Were Mini Nukes used to bring down the WTC - An article by Victor Thorn of American Free Press

Comment

Comment by Dr. J. P. Hubert on June 19, 2011 at 2:06pm

I am really pleased to have Mr. Hightower's input on this topic. I would like to draw his attention to where we discussed "3" options vis a vis nuclear explosions as follows: 

William Tahil's hypothesis that nuclear reactors were located beneath each Tower which were allowed to go critical and in which run-away nuclear fission reactions took place, the Anonymous Physicist's hypothesis that multiple mininukes were utilized to destroy each Tower some of which were unexploded where nuclear fission reactions occured and the Finnish Military Expert's view that 2 fusion bombs were used.

 

Here is a recent post of mine that relates to this topic but was originally part of another thread. I include it in case Mr. Hightower has not yet stumbled across this interchange.

 

Reply by Dr. J. P. Hubert on June 8, 2011 at 11:44am

 "I found the interchange on this new topic to be very interesting. Jeannon, you have expressed your position very well. A number of questions come to mind for me after reviewing the above posts.

 

First, I would like to know (from someone who purports that both nano-thermite and nuclear explosions were used to destroy the Twin Towers) how we can differentiate that hypothetical scenario from the one in which only conventional (non-thermite/nanothermite) cutter agents were used in combination with nuclear explosions or from a third option in which only nuclear explosions were employed?  Assume for the moment that we are unable to trust the analysis of WTC dust carried out by Jones/Herrit et. al in which allegedly an identification of nano-thermite was made. Assume this either because we cannot document that a proper chain of custody was insured or because the sample was obtained allegedly from only one location in the WTC area [I corrected this error in a subsequent post where I posted part of the Materials and Methods portion of the Harrit et. al. paper which outlined that 4 separate samples were tested]. How then do we prove that nano-thermite was utilized at all in the process of destroying the 2 buildings?

 

My sense is that nuclear explosions of the proper kind and number could not only account for the USGS dust evidence which proves to a very high degree of probability that a large amount of nuclear fission of Uranium 235 occured but could also account for the virtual complete pulverization of all the Twin Towers concrete into dust along with the vaporization of virtually the entire contents of each building including file cabinets, electrical wiring, computers, other business machines, plumbing fixtures, furniture and human beings. It also explains the increased incidence of cancer being documented in first responders especially in those who are much too young statistically to be developing those with which they are afflicted. The only question that then remains is whether the several hundred tons of steel beams could have been demolished as they were, some of which were forcefully ejected up and out away from the buildings, some of which fell into the sub-surface basement levels of each footprint and some of which appears possibly to have been vaporized--without invoking the use of nanothermite as a cutter agent.

 

For those who think that nuclear explosions could not have produced all of the above findings either in combination with conventional non-nanothermite cutter agents [e.g. HMX, RDX or PENT] or in isolation, it would be helpful if they could explain why. One possible explanation is that the appearance of some of the steel beams suggests a rapidly occuring cutting action which presumably cannot be explained without postulating the

Comment by T Mark Hightower on June 19, 2011 at 12:07pm

My August 23, 2010 interview with Victor Thorn was just one phone conversation, as I recall.  I did not get an opportunity to review and comment on his article before it went to press.  Although I feel that Victor did a good job of capturing what we talked about regarding the nuclear hypothesis (I had just finished reading The Anonymous Physicist's books on the subject), where he has me saying that nanothermites are high explosives, I am quite sure I did not say that.  In the same article he has me saying that the incendiary properties of nanothermite could have played a role, which I recall is consistent with what I tried to convey to him in our conversation.  The article appeared in the September 20 & 27, 2010 issue of American Free Press.  The title of the article is "Were 'Mini-Nukes' Used to Bring Down WTC?"

Comment by Thoth II on June 17, 2011 at 7:30am

yes, a chemist could probably do a calc. of the amount of conventional explosives needed.

 

To get a rough idea, the per atom energy released in conventional chemical explosions is a few electronvolts whereas for nuclear bombs it's more in the MeV (millions of times greater).  So for every kilogram of nuclear material I would estimate we'd need a million kilograms of conventional explosives.

Comment by Dr. J. P. Hubert on June 16, 2011 at 2:38pm

To Toth II: Your comment reproduced below largely makes sense to me.

 

"I believe that conventional explosives could have produced the WTC destruction, this is just an engineering question, not a science question.  In other words, yes, with enough exposives, it could be done.  But from a practical viewpoint, I believe the architects of 911 would have opted for mini nukes.  It is much easier because you'd only need about 10 of them, maybe every 10 floors.  This would have been much simpler than the vast quantities of conventional explosives that would have been needed."

 

I suppose some chemical engineer could calculate for us how many tons of conventional HMX, RDX or PETN would have been needed to totally destroy the Twin Towers so we could see just how impractical it would have been to try to sneek that much explosive into the Towers. We still need to add the nuclear explosions in order to account for the copious amounts of finely pulverized dust and the nuclear fission products (Barium and Strontium) of Uranium 235.

Comment by Chuck Boldwyn on June 16, 2011 at 2:04pm

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/mini-nukes_237.html

The poster above only has underlines to emphasize items. They are not actual links...
The above link will take you to the original AFP article by Victor Thorn.

Comment by Thoth II on June 16, 2011 at 12:47pm

Dr. Hubert,

 

I believe that conventional explosives could have produced the WTC destruction, this is just an engineering question, not a science question.  In other words, yes, with enough exposives, it could be done.  But from a practical viewpoint, I believe the architects of 911 would have opted for mini nukes.  It is much easier because you'd only need about 10 of them, maybe every 10 floors.  This would have been much simpler than the vast quantities of conventional explosives that would have been needed.

 

In fact, if I had myself been given this "job", I would have done it exactly as Chuck has hypothesized and is researching.  That is clearly the easiest way to get the job done according to their specifications, which they largely accomplished on 911 with a few mess ups like probably bringing down building 7 later than they had planned.  The best laid plans of mice and men which is why researchers are going to some day figure out what these SOBs did in detail.  And yes, of course some of the data is hotly contested because the perps removed much forensic evidence to cover their tracks.

 

It's like JFK deja vu MO.  

Comment by Dr. J. P. Hubert on June 16, 2011 at 11:51am

I don't know why my whole post isn't being placed but here is the rest of it.

 

Center’s immense inner core, only a small percentage actually reacted when these devices were detonated. The leftover materials subsequently continued to react, and therefore kept producing tremendous amounts of heat. This continual source of energy explains the molten steel discovered beneath ground level weeks after 9-11.”

 

I don’t know how we can explain the “China Syndrome” findings in the absence of nuclear (fission type) explosions having been involved in the destruction of the Twin Towers.

 

I think I might separately post my current hypothesis for comments.

Comment by Dr. J. P. Hubert on June 16, 2011 at 11:49am

Last Post Continued here:

 

in the analysis which is corroborated by the photographic record and other quantitative evidence.” 

 

 The point I am making is that the issue of how much steel was accounted for in the debris of the Twin Towers is still hotly debated and needs to be settled. 

 

A second issue is what kind of explosive agents would be required to vaporize steel or turn it to dust if we all agree that some of the Twin Towers steel was indeed missing (turned to smoke, dust and vapor) even if no agreement exists on the exact amount that was missing. Options would theoretically include: DFEW, nuclear explosions, conventional explosives, or thermite/nanothermite. I am unaware of any evidence proving that structural steel can be vaporized or turned to smoke and dust by conventional explosives but perhaps I am wrong. Certainly conventional explosives are capable of melting structural steel and fracturing it into smaller pieces. The latter can be accomplished by HMX, RDX and PETN. It is well known that thermite can melt structural steel. The concept here is whether conventional explosives do or do not lack the requisite energy to literally atomize structural steel in the process of vaporizing it.  If anyone thinks it is possible, please site references.

 

Does anyone here think that the virtual total conversion of all the Twin Towers concrete to dust and some of the steel into smoke, dust and vapor could be accomplished with conventional explosives such as HMX, RDX, PETN or even thermite/nanothermite for that matter without the addition of either nuclear explosions or DFEW?  I have not seen evidence of a documented demolition of a skyscraper in which the structural components including concrete and steel were pulverized to the degree that occured with the Twin Towers. Also, as far as I am aware, thermite/nanothermite has not been utilized to destroy such buildings. If either of these two assertions is incorrect please enlighten me and provide evidence.

 

With respect to Shallel’s assertion

 

“The steel could have been evaporated by the mini nuke, since it would produce millions of degrees, but this heat must reach the steel, which would mean it would not be 'shielded from view'”

 

Here is Hightower’s actual statement:

 

“But if mini-nukes were located at the building’s core and shielded from view, no one would have seen their extremely bright flashes and superheated explosions. The release was so energetic that it may have momentarily reached millions of degrees.”

 

In other words, the extremely bright flashes of light that Shallel has talked about (needing to be present if nukes were used) in past posts would not have been visible because the outer structure of the Twin Towers were still blocking the view of what went on in the central core at that moment. That is what I understand to be Hightower’s point. Whether it is a valid suggestion or not, I don’t know at this time.

 

We now have both Hightower and the Anonymous Physicist claiming that a “China Syndrome” could have been produced by the explosion of multiple mininukes in each Twin Tower, the idea being as Hightower and the AP argue:

 

“If nukes were used to disintegrate the World Trade/body>

Comment by Dr. J. P. Hubert on June 16, 2011 at 11:38am

Thanks for your comments Shallel.  I have found your questions about the problems associated with trying to prove that nuclear explosions were utilized in the destruction of the Twin Towers to be very helpful. Find below some responses to what you wrote:

 

"We also need to account for the steel. More than 80% of the steel was missing on 9/11. There were 26,400 floor trusses alone. Imagine the pile there would be with just the trusses! The fracture energy of steel is 340,000 joules/kg. The steel could have been evaporated by the mini nuke, since it would produce millions of degrees, but this heat must reach the steel, which would mean it would not be 'shielded from view'." 

 

From what I can tell, there is no agreement among so-called 911 Truth Researchers as to what percentage of the Twin Tower steel was "missing." Dr. Judy Wood writes in her book that 80% of the mass of the Twin Towers were turned to dust but does not specifically state what percentage of the steel was missing, vaporized, or found scattered about  the WTC site at ground level and underground. . If I am incorrect about this please site the relevant page from Dr. Wood’s book. 

 

 Cole, Gage, Roberts, et. al allege that much more of the Twin Tower steel was present on the ground and underground of the WTC than Dr. Wood claims was there. Here is a link to the site which discusses their claims: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/05/architects-and-engineers-f.... These authors contend that no Twin Tower steel was “missing.” They argue that much of it was scattered about the WTC grounds and was found in the 6 basement levels of each Twin Tower. Thus they implicitly argue that none was vaporized or turned to dust particulate, smoke etc. I will not go into rebutting their article here. I site it only to indicate that the issue is still debated.

 

Another article, posted at Washington’s Blog on May 19, 2011 entitled Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade ... contains many video interviews one of which was with structural engineer Michael P. Donley in which he indicates that solid debris was scattered widely and circumferentially (spread 1400 by 1400 feet) around each Tower’s footprint rather than piling up strictly within the footprint of each respective building.  There are other views as well including those of another investigatro, Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins:

 

who has written a very interesting article entitled "Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence" in which he writes:

“The photographic record of debris removal from ground zero (GZ) reveals that the majority of the debris generated from the collapse of the WTC towers fell upon their footprints and filled sublevels. Other corroborating evidence from multiple independent sources quantitatively and explicitly indicates that sufficient amounts of debris and steel were removed from GZ. In short, no significant amount of steel from the towers was turned to dust or aerosols at anytime during and after the collapse. All of the steel may be accounted for if the sublevel collapses are i

Comment by Dr. J. P. Hubert on June 16, 2011 at 7:48am

Chuck:

All the links in the above article appear to be to your post of Dr. Judy Wood's 40+ points not the topics discussed in each link. Was that just an inadvertent error or is that what you intended?

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page