Judy Wood devotee attempts to undermine article on the use of mini-neutron bombs to take out the Twin Towers

[James H. Fetzer]

"Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/29/mini-neutron-bombs-a-major-...

Mark Alexander · Subscribe · Manchester, United Kingdom

The mini-nuke theory isn’t valid for the following reasons:

1. Sixteen people survived unscathed on the 3rd floor of the North Tower. No one would survive a nuclear blast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvdNHaOBGk4

2. There were no really bright flashes as the towers turned to dust.

3. There were no loud explosions as the towers turned to dust.

4. There was little or no heat in the dust cloud. People didn't get burned by the dust: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMNrb4aQyvI&t=18m8s.

5. Nuclear explosives cannot account for the 24-foot cylindrical holes seen in the buildings and in the street.

6. The nuke or “large explosive/incendiary” does not explain the selectively flipped cars and vehicles.

7. The nuclear explosives created no seismic signature of any significant size (impossible).

8. Thousands of tons of paper stored in the WTC towers floated to the ground unburned. After the destruction occurred the paper was left in the dust. Temperatures in the millions would vaporize all the paper.

Micro-Nukes:

1. Uranium or plutonium can’t have a 48 hour half-life; reality puts the half-life of even the most radiologically active form of uranium at tens of thousands of years.

2. Micro-nukes use Americium or Californium.

3. Micro-nukes are short lived devices that have to be MADE TO ORDER, the same way medical isotopes are made to order, and if you exceed even 1/2 of one half-life of time from day of manufacture to day of use, the nuclear material will decay to other forms and will no longer be pure enough to trigger a suitable chain reaction, which with a 48 hour half-life according to Gordon Duff would have given them ONE DAY to both build the bomb and plant it at the WTC. Not plausible either, even IF it would not have melted itself from having decay heat cause the device to be at thousands of degrees to satisfy the claimed ”48 hour” half-life in a coke can. THAT would have made it a real challenge to handle.

Dimitri Khalezov's ridiculous undergound nuke claim.

1. There were seven underground floors under each tower. All the basement floors survived the destruction undamaged as demonstrated by these images: http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image312.jpg http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image311.jpg At no point did they form part of a “nuclear furnace”.

2. Sixteen people survived unscathed on the 3rd floor of the North Tower. No one would survive a nuclear blast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvdNHaOBGk4

3. Nukes melt. The towers didn't melt they turned to dust. It was a cold collapse not a hot collapse.

4. An underground nuke would not be able cause the top down pulverization in mid-air.

5. Clean-up workers would of died of radiation poisoning, thyroid cancer and first responders such as Jerry Reilly would have lost his hair and his blood marrow.

Reply · 3 · Like · Follow Post · 4 hours ago

Reply · 3 · Like · Follow Post · 4 hours ago

• 

  James Henry Fetzer ·  Top Commenter · Works at McKnight Professor Emeritus, UMD
  

  This is very interesting, Mark. I will ask others to respond. What is your theory of how this was done? Are you a friend of Andrew Johnson and of Dr. Judy Wood?

  Reply · Like · about an hour ago
• 

  James Henry Fetzer ·  Top Commenter · Works at McKnight Professor Emeritus, UMD
  

  Re 1, you equivocate between a large nuclear attack and the use of micro or mini nukes. With arrangements of micro or mini nukes, some areas might be spared.
  
  Re 2, these were micro or mini nukes located around the core columns and taking out ten-floor cubes at a time. There would not necessary be visible bright flashes.
  
  Re 3, there were many reports of firemen hearing loud explosions in a sequence, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, as was reported already in "Loose Change".
  
  Re 4, the heat is one of Judy's favorites, but how hot the dust would have been is a good question. You no where address the crucial content of the dust samples.
  
  Re 5, Chuck Boldwyn explained those cylindrical holes long ago on the basis of arrangements of mini or micro nukes directed upward. You should know that.
  
  Re 6, you use the term, "selectively flipped", in application to cars. But what makes you think that there was anything "selective" about the cars? That is a bit strange.
  
  Re 7, the seismic signature is actually discussed in the article. It is inconsistent with large nukes, but not for a series of mini or micro nukes in succession.
  
  Re 8, we also discuss the paper in the article. Did you plan to make this attack before actually reading it? That is typical of Judy Wood fanatics such as yourself.
  
  There is an epidemic of cancer victims among the first responders, yet one more reason why DEWs don't appear to explain the data. But this is the best you can do.

  Reply · Like · about an hour ago
• 

  Atahan Ganduu · 29 years old

  I have a secret satisfaction watching people discredit and discount Dr. Wood's research.

  Reply · Like · 39 minutes ago

FURTHER REPLIES BY JEFF PRAGER:

Dear Mr. Alexander,

1. Sixteen people survived because mini or micro nukes were used. 

2. One wouldn't see a flash with mini or micro nukes inside a 204 x 204 foot building. The flash would be confined to a space perhaps 10-30 feet in diameter and would last for less than 100 milliseconds. Walls, doors and elements of the building interior would have fully concealed any flash.

3. Wrong. Public First Responder testimony states that the 10 seconds of demolition was the loudest thing the First Responders ever heard. One First Responder, after stating that it was the loudest sound he ever heard testified further that it once he thought it was as loud as it could possibly be, it got even louder. He described it as resembling standing next to a freight train. For goodness sakes Mark, two 1000+ story steel structured buildings were demolished. Of course it was the loudest sound ever heard.

4. There was, in fact, heat in the dust cloud. Thousands of people were treated for burns on 9/11 and 9/12 at make-shift medical facilities and normal medical centers and hospitals. More important, First Responder testimony states the heat could be felt a mile away. Also, reports of the clouds "glittering" and "sizzling" are available. This "glittering" is a known phenomenon of neutron reflection off of the cornea. Nothing is actually glittering, you're seeing a reflection of sorts. But again, 1000s of people were treated for burns on 9/11 and 9/12.

5. Wrong. Mini or micro nukes account for them perfectly.

6. It certainly does. In a city center the pressure wave follows the path of least resistance so pressure was directed down streets and ally ways because buildings stopped the waves. Cars were flipped as a result.

7. Not impossible. We're talking about mini and micro nukes here. Your understanding of these devices is limited. Additionally, there is seismic data and while I can't confirm it's accuracy and it was released, recalculated and re-released, it still shows enough seismic activity with each demolition AND the seismic activity mirrors what the seismic activity of a nuclear device(s) would produce.

8. Wrong. The initial pressure wave made up of fast neutrons would have pushed most of the paper outwards, to the streets, where we saw it. Paper has no mass and fast neutrons pass through it, unable to exchange their heat. Fast neutrons are attracted to metal and water, dense objects that allow for heat transfer. Paper is unaffected by fast neutrons.

Micro Nukes:

1. Wrong. The device detonated by the Soviets in 1961, RDS-220, reduced radioactivity by 97%. That was 40 years before 911 and technology advances rapidly. A neutron bomb produces no beta, no alpha, gamma only and measurable radiation would last 5-6 days at best. This is the purpose of neutron bombs. The area they're used in is almost immediately inhabitable by troops. This is why they were designed. They leave no radioactivity. You should spend a year or so studying this issue. You don't have the necessary understanding to engage in productive dialogue on this issue. Reading a few essays is not the answer.

2. Micro nukes use a variety of elements including americium. Lead, chromium, copper, cerium, lanthanum, yttrium, zinc, vanadium and other elements are used to "salt" these devices. Americium was found at anomalous levels at Ground Zero.

3. I don't know where you get your information from but it isn't LLNL, Oak Ridge, Sandia or any other reputable nuclear research facility. This would take several paragraphs to address properly. A phone call would work better for me. 612-353-6045, any time.

Khalezov:

1. Wrong. All the basement floors did not survive. At all. I have images from a FEMA dump in 2003 or 4 that depict First Responders with dogs searching in basement areas that were severely impacted. I'll send them to you if you want them.

2. I discussed this above. You don't understand the technology used or the nature of these devices.

3. Nuclear devices do not melt. They reach a temperature of millions of degrees in less than 100 milliseconds and in less than 600 milliseconds the source of heat is gone. Almost as fast as the heat develops it virtually disappears. What occurs is dissociation. With concrete what occurs is called "calcining" and the meaning is that the concrete is returned to its original constituents. It's for this reason that we see so much calcium, gypsum, sulfates, etc. Extraordinary heat for 500 milliseconds returned the concrete to its original elements. The dust pH was 11.8, highly caustic. This is because the concrete was heated to such a degree that it was calcined.

4. Actually, underground nuclear devices do, in fact, cause a top down demolition of large towers and building structures. This is common knowledge among people involved in the nuclear field and has to do with "crush" and "damage" zones, terms used in the field of nuclear demolition. HOWEVER, I do not believe this was an underground nuclear demolition.

5. Indeed. As of March 1, 2011, One thousand and three First Responders were dead. Many died from not one, not two, but three rare forms of cancer. First Responders are undergoing a cancer epidemic. One First Responder was able to beat thyroid cancer only to come down with Multiple Myeloma. Let's discuss MM. According to the CDC (K-25 Workers Report) we do not know what causes Multiple Myeloma but we do know that exposure to even a minimal dose of radiation produces a measurable Multiple Myeloma response in humans. It's a rare plasma cancer. 99% of those that get MM are over 65 with an average age of 71. In the general population we see MM at a rate of 3-9 per 100,000 people.

In First Responders the rate of MM is 18 per 100,000 which is 2-6 times the general population norm. What's more interesting is that ALL First Responders that succumbed to MM were between 37 and 60. This is unprecedented. Last, according to the NYC Bureau of Vital Statistics between 2001 and 2010 they see a "2.7% drop in births across all age groups" which is always the first sign of a nuclear event; a drop in birth rate.

I don't normally discuss these issues with people that have a very limited understanding of the physics and chemistry of nuclear devices in this format. It requires far more typing than I have the desire to engage in. I would prefer, if you care to debate the issue, that you call me. Before doing that you should carefully read these 22 pages linked below so that you aren't left feeling foolish. This is my proof that 911 was a nuclear event. It is unequivocal, unarguable proof. It is an excerpt from one of my books, the physics and chemistry analysis that proves ternary fission and possibly quaternary fission is accurate.

http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html

Peace,

Jeff

[Danny White]

Under replies by Jeff Prager: Khalezov #4 .... Mr Prager states; "Actually, underground nuclear devices do, in fact, cause a top down demolition of large towers and building structures.This is common knowledge among people involved in the nuclear field, and has to do with "crush" and "damage" zones, terms used in the field of nuclear demolition. However, I do not believe this was an underground demolition." I feel like this is a very important piece of the puzzle. Can anyone explain why Mr Prager doesn't support the underground nuke idea. I can see how the top down thing might work, but I can't see how most of the sub-basement steel disappeared leaving huge craters ... without using an underground nuke. Mr Prager might have explained his position at the Vancouver hearings. He seems to be very knowledgeable in the field of nuclear demolition, a very specialized area of expertise.  I'll try to find the transcript of his Vancouver testimony and any recent interviews.

[Thoth II]

There were no loud explosions as the towers turned to dust.

But I've claimed many times, and still believe that is because they were ENGINEERED that way.  In other words, in any energy exchange like a bomb, some energy goes into the shock wave, some into light, etc., and the architects of the twin towers destruction had such a big job to do they couldn't waste energy.  Therefore, almost all the energy budget went into pulverization of concrete and vaporization of steel.

 

And the paper would be quickly accelerated out of GZ and because of it's light weight nuclei wouldn't absorb as much of the gamma rays as did the concrete/steel.

 

These are just feable debunking attempts with the agenda at making DEWs more plausible; these are not sincere attempts to evaluate all the H's on a fair footing.