence until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you.
~ crafty Dr. Judy Wood

Disclaimer: Areas of disinformation in Dr. Wood’s work probably include her downplaying of hot-spots, the Hutchison Effect, and free-energy from space. Rather blatantly, she doesn’t consider nuclear forms of energy to power her DEW devices. Other than this, it has many nuggets of truth for thinking individuals to contemplate.

The evidence of 9/11 nuclear hijinx is on display in those pages, right on down to the anomalous vehicle damage along West Broadway and in the parking lot across the intersection.

Vehicle Damage

The pattern of vehicle fires was not chaotic. The vehicles affected were line-of-sight and some at quite some distance. It didn’t affect shaded vehicles or those around corners, or lots of more easily combustible things, like flags, paper, leaves, trees, or people. The pattern to the burns on vehicles is notable, and just as important is the pattern of what combustible things were not torched.

Consider why cars were seemingly targeted; they contain sheet metal. Depending on magnitude, duration, & distance, electromagnetic energy can induce Eddy currents in metal, heating up the metal, causing its paint to burn, and torching rubber & plastic things affixed, touching, or adjacent to such. [Thereafter, the rest of the vehicle may or may not burn depending on other factors. Once one vehicle has flames, this can become the source for neighboring vehicles starting to burn.] Not all line-of-sight vehicles were affected, because the culprit electromagnetic energy “slipped out.” Lots of shielding agents including the intact outer shell, intact lower floors, falling steel debris, and neighboring buildings would reduce the angle of incidence and intensity.

As alternative 9/11 Tretris theory stack, “hot and spicy thermitic particulates blown from the disintegrating towers” has been brought up many times. Unfortunately, this pyroclastic cloud had a considerable distance — a cooling one at that — to locate the sheet-metal on vehicles along West Broadway and in the car park. Moreover, this pyroclastic cloud easily went around corners and into places much closer with more easily combustible materials, like neighboring buildings, without causing the expected fires, if the cloud had been so “hot and spicy.”

Horseshoe Beams

Changing the focus from the emitted cloud to the internal destructive machinations, here is a picture of a core column that was bent into a horseshoe.
Column bent into horseshoe
When heating a localized area of a large piece of metal, the caveat is that metal can be great conductors of heat. The ramifications are that more intense heat (and/or time) are required to get a localized area of a large piece of metal heated to the point where it can be easily bent. Given that time was in very short supply during the towers’ decimation when this “lucky horseshoe” would have been created, the extrapolation is that the heat source was massive and probably well beyond the abilities of chemical explosive materials.

When science literate people study this and try to place this evidence on the 9/11 Tetris theory stack for chemical incendiaries or explosives, they should be left with questions (or gaps) that can’t be easily answered.

– Why was this core column not cut there?

– How close was this core column to the neighboring core column that would have been rigged with such incendiary or explosive?

– How much higher temperature does the incendiary or explosive have to burn to not only do its job on the target column but to also span the distance to a neighboring column and to heat a localized area to allow bending into a horseshoe?

– How quickly could this incendiary or explosive on a core column heat a localized portion of a neighboring column to the bending point? [While Dr. Jones and Mr. Jon Cole have done experiments with thermite to show how quickly in human terms (many seconds) it accomplishes its task, the nature of the anomaly within the towers destruction suggests that it would have had to have happened several orders of magnitude faster (milliseconds or less.)]

Now let’s discuss bent pieces of metal compliments of Dr. Judy Wood:

Steel Beam Bent Like a Horseshoe
Multiple pieces bent
more 9/11 horseshoes
multiple pieces bent

The images above suggest that they were heated end-to-end (as if in a furnace) in order to achieve the smooth arcing of those massive beams. The gap created by this in the 9/11 Tretris stack for an incendiary or explosive is that such would be applied (e.g., affixed to a column) in a localized fashion. While fast & hot and designed to cut or tear where they were mounted, such “conventional” mechanisms come up short in explaining these smooth end-to-end bends. The arched beam evidence suggest a massive heat source several orders of magnitude hotter than conventional or exotic chemical mechanisms that would (a) fully heat the metal beams end-to-end (b) in a very short period of time.

The following images imply proximity to a destructive mechanism in a completely different ballpark than a conventional incendiary or explosive.

twisted beam 3
twisted beam 2

twisted beams
twisted beams 2

In the following images, note the wall assemblies that are rolled up like “steel doobies”. Note also how the interior and exterior sides of these wall assemblies are “steam cleaned”, meaning they have no paint or other things attached to them.

twisted beam 1 and rolled up carpet
Fields on the rolled up spandrels
The Steel Doobies
steel doobie 1
field effects to get a steel doobie
more steel doobies

A conventional incendiary or explosive cannot explain how the spandrels that connected the three beams in a wall assembly (a) could be heated so completely or (b) could wrap themselves up into such a tight “steel joint.” The direction of energy forces to achieve is also most curious. Yep, the towers were smoked by something: “neu nookiedoo.”

Finally, we have the meteorite, which is noteworthy for how it fuses together various materials. What sort of heat source created this?

Nuclear Neutron Devices

A “standard” nuclear weapon typically has a heat wave, a blast wave, an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and radiation. All of these are features that can be tweaked or mitigated in the implementation (e.g., EMP inside a steel box). To be sure, a neutron weapon is designed with the trade-off of sacrificing much of its heat wave and blast wave in order to release neutron radiation in a targeted fashion.

Neutron nuclear DEW extrapolates from Davey Crocket (1960) and its small tactical size. It extrapolates from Big Ivan (1961) that was directed upwards and had small and quickly dissipated amounts of lingering radiation. It extrapolates from Project Excalibur and X-Ray Laser that were research projects of Star Wars in the 1980’s. It extrapolates from a neutron bomb or enhanced radiation weapon (ERW), that is a type of thermonuclear weapon designed specifically to release a large portion of its energy as energetic neutron radiation (fast neutrons) rather than explosive energy.

According to Mr. Prager’s two part eMagazine Part 1 [86MB] and Part 2 [56MB]:

1. Big Ivan left little radiation (reducing radioactive output by 97% in 1961). Forty years of technological advances could have easily produced a bomb with very, very little and very, very short-lived radioactive elements.

2. Big Ivan produced not alpha, not beta and not gamma radiation but neutron radiation which is measured differently and requires sophisticated measuring equipment to detect. A Geiger Counter will not produce results with a Deuterium-Tritium detonation.

3. Using ‘Big Ivan’ technology including advances made during 40 years of diligent study, it’s not hard to imagine a micronuclear device the size of an apple. The demolition effect would then be scaled down to what we actually saw on 9/11. Two 1000+ foot structural steel towers destroyed with the majority of the elements turned to dust; micron sized “very small particles” that can only be formed by a fusion device, a fission device or a fusion/fission device.

The multiple tactical ERW weapons of 9/11 each were small DIRECTED energy weapons that were aimed where they wanted the energy: up. This can be observed in the “fountain” effects of the debris mid-way through the towers’ pulverization. [Some of the damage to neighboring buildings and vehicles could be attributed to ERW becoming misaligned in the destruction.] From Wikipeia’s neutron bomb:

A neutron bomb is a fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components. The weapon’s X-ray mirrors and radiation case, made of uranium or lead in a standard bomb, are instead made of chromium or nickel so that the neutrons can escape. The bombs also require amounts of tritium on the order of a few tens of grams.

The “usual” nuclear weapon yield-expressed as kT TNT equivalent-is not a measure of a neutron weapon’s destructive power. It refers only to the energy released (mostly heat and blast), and does not express the lethal effect of neutron radiation on living organisms. … In a fission bomb, the radiation pulse energy is approximately 5% of the entire energy released; in the neutron bomb it would be closer to 50%. A neutron bomb releases a much greater number of neutrons than a fission bomb of the same explosive yield. Furthermore, these neutrons are of much higher energy (14 MeV) than those released during a fission reaction (1-2 MeV).

Recall that chromium and nickel were measured in significant quantities by the USGS in the dust, and correlate very well to such 9/11 neutron devices.

Buildings and Embrittlement

In addition, consider the Banker’s Trust Building across from the WTC. It had facade damage from the decimated towers, which they repaired after 9/11. But before the building could be occupied, they decided to tear it down. Why? Embrittlement, perhaps?

Embrittlement is a loss of ductility of a material, making it brittle. Various materials have different mechanisms of embrittlement. … Metal-induced embrittlement (MIE) is the embrittlement caused by diffusion of atoms of metal, either solid or liquid, into the material. Neutron radiation causes embrittlement of some materials, neutron-induced swelling, and buildup of Wigner energy.

Is neutron radiation exposure always detrimental to metals (steels)?

We talk about radiation damage and environmental degradation of metals following radiation exposure. Indeed, there have been numerous conferences and symposia held and planned on this subject, which include research work and discussions with the central theme being the damage created in materials by neutron radiation exposure. Radiation embrittlement in metals is believed to be due mainly to (1) changes in flow properties because of the interaction of dislocations with irradiation-produced defects, and (2) precipitation of transmutation-produced gases and irradiation-induced segregation at grain boundaries which are potential fracture sites.

In other words, the Banker’s Trust Building may have been torn down, because close inspection of the supporting steel may have discovered such “fracture sites” due to embrittlement by the neutron weapons used to destroy the WTC. Brittle supporting columns in a skyscraper are undesirable for their inability to flex without failure to wind loads. The building was hence probably deemed unsafe and demolished accordingly.

The Theory Stack with the Fewest Gaps

In the game of 9/11 Tetris, “Nuggets of Truth” must be actively mined, re-fined, and re-purposed from (dis)information sources, because often they are the only source of information. The “theory stack” that supposes only chemical & exotic means for pulverizing the towers comes up short and has glaring gaps out of which tritium stares and astronomical quantities of unspent explosive materials spill. The “theory stack” for “neu nookiedoo” orients the evidence with fewer and tighter gaps that can even explain concerted efforts to prevent the public from discovering that 9/11 was nuclear.

Evidence of “nuclear anything” has about the same PR stigma as a “toxic waste dump”: nobody wants it in their backyard, their playground, their place of employment, or their commerce centers. Want to see a portion of NY city shrivel up & die as inhabitents and workers make their exits to greener, non-toxic pastures? Then let it slip out that “nuclear something” was involved. Even though the spectrum of “nuclear somethings” is very wide with respect to radiation signatures, their duration, and their impacts on human health, misconceptions will still run wild in the public sphere. The “Field of Dreams” message to Silverstein paraphrased: “If you re-build it, ain’t nobody gonna come.”

// @ 3,195 Words; “Hey Wookie, Lookie! Kookie Neu Nookiedoo”


{Part 2 to this is now available: “9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)


  1. The above posting sat in the moderator’s pending queue since 11/19, although I did try several times to get it pushed through. Finally settings were change and my reasoned argument could be presented.

    Mr. Rogue ain’t gonna like it firstly because it came from me. But secondly he’ll have issue with it because the nuclear 9/11 Tetris Stack has fewer gaps than where he wants to park research of the WTC destruction.

    You see, he’s building up a case through his series of recent postings against lots of “wild” 9/11 theories, including “neu nookiedoo.” Mostly, I support him in this endeavor, except that he has a penchance for not mining disinformation sources for nuggets of truth before dismissing them.

    At any rate, let this article provide structure for Mr. Rogue’s efforts and even be a target for criticism. I have no problems being convinced through properly applied science to the evidence of other beliefs.

    The following was mostly published and then DELETED from the comment section under one of Mr. Rogue’s articles.


    Through my subscriptions, I’ve observed a vast array of topics posted on COTO that hint at much deeper causes, motives, and players to what is happening in the world, postings that run parallel to where my own research has taken me … some of it I’m duped by, but most of it I’m still objectively reviewing with an open-mind.

    Well, if any of that is given any credit as being valid with respect to the players and the nookies-and-cranies of all the arsenals of the world, then it seems rather contradictory that exotic mechanisms get taken off the table so quickly with regards to 9/11. That was a showcase event with redundancies to their redundancies, but with shock-&-awe, baby, being first and foremost. They did not care WTF it looked like, because they were going to PR tell the masses what they wanted the masses to believe.

    If you are asking “why would they use exotic neu nookiedoo?”, you are asking the wrong question without the perspective of the combined wisdom of those who post here. You should be asking: “why would they NOT use exotic neu nookiedoo?” And the answer is moot, because they did.

    I’ll give you that when DEW is first taken through the lens of Dr. Wood or the frames of Dr. Jones, the picture gets skewed and is ripe for debunking.

    The fact of the matter is neutron bombs are not that exotic except that we THINK they have never been deployed and few have any concept of what their destruction and aftermath would look like.

    Mr. Rogue gives his PR hypnotic assertions of there being “no record of any radiation in the WTC aftermath evidence.” First of all, the tritium report proves this wrong, as does the dog-and-pony-show by Dr. Jones; neither would have been necessary if anomalous readings were detected.

    Secondly, Mr. Rogue quotes Lioy – WTC Dust Study:
    “We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.”

    Background levels was precisely what they re-defined in the tritium paper, and we don’t know what juking was done with the numbers before hand to achieve that trace mark, 55 times greater than it was prior to 9/11. Ergo, it is significant when they say “Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level.” The real point is that for the causes the govt attributes to the WTC tower destruction, nothing elevated to twice background level should have existed at all.

    Thirdly, if we give any credit to WHO the players were, of course there would be no PUBLIC record of radiation. Look at how those same players shut down NYC fire investigators. Look how they got the EPA and NIST to lie. Look at how media toed the line and beat the drums of war.

    Fourthly, radiation comes in different types whose longevity and measurability depends on many factors including design of nuclear device, implementation, and distance from source.

    But yeah, I’ll let Mr. Rogue raise doubts, so let’s just set the “record of radiation” aside. What other factors suggest that 9/11 was nuclear? How about:

    – the FRIGGING energy requirements of pulverization?

    – the speed and thoroughness of the destruction?

    – the unquenchable under-rubble hot-spots that burned for many weeks?

    – the first responder ailments?

    – the analysis of the dust measured by USGS that shows *CORRELATED* quantities of certain elements in a pattern matching nuclear involvement?

    – the arched and horeshoe steel beams?

    Mr. Rogue accuses me of circular argumentation “if we assume this, and assume that, and assume this other thing…”

    The above doesn’t assume anything.

    This is just a partial list, and Mr. Rogue has valiently tried to address many of them as coming from non-nuclear sources, but not without tilt and lean. (WTF? How come Mr. Rogue won’t let me build my 9/11 Tetris stack in peace?)

    Here’s an example analogy. A house gets creamed and investigators ask whether baking went on. Mr. Rogue suggests that we would expect to measure in the dust of the kitchen flour, baking soda, and eggs, because they were stored in respective cabinets there, so nothing anomalous: no baking. On the other hand, I say that the flour, baking soda, and eggs were measured in *CORRELATED* quantities in many different corners of the decimated kitchen. *CORRELATED* quantities can only happen if baking (into bread) happened.

    The baking on 9/11 was of a nuclear nature, which correlations in the USGS dust (by Jeff Prager) proves, if those of us with a bent for seeing the obvious didn’t already deduce such from the energy requirements.


  2. Mr. Rogue writes on November 30, 2012 at 6:53 pm many things. I admire his promise:

    “I will leave Maxipad to his Gameboy rhetorical antics.”

    … which is then followed by about 15 postings (by the time of this writing) that demonstrate him hypocritically doing just that. Certainly, much of it is worthy of commentary. For lack of time, I will address some stray nuggets that Mr. Rogue mentions.

    “We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.”
    ~Lioy – WTC Dust Study

    If we can trust the reported measurements as well as the very definitions of “background levels” [which the tritium report re-defined], then this quote is good news, because it means that the nuclear weapon was not “dirty.”

    The two things to take into consideration are that it remains anomalous for both the official government story and the conventional chemical explosives, and that this does not rule out neutron weapons.

    The government’s official story suggests upper-story piles driven by gravity caused the WTC towers’ decimation. Thus, “beta activity being slightly elevated” is something that should not be there. Likewise, chemical explosives and incendiaries are not known for releasing radiation, so even “slightly elevated beta activity” should not be left around as a signature if they were the only cause of destruction. Also, neither should have elevated the levels of tritium.

    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. [Source for quotations.]

    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.” 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    RDS-220 [or Big Ivan (1961)] was the largest nuclear weapon ever constructed or detonated. This three stage weapon was actually a 100 megaton bomb design, but the uranium fusion stage tamper of the tertiary (and possibly the secondary) stage(s) was replaced by one(s) made of lead. This reduced the yield by 50% by eliminating the fast fissioning of the uranium tamper by the fusion neutrons, and eliminated 97% of the fallout (1.5 megatons of fission, instead of about 51.5 Mt), yet still proved the full yield design. The result was the “cleanest” weapon ever tested with 97% of the energy coming from fusion reactions.

    In terms of physical destructiveness, much of its high yield was inefficiently radiated upwards into space.

    Returning to our discussion

    Mr. Rogue supplies a quote from Dr. Jones:

    The implications of the discovery of unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust are staggering. There is no conceivable reason for there to have been tons of high explosives in the Towers except to demolish them, and demolition is blatantly incompatible with the official 9/11 narrative that the skyscrapers collapsed as a result of the jetliner impacts and fires.

    I can embrace the quoted passage from Dr. Jones in its entirety as being valid. The issue is that the “unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust” is being hyped as not just the primary destructive mechanism but the sole one as well. Do the math and run the number (or have Dr. Jones do it.)

    What does Dr. Jones have to say on the matter? He and Mr. Ryan suspect that the “unspent aluminothermic explosives” account for six or so spikes in the gaseous output of the smoldering WTC pile. But at the end of September (2012), Dr. Jones was saying “Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT).” Mr. Rogue should enlighten us exactly what was that “something” that “maintained those high temperatures.”

    Mr. Rogue aims the phrase “disfigured interpretation of the data” at me, yet his half dozen responses to my COTO posting demonstrates in his words this more readily.

    Here’s a great example. I provided a picture of a core column that was bent into a horseshoe. Mr. Rogue writes:

    “If this was heated by radioactive blast it would still be radioactive.”

    Not true. Yes, 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 key phrase is “short-lived.” So, no, the horseshoe would not still be radioactive today.

    The horseshoe beam was probably “relatively close” [but not necessarily “next to” or “adjacent to”] the nuclear detonation that generated intense heat in the fusion process sufficient to instantly weaken such a hefty beam at a localized spot.

    Mr. Rogue suggests:

    RDX has a temperature close to that of the surface of the sun, and brisance enough to blast this beam out of shape.

    Considering this alternative, pure RDX has a final flame temperature for absorption at 3062 K (~2788 C or ~5051 F). The sun has a surface temperature of 5778 k (~5504 C or ~9940 F). While RDX burns hot, it does not have a temperature close to the sun.

    Nuclear fusion peaks at about 800 million Kelvin (~799,999,726 C or ~143,9999,540 F), or only about 261,000 times hotter than RDX, making it a more likely candidate for heating steel beams quickly to a bendable state. Nuclear fizzle occurs when a nuclear device fails to meet its expected yield. For practical purposes, a fizzle can still have considerable explosive yield and high temperatures when compared to conventional weapons.

    So when we consider the distance between the horseshoe’s bend (or the arches) and the point of detonation, “aluminothermic explosives” would require the bent beams to be physically closer than a nuclear device, with the trade-off that the closer the beam was, the more likely “aluminothermic explosives” would cut or blow apart the beam or leave artifacts of the explosion on the beam BEFORE it could weaken the steel with heat to allow bending. The bending of both the horseshoe and the arches is indicative of a very large heat source probably many times the heat that “aluminothermic explosives” could generate.

    As for the brisance of RDX to blast a beam out of shape into a horseshoe or arch, RDX has a burn-rate of 8750 m/s (~31,000 f/s) while nano-thermite has a burn-rate of 350 m/s (~1,100 f/s). I suspect that RDX could blast a steel beam to pieces, but to get it to bend at a localized spot without fracture or stress marks is another matter. Moreover, do the math and run the numbers: Using either burn-rate alone or any value in between, calculate how long of an RDX/NT “fuse” would be required to account for under-rubble hot-spots that burned for many weeks. Imagine an imaginary garden hose of this length and any arbitrary cross-sectional area and do the math to translate it into a volume and weight. The answers are not trivial and represent significant logistics hurdles, if the search for 9/11 destructive sources are stopped at RDX/NT.

    Another example of “disfigured interpretation of the data” is where Mr. Rogue writes:

    “EMP does not cause a blast. An electromagnetic pulse is the product of a blast. All it does is fuse electronics magnetically. It does not blow things up. It does not melt people, it does not cause fairy wings to drop off or cause dancing flashing light-shows.”

    “EMP causing a blast” is a fiction that Mr. Rogue seems to be pawning off on me. An EMP is one of the side-effects of a nuclear detonation and can be mitigated by many means [such as a small detonation within a steel box.] If that steel box has window slits, some EMP may escape line-of-sight.

    Indeed, an EMP does not melt people. However, an EMP can induce large Eddy currents in metal that then causes the metal to heat up to the point where things on the metal (e.g., paint, rubber seals, plastic handles & gas caps) can ignite. I guess it is a matter of semantics regarding whether one says “the burning gas cap caused the car to blow up” or whether one traces this burning gas cap back to its root causes.

    I wrote: “the analysis of the dust measured by USGS that shows *CORRELATED* quantities of certain elements in a pattern matching nuclear involvement.”

    Mr. Rogue has issues with this “correlation” term. Here’s a simplified explanation from me.

    In dust sample #1, element A is represented at 5%, while element B is represented at 7%. In dust sample #2, A is at 10% and B is at 14%. In dust sample #3, A is at 35% and B is at 49%. Whereas the amount of element A varies from sample to sample, the amount of element B tracks or is correlated to element A by a factor of 1.4.

    In the past, Mr. Rogue has brushed this aside (paraphrased): “So what that element A was discovered in the dust? It is found in nature. And the amounts of element B are so small, measured in parts per million (or even parts per billion).”

    Correlation implies “recipe:” element A & B were combined in their correlated quantities BEFORE they were distributed throughout NYC in dust. Moreover, the recipe in question was one for nuclear devices, and involves more elements than the two fictitious A & B elements used by me to explain the “correlation” concept. Refer to Jeff Prager for more details.

    Mr. Rogue wrote on November 30, 2012 at 6:53 pm when mentioning the Lioy et al WTC Dust Study:

    Not only is there zero proof of a nuclear device, this is proof there was NO nuclear device.
    Therefore, any arguments that nuclear is the only possible answer to any anomaly to do with WTC 9/11 are nonsense… all such arguments are non Sequitur, as they have no base to arise from.

    I beg to differ.

    The Loiy et al quotes about only background-level measurements of alpha, beta, and gamma activity in the dust does not rule out a nuclear device. Distance from the detonation to the dust samples is one factor, while the time when the measurements were made is another, both of which in a matter of a few days could lower radioactivity to such levels if the nuclear weapon was neutron based.

    Moreover, the flawed tritium measurements and the much belated analysis of the dust [as well as the energy requirements of pulverization and the unquenchable hot-spots] prove there WAS a nuclear device.

    Coalition of the Obvious, time to see the obvious. And hiding the means-and-methods of the US Government with respect to nuclear weapons would seem par for the course.

    // @ 2,459 Words

  3. Great essay! ~Jeff Prager 12-13-2012 8:30pm

  4. From Dr. Christopher Busby in an email to me:

    OK lets move on to what could have happened based on my deconstruction of the data from the war zones:
    1. The concentration of Uranium is a key. This is slightly too high in the dust and much too high in the girder coatings. The activities for 2.7, 3.2, 4.7 and 7.57 are 33, 40, 58 and 93Bq/kg. The graph shows that there is too much U on the girder coatings. Normal levels of U are about 12, at most 40Bq/kg
    2. My belief is that there is a cold fusion weapon or device of some sort. This employs Uranium and Deuterium. The output is neutrons, lots of heat, lots of energy, gamma radiation. The devise is the size of an apple or grapefruit but heavy (20-40kg). No radioactivity after the explosion except from Tritium H-3 which together with He-4 is the product and some short lived gamma radiation from neutron activations products (e.g. Ca-45 from the Ca in the concrete, Fe-55 from the steel). These would be radioactive for a few days only. [emphasis mine]
    3. You would thus expect to find too much Uranium and also Tritium. You find both. There is a paper showing high levels of Tritium in the water at WTC. We also see U levels are too high.
    4. Maybe the Barium is part of this mixture, and the Strontium. I have certainly found high levels of both in the war samples.
    Chris Busby

    ~Jeff Prager 12-13-2012 8:35pm

  5. 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2) is now available.


    • I guess you never heard of High Frequency Active Auroral Reseach Program, also known as H.A.A.R.P.? This is what is left of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative or Star Wars Defense. Try doing some research on this and find out for yourself, this may fool you!!!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: