9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Email Correspondence Between Myself and The Worlds Premier Nuclear Physicist Exploring Nuclear Demolition Specifically

I emailed this physicist in hopes that he might examine pages 19-42 in my book 'Dust' and offer an opinion. He provided his opinion and below is a copy and paste of the email exchange between us.

----- Original Message -----

"jeff prager" span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1329928228_0">j.prager@yahoo.com>


<xxxxxxx@greenaudit.org>, <xxxxxx@jki.bund.de>, <xxxxxx@ulster.ac.uk>, span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1329928228_1">xxxxxxx@euradcom.org>



Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:33:10 -0800 (PST)


Dr. Xxxxxx, would you be interested in analyzing this data and proffering an opinion?

Dr. Xxxxxxx,

My name is Jeff Prager. I'm a 56 year-old retired publisher living in Minneapolis, MN, USA. I have absolutely no experience in your field but I was born with the same brain that everyone else has and believe I can, at least, read and understand what I'm reading. Granted, I had to read these few pages (attached PDF) numerous times to understand the data.

The data seems to indicate, beyond any doubt, that a nuclear explosion of some type occurred in NYC on 911. The data comes from William Tahil. I'm not supporting Tahil's assertions of device type. My opinion is that device type remains unknown.

Dr. Stephen Jones, as you may know, has experience in both fusion and fission research in his capacity with the US Department of Energy and promotes an energetic compound as the catalyst for the event.

Dr. Neils Harrit has posted papers indicating that the velocity of his energetic compound is 300 mps and additional peer reviewed data indicates the maximum velocity for energetic compounds based on iron oxide and aluminum is 895 mps. Far less then the 26,000 mps+ found in TNT and RDX.

Recently Dr. Harrit was asked to estimate the total volume of energetic compound used based on his dust samples. He came up with three estimates. The low estimate is 29,000 metric tons and the high estimate is 144,000 metric tons. Using the low estimate, with a maximum allowable freight weight including the vehicle in the USA of 80,000 pounds and the average maximum allowable total freight of approximately 40,000 pounds it would require 1,550 tractor trailer truck loads to accommodate 29,000 metric tons. The manpower hours alone to load and offload, for example, 29,000 one ton boxes, is astronomical and I don't see how this would even be possible.

The incidence of Multiple Myeloma in First Responders interests me. Multiple Myeloma occurs at the rate of 3-9 per 100,000 people. 99% of those afflicted are over the age of 65 with an average age of 71.

The First Responder cohort of 40,000 individuals has a Multiple Myeloma rate of over 180 per 100,000. As of March 1, 2011, seventy-five First Responders have succumbed to Multiple Myeloma. All were between 37 and 60. Obviously this is unprecedented.

The statistics for Thyroid cancers are similarly extremely high.

Would you care to examine the USGS scanning electron microscopy of numerous mapped dust samples from lower Manhattan and, based on the attached PDF, offer an opinion regarding the data as outlined?

Frankly, I don't know who else to ask other then you. Your work in Iraq, fleshing out the enriched uranium is critical. Were you to examine the data at the link below it would be more then helpful. It would allow me to move forward within the 911 community with data I feel safe with. Not that I don't feel safe at the moment, the data seems to speak for itself and appears, to me, to be accurate. However, I have no way to verify this Can you? Can you offer any opinion at all?


Jeff Prager
Founder and Publisher -  Retired
Senior Magazine
3951 Elliot Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55407

"jeff prager" <j.prager@yahoo.com>

WTC trace elements arguments

Dear Jeff


I have briefly examined the paper presenting an argument on the basis of “trace element” concentrations in dust and on girder residues from the WTC that the buildings that they were destroyed by nuclear fission.  The arguments are incorrect for a number of reasons. However, the evidence is interesting and I will briefly discuss the issues.

1.       Barium and Strontium are not trace elements, they are common constituents of any material that contains Calcium ( concrete) as they are in the same chemical group and occur together. I agree however that they are present in very much higher amounts than they should.

2.       Both elements are toxic but not highly toxic

3.       A correlation between Ba and Ca would be expected in any sample since they occur together and with Ca because they are in Group II of the periodic table and share chemistry.

4.       But it is highly unusual to find such high levels of Barium

5.       I also found high levels Barium and Strontium in war debris in Gaza, Fallujah Iraq and the Lebanon.

6.       You do not get high levels of Bariums and Strontium from nuclear fission They are both fission products in the form Ba-140 and Sr-89 and Sr-90 but the quantities in grams are ridiculously low. You must not confuse activity (becquerels)  with mass (grams).  The whole of the Sr-90 releases from Fukushima or from Chernobyl amount to a few grams. A fission yield of a 2 Megaton Test (which would have destroyed New York entirely) would make only which  1014Bq of Sr-90 and  represents 18grams. For Barium it is less than a gram. So this argument about too much Sr and Ba does not work.  The argument is even more absurd when applied to Thorium (see below).

7.       C-14 is not formed by fission but by neutron activation.

8.         Although Thorium-234 is formed by fission or Uranium, the quantities are even smaller than Ba and Sr because the half life of Th-234 is less than a month. So the amount of Th-234 made from 1 gram of U-239 is less than 1 x 10-11g. The ratio of U to Th on this basis would be 1011.


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 (20-4kg). 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.

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.

5.       We would also expect to find cancer in the firemen as there would have been gamma from the neutron activation and also uranium nanoparticles. Look for high leukemia also and epidemic of miscarriages and birth defect/ clinical abortions in the wives or women living downwind.

Dr. Xxxxxx Xxxxxx

Riga Latvia, 22/2/12

The data I emailed to this physicist is here, pages 19-42 only.

Pages 19-42

Views: 182


You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Shallel Octavia on November 28, 2012 at 2:05pm

I am saying that fission "China Syndrome" will produce specific and long lived isotopes. Where is the Plutonium?

While I have questions about pure fusion, or fission triggered fusion devices at the WTC, I regard Dr. Busby's information, about the use of catalyzed fusion devices in Fallujah, highly. The evidence that these exist in various forms is very compelling, however if you attribute the alleged heat in the pile to fission reactions that is where I cannot scientifically go.

Comment by Jeff on November 28, 2012 at 12:42pm

Shallel Octavia, not sure what it is you aren't getting here?

Comment by Jeff on November 28, 2012 at 12:40pm

Actually it doesn't blow the fission nuke theory. It supports the fission triggered fusion reaction. This type of device was first tested in 1961 by the Soviets. Joe-111 or AN602, three-stage design, was capable of yielding the power of approximately 100 Mt, but would have caused too much radioactive fallout. To limit fallout, the third stage and possibly the second stage had a lead tamper instead of a uranium-238 fusion tamper (which greatly amplifies the reaction by fissioning uranium atoms with fast neutrons from the fusion reaction). This eliminated fast-fission by the fusion-stage neutrons, so that approximately 97% of the total energy resulted from fusion alone (as such, it was one of the "cleanest" nuclear bombs ever created, generating a very low amount of fallout relative to its yield). There was a strong incentive for this modification since most of the fallout from tests of nuclear bombs was ending up on populated Soviet territory or with tests here, on American soil.

Comment by Jeff on February 23, 2012 at 1:25pm

Chuck, the email above is from Dr. Busby. Obviously I agree with you. This line of thinking, in my opinion, is accurate and really it is unequivocal. There are 100s of anomalies and ONLY a nuclear reaction explains each and every one of them perfectly. To date I have found no science to support Dr. Woods claims.

Comment by Chuck Boldwyn on February 23, 2012 at 1:02pm
That analysis sounds pretty close to what I have been reporting for at least 2 years now, on the grapefruit sized device, small radioactivity, etc. my details were not so specific as stated here.
I am still reviewing the dust book. Towards the end of the Tower's pulverizatons, when no one could see through the montrous dust clouds, a larger nuke may have been used, as per the appearance of the mushroom clouds
I see mini nukes taking most of the Tower down, perhaps all of it, even in the basements, but perhaps a larger nuke(s) in the 7 basement floors & above.
The predetermined most masive energy needed & required to bring down a Tower tells one that some form of nuke(s) had to, must have been used
Check out my early posters & interviews with Dr. Fetzer.
It looks like a lot of good work is being done on the nukes that I am just finding out about, especially from Jim's recent guest, Christopher Busby. Listen to the 3rd & 4th psegments for his info on Directed Shape Charges Nuclear Devices in relation to the large holes in WTC-6 & WTC 5.
His report lends support to what I have been saying for some long time now.
Looks like we may be making serious progress now.
I still can not see where DEWs can fit in here, at least the electromagnet aiming types whichnDr. Judy has pushed for in her WTC complex destructions evidence book.
My recent debate with Morgan Reynolds has some 75 argumentative comments so far, very, very easily the most comments for my shows to date. Dr. Judy & Morgan have some very persistent advocates here, most of whom need to review my scientific Posters post only here at 911Scholars.ning.com
Comment by Shallel Octavia on February 22, 2012 at 3:55pm

"  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 (20-4kg). 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."

Guess that blows the ridiculous fission nukes theory....

© 2014   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service