Second 9/11 Investigation Petition Moves Toward NYC November Ballot

By Barbara G. Ellis for Portland 9/11 Legislative Alliance, Thursday, Aug. 20

A second 9/11 investigation about the destruction of the World Trade Center and attack on the Pentagon—this one independent of the U.S. government—may start late this year if legal debris is cleared away for approval as a referendum issue on November 3 in New York City.

The debris involves settling the credibility of 52,000 signatures on a petition for a new probe that were gathered over an 18-month period by canvassers for a Manhattan group—NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative—replaced last year by the NYC CAN organization. To qualify for a special election, New York City requires 30,000 petition signatures. The volunteers met that requirement on the June 24 filing deadline, holding back 22,000 extra signatures in case the City Clerk’s office ruled some signatures were invalid.

On July 24, the Clerk rejected the petition, chiefly on grounds that 3997 signatures of the 30,000 were invalid. In addition, the Clerk indicated the petition’s language was not in compliance with New York’s Municipal Home Rule law and other election laws. That set off the group’s immediate filing of as how-cause challenge to the Clerk’s rejection.

New York Supreme Court’s Justice Edward H. Lehner issued a ruling August 3 permitting the challenge and appointed an independent referee to oversee a review of signatures the Clerk’s office rejected. The subsequent August 6 hearing involved drawing up a review schedule and procedures for signature recount and review.
The NYC CAN volunteers are now checking each signature against the city’s database of registered voters. They will then put the disputed 3997 signatures into a Bill of Particulars for the referee to review.

If the 30,000 signatures are declared valid, attorneys for the city and NYC CAN then will argue questions regarding the petition’s language. If the court validates the petition, the City Council must rule on whether to permit the November referendum. If members reject that election, NYC CAN has an additional 15,000 signatures—it now has reached more than 70,000—that its leaders are confident will override a rejection and move the issue to the November election.

The city’s last two ballot initiatives on other issues failed. The City Clerk rejected the petitions and though the petitioners also filed an action, the court ruled against it. The group’s view is that a 9/11 investigation by a 25-member commission is a departure from other ballot measures, however. That they have collected more than 70,000 signatures of residents is a harbinger of how New Yorkers will vote on a new investigation.

Its spokesperson outlined the procedures following a successful referendum. First would be the appointment of 15 commissioners from a non-partisan pool who would be independent of government control. Its initial list of eight commissioners include former Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island, television actor and activist Ed Asner, Jersey Girl Lorie Van Auken, Martin Luther King attorney and biographer Dr. William Pepper, Native-American activist Splitting the Sky, the activist Catholic bishop the Rt. Rev. Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit, and Executive Director of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation Ralph Schoenman. Plans call for other commissioners drawn from the science and engineering fields, according to Executive Director Ted Walter.

The commission would have subpoena powers extending to all governmental agencies, and if defied, would use federal courts to attain enforcement orders. It will publish reports and, where necessary, seek indictments because the aim is to achieve justice for 9/11 events. Funding will be independent from governmental influence, the spokesperson said, yet donors will not be able to exert influence either over the investigation or the commission’s conclusions.

Part 4 of 4: Did Fluorine Cause the WTC Destruction?

By Barry Ball, Barbara Ellis, and Russ Hallberg
of the Portland 9/11 Legislative Alliance

[This is the fourth article in a four-part series stemming from our organization’s crafting and presenting a proposed bill in late 2008 to nine members of the U.S. House. It urges an independent investigation by national and international experts in science/technology to determine which of the 14 major theories about primary causal agents—fire and thermite to directed energy weapons—destroyed the World Trade Center Twin Towers. Since then, four other major theories have surfaced (nuclear reactors, mini-nuclear bombs, plasmoid gas, and flurorine) which will be included in the revised bill presented to key House members in Fall. The first article in the series was on the theory that nuclear reactors were the causal agent of destruction. Contact your House representatives to hopper a bill for this independent scientific/technological investigation to finally discover the cause(s).]

Our interest in fluorine as a possible additional theory in agents causing destruction of World Trade Centers 1, 2, and 7 on September 11, 2001, was triggered in November 2008 by Sofia Smallstorm, producer/director/narrator of the film 911 Mysteries. She suggested we read Christopher Bryson’s book The Fluoride Deception. We did and were particularly arrested by three statements about fluorine in it:

• “…[fluorine gas] can vaporize steel.
• [a] ferociously reactive elemental
[pure] gas…”
• After a tank of fluorine fell and exploded at a Manhattan Project contractor’s plant near Cleveland, one witness racing for her life turned and saw victims with “hunks of flesh just coming off them.” (1)

Smallstorm recalled that a 9/11 First Responder once told her they found portions of flesh down at Ground Zero.(2)

Added to that was the recollection of William Rodriguez, then a 20-year chief custodian of the Towers with a master key. When he told his story to a Portland audience last year, he noted that the first victim stumbling toward him after a major explosion in the B-level basement of WTC 1, had flesh hanging from his bones.(3)

Yet any kind of explosion may have the same effect, as natural gas leaks and street bombings demonstrate. But Rodriguez also piqued our interest by his recounting terrible fears of ever entering WTC 1’s 34th floor, particularly on September 11, 2001:

“As I stood there on the 33rd floor, I heard very strange noises on the 34th floor. Now, the 34th floor was an empty floor. A floor that did not have any kind of walls. It was a construction floor. It was totally hollowed out. There was nothing there…not even the elevators stopped there. You had to have a special access key to open the door on the 34th floor.
“As I went back [to his office on the 33d floor …I heard the strangest thing [on Floor 34]…heavy equipment being moved around. You know the dumpsters, when they scratch the floor, those steel dumpsters? It sounded just like that. It was the first time that I felt fear through the whole ordeal [of 9/11]. …it was a hollowed-out floor for construction! There was no walls. There was no ceiling. There was no wires. There was nothing there. It was a floor that was emptied out over eight months before. So there was nobody supposed to be there. And for me to hear that kind of sound really scared me. So much that I bypassed that floor.”(4)

However, people had been on the 34th floor for at least three months. One was the new building security chief, John P. O’Neill, formerly deputy director of the FBI who was forcibly retired, apparently after outspoken warnings of a terrorist attack in the United States.(5)

O’Neill was hired eight days before 9/11 by Kroll Associates, the equally new security company. Kroll had replaced Securacom which had held the contract since the 1993 bombing of WTC 1. Securacom’s CEO was President Bush’s cousin Wirt Walker III and Bush’s brother Marvin was on its board. Its major investor was the Kuwait-American Corporation.(6)

O’Neill was in his office on 9/11 and making cell-phone calls directly after the explosions.(7)

So were nearly 75 workmen on that 34th floor. They were part of Henegan Construction Co which was building offices for Lehman Brothers, a major world financial firm. Rodriquez might have overlooked O’Neill’s quiet arrival, but could scarcely have missed construction noise. And in his rounds on the speaker circuit, he was either unaware of the account given about events on Floor 34 by a workman or given to enhancing his lecture of being the last man out of WTC 1. According to Craig Trykowski, a Henegan employee, in the moments before 9 a.m. that day:

“…I was trying to clear the area of sheetrock and other stuff. And just as I was filling the dumpster, the whole building shook. It swayed back and forth. We saw debris flying. And then there was an explosion. I thought at first it was an earthquake. We hit the stairwell. It was a mass panic. [As they neared the 20th floor, a strong gas smell hit them.] We didn’t know what the gas smell was. I told people to put their hands over their mouths.”(8)

The Towers did have two “enormous” tanks in the basements packed with a collective 200,000 pounds of Freon® refrigerant for the World Trade Center’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems. They were on separate levels, however. Freon® contains fluorine in its mix of dichlorodifluoro and methane.(9)

Initially, firefighters’ fears were not that Freon® would explode on contact with fire, but that it would turn into poison gas (chiefly phosgene). Fortunately, despite a small leak in one tank, the rest were not touched. Even so, it is unlikely that the Henegan crew and O’Neill would have noticed the replacement of Freon® for a high-yield explosive such as pure fluorine.(10)

Thus, with literature and Rodriquez’s recollections indicating fluorine might be able to vaporize concrete, steel, combustibles into dust and destroy bodies, our investigation focused on whether fluorine might have been a causal agent or part of other combined causal agents (a redundancy) involving the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers.

What is Fluorine?
On the Periodic Tables, fluorine goes by the symbol of “F.” Its atomic number is 9. And its group is No. 17, listed with the halogens. One source provides further data about fluorine:

“Fluorine occurs naturally in the combined form as fluorite, cryolite, and apatite. Most fluorine compounds are derived from fluorite, and it is mined in the United States. Fluorine also occurs as fluorides in seawater, rivers, and mineral springs, in the stems of certain grasses, and in the bones and teeth of animals.
“It is the 17th most natural abundant element in the earth’s crust.”(11)

Other factors listed about fluorine include:

Atomic mass: 18.998 amu
Melting Point: -219.61° C (-363.30° F)
Boiling Point: -188.13° C (-306.63° F)
Density in natural state: 1.51 g/mL
Structure: 9 protons, 9 electrons, and 10 neutrons; 7 valence electrons; electronic configuration is (He) 2s2 2p5.

“There is only one isotope of fluorine that exists in nature. Data are:

Isotope Abundance Stability
19F 100% 1100%
(in pure form)” (12)

“Fluorine has a cubic crystal structure, and is a gas at room temperature. It is the most chemically active of the nonmetallic elements. It is the lightest member of the halogens. It combines directly with most elements and indirectly with nitrogen, chlorine, and oxygen.
“Nearly all compounds are decomposed by fluorine to form fluorides that are among the most stable of all chemical compounds.
“Common and important compounds involving the element are: Hydrofluoric acid (hydrogen fluoride, HF or H2F2) is one of the most important fluorine compounds; Sodium Fluoride (NaF); Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6); Boron Trifluoride (BF).”(13)

Characteristics
Fluorine has a pungent odor, a “cubic crystal structure, and a greenish-yellow color. It’s corrosive to materials and humans, and is super toxic, often fatal, if inhaled. Burns to skin and eyes can result without protective clothing. If it penetrates the lungs or other moist tissues, it turns into the highly destructive hydrofluoric acid. Those working around it for long without protective clothing or gear are likely to develop osteosclerosis and calcification of ligaments, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.(14)

Stable when left alone, fluorine becomes violently explosive when mixed with other materials, notably hydrogen. One source notes that if liquid air comes in contact with fluorine “a precipitate is formed which is likely to explode.”Such was its volatility when mixed individually with at least 13 compounds—alcohols and boranes to nitroalkanes and thiols—that it earned emphasis in both David P. Mellor’s 1959 book The Role of Science and Industryand, in 1975 in Leslie Bretherik’s classic (7 editions) handbook about chemical hazards.(15)

A visual sample of its volatility upon being mixed with elements other than hydrogen and oxygen can be seen on one current YouTube film.(16)

As one writer summed up fluorine’s characteristics:

“[Fluorine] is the most reactive an electronegative of all the elements, and readily forms compounds with most other elements. Fluorine even combines with the noble gases krypton, xenon, and radon. Even in dark, cool conditions, fluorine reacts explosively with hydrogen. It is so reactive that glass, metals, and even water, as well as other substances, burn with a bright flame in a jet of fluorine gas.”(17)

So fluorine storage in metal cylinders—long- or short-term periods—would seem to present a significant challenge if moved and stored in the World Trade Center. Yet one physicist, Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. claims he found “large traces” of fluorine in his post-9/11 soil samples, emphasizing it was a marker for thermite, but also admitting it might have been Freon®.(18)

Teflon® is a byproduct of fluorine and resistant to its parent’s explosive quality. In addition, fluorine in the form of cryogenic liquid has been shipped to many destinations. Thus, if the tanks’ interiors were coated with Teflon®, short-term storage without incident may have been possible.(19)

History
Georgius Agricola is credited with being the first to describe fluorine in 1529 then used as a “fluorspar” or “flux” to fuse metals and minerals (flux). He found it was bound up with other compounds Although it had to be mined, so it was not exactly like finding a gold vein in a cave. That is why fluorine, up to World War II, required near-laboratory conditions to be separated from companion material, especially fluorite.(20)

Fluorine was corrosive, limiting its usefulness until 1670 when a man named Schwandhard found he could etch art on glass coated with acid. The fundamental dangers of working with fluorine—death by inhalation, e.g.—were such, however, that its further uses apparently were limited.(21)

It wasn’t until 1886, that the Frenchman Henri Moissan isolated fluorine from its binders for today’s uses by using electrolysis on a mixture of potassium fluoride in hydrofluoric acid; for this discovery (and the invention of the electric-arc furnace), he won the 1906 Nobel Prize in chemistry. Moissan then proceeded to provide the most complete study in that era of fluorine’s properties and reactions.(22)

Interest in fluorine’s explosive qualities grew apace.

A peer-reviewed publication—The Journal of Fluorine Chemistry—appeared in 1918 and is still published.And the International Symposium on Fluorine Chemistry has been held every fall since 1990, though stratification of fluorine’s byproducts such as fluoride are far removed from uses foreseen by Moissan.(23)

Civilian Uses
Three of fluorine’s commercial chemical uses have earned notoriety: chlorofluorocarbon, and fluoride. The first, a form of fluorochlorohydrocarbon, has been banned from the marketplace by the federal government because of its apparent relationship to increasing the ozone hole in the Earth’s atmosphere.Fluoride, heavily used in toothpaste, has come under fire because of current research relating it to dental and bone damage.(24)

If a negative view is held about nuclear energy and its waste dumps, uranium hexafluoride is still in use as a gaseous separator for fuel in nuclear power plants.(25)

The list of other fluorine-based commercial products is considerable. Among those listed by one source are:

• Atomic fluorine and molecular fluorine are used for plasma etching in semiconductor manufacturing, flat panel display production and MEMS (microelectromechanical systems) fabrication[2]. Xenon difluoride is also used for this last purpose.
• Hydrofluoric acid (chemical formula HF) is used to etch glass in light bulbs and other products.
• Fluorine is indirectly used in the production of low-friction plastics such as Teflon, and in halons such as Freon®.
• Along with some of its compounds, fluorine is used in the production of pure uranium from uranium hexafluoride and in the synthesis of numerous commercial fluorochemicals, including vitally important pharmaceuticals, agrochemical compounds, lubricants, and textiles.
• Fluorochlorohydrocarbons are used extensively in air conditioning and in refrigeration.
• Sulfur hexafluoride is an extremely inert and nontoxic gas, very useful as an insulator in high-voltage electrical equipment. It doesn't occur in nature so is a useful tracer gas, though as an exceptionally potent greenhouse gas its use in unenclosed systems is inadvisable.
• Sodium hexafluoroaluminate (cryolite), is used in the electrolysis of aluminium.
• In much higher concentrations, sodium fluoride has been used as an insecticide, especially against cockroaches.
• Fluorides have been used in the past to help molten metal flow, hence the name.
• Some researchers including US space scientists in the early 1960s have studied elemental fluorine gas as a possible rocket propellant due to its exceptionally high specific impulse. The experiments failed because fluorine proved difficult to handle, and its combustion products proved extremely toxic and corrosive.
• Polytetrafluoroethylene, also known as the non-stick Teflon surface in baking pans.
• Compounds of fluorine such as fluoropolymers, potassium fluoride and cryolite are utilized in applications such as anti-reflective coatings and dichroic mirrors on account of their unusually low refractive index.
• Many important agents for general anesthesia such as sevoflurane, desflurane, and isoflurane are hydrofluorocarbon derivatives.
• Fluconazole is a triazole antifungal drug used in the treatment and prevention of superficial and systemic fungal infections.
• Fluoroquinolones are a family of broad-spectrum antibiotics.
• SSRI antidepressants, except in a few instances, are fluorinated molecules. These include citalopram, escitalopram oxalate, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine maleate, and paroxetine. A notable exception is sertraline. Because of the difficulty of biological systems in dealing with metabolism of fluorinated molecules, fluorinated antibiotics and antidepressants are among the major fluorinated organics found in treated city sewage and wastewater.
18F, a radioactive isotope that emits positrons, is often used in positron emission tomography, because its half-life of 110 minutes is long by the standards of positron-emitters.(26)

Military Uses
Military use of fluorine would seem to blur the lines between fluorine, atomic energy, and plasmoid gas theories, by shifting the focus from fluorine as an explosive agent in and of itself to something very different. This is not to say that fluorine gas was never considered to be a chemical explosive, for it was thoroughly investigated by the Germans in 1940 at Gottow for its incendiary capacity.(27)

Fluorine’s explosive character seems to have found an American home in the late 1930s with the Manhattan Project, the crash effort to design and detonate an atomic bomb when rumors circulated that Nazi Germany that scientists were working on nuclear-based weapons. Fluorine, in the form of hexafluoride, was used by U.S. scientists in the gaseous diffusion process of separating the two forms of uranium ore (Uranium 235, 238) to produce the atomic bombs dropped on Japan’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the Pacific theater portion of WWII. That ushered in the era of nuclear weapons terrifying most of the civilized world.(28)

Yet even fluorine’s small role was perceived as a major one in the new arsenal of post-war munitions. It might explain why intensive research was soon begun on it and thermochemistry and reported in 1949 Pentagon literature and, starting in 1971, as a component of rocket propellant fuel. Too, considerable research was expended from 1957-65 to study fluoro-nitro compounds by experts in fluorine and explosives, working for California’s Aerojet-General Corporation.(29)
Guessing about fluorine’s roles appears to be a pastime of armchair observers in the civilian world. One such guess was in a February 27, 2004 Internet post and its brief thread (“Fluorine-based chemical explosives”) on the website Naked Scientists—though anyone can post anything on the Internet. With that caveat, we quote this poster:

“The question is: can fluorine atoms be used to oxidized explosives instead of oxygen atoms?
“Fluorine is commonly called 'the strongest known oxidizer', so it will oxidize materials even more exothermically than oxygen does. The nitro group (-NO2) is present in explosives and can fully oxidize a carbon atom. What if we replaced these nitro groups with difluoroamino groups (-NF2)? The resulting optimum explosive would detonate like this:

Explosive --> CF4 + N2 + HF

“These molecules are also highly stable and gaseous, which would cause any such explosive to be very powerful. Although twice as many NF2 groups would be needed to fully oxidize a carbon atom in the explosive, the resulting CF4 is more stable than CO2, which should give more energy than a CO2 generating explosive.
“A possible fluorine-based explosive would be didifluoroaminofluoromethane (CHN2F5). Another might be tridifluoroaminomethylamine (CH2N4F6). Although I doubt explosives like this have been synthesized, might they be possible? Would they be stable enough to be practical?” (30)

The immediate response from another poster noted that fluorine weapons have been used, but weren’t as common as nitro-based explosives because of “synthesis, environmental hazard to both personnel (and civilians…) near blast areas, stability, and cost.”(31)

There seemed to be promise that fluorine gas (or in its salt derivation fluoride) was helpful in rocket propulsion, but was ruled out and abandoned because of its “toxicity,” even though initially it “produced very impressive engine performance.”Fluorine today has applications in bio-chemical warfare, laser weapons, and in rocket technology. Fluorine by itself does not create molecular dissociation of the type noted in the dust elements found in the destruction of the two WTC towers.(32)

The most promising military use of fluorine surprisingly has been in the area of lasers.

While initially it seemed to be irrelevant to this study, because the “eximer lasers” mentioned were only small applications in lighting-tube fixtures for industrial and domestic use, fluorine weaponry experiments were conducted with in the 1960’s as a “death ray,” and then abandoned, said one of its researchers, Joseph Connaughton, because “it was too cruel.” (33)

However, those uses laid the foundation for continuing development of more lethal uses of lasers until an abrupt and official, halt—so far as he knew:

“…although this early army chemical lasers effort died at the time, theresults were a significant contribution to the Air Forces’ airborne laser and fixed installation lasers developed by the armed services…[An Army contractor’s previous] device used gaseous fluorine.”(34)

As usual, the Department of Defense merely removed laser experimentation from public view by assigning it a top-secret classification. The Pentagon vendors went on experimenting with laser beams they called “directed-energy weapons” (DEWS) and “high-energy lasers” (HELS).(35)

Glimpses of contractors’ work to the public were permitted seemingly via movies and television when officials felt earlier generations of “ray guns” gave away no military secrets about the latest laser efforts. After all, filmgoers had been seeing beam-like “ray guns” for years: Flash Gordon (1936), Buck Rogers (1939), Star Wars (1977), Real Genius (1985), Syriana (2005). Not to mention television’s super-popular StarTrek series begun in 1964 and still in re-runs. Interestingly, many script writers used the 19th century ideas of Nikola Tesla, the world-famous genius of electricity, electromagnetism—and “death rays”.(36)

One aspect Connaughton noted was that electrical energy to drive the fluorine gas was not needed in the amount originally forecast because they discovered that the chemical combinations themselves accelerated the energy needed. Seeking the right combination of chemicals became the focus in the 1990’s. It produced the hydrogen-fluoride laser, an infrared chemical laser. Said one official: “It is capable of delivering continuous output power in the megawatt range.”(37)

This development graduated to substituting pure hydrogen to its isotope deuterium, creating the deuterium-fluoride weapons: The MIRACL laser, the Pulsed Energy Projectile and Tactical High Energy Laser.Apparently, the next stage of development has been to move to atomic-driven lasers. Actually these were already beginning to be experimented with by 1977, using “atomic fluorine.”(38)

Boeing, TRW, and Lockheed Martin have put fluorine in the forefront of a new high-energy gas with atomic means.This technology now has been developed as a mobile weapon by Israeli scientists in conjunction with Northrup Grumman’s Josef Shwartz in a METHEL laser. This beam employs a steady state of deuterium-fluoride (known as DF) “to destroy targets.”(39)

As to delivery systems, the teenagers inadvertently creating a laser-armed gunship for the U.S. Air Force 24 years ago in the film Real Genius were on target, but undoubtedly far behind Boeing engineers and scientists. Boeing may well have been doing preliminary designs then for today’s pair of “flying laser cannons” that carry chemical payloads.

Prototypes are being tested now for 2013 production. Boeing’s Airborne Ballistic Laser (ABL) is filled with a mix of “potassium, peroxide, chlorine, iodine and other stuff.” It’s designed to knock down incoming missiles at supersonic speeds.(40)

Boeing’s Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) fires the same chemicals against ground-based targets five miles away from 10,000 feet with “pinpoint accuracy” to reduce civilian deaths, military reviewers were told. One writer said the ATL: “Can cook trucks, tanks, radio stations—the kind of things hit with missiles and rockets today.“(41)

The U.S. Navy also is involved with its Laser Induced Plasma Channel (LIPC) produced by the Ionatron company. Its website says LIPC is a: “short-pulse laser that can be directed at a target with ferocious intensity.”(42)

It’s noteworthy for the 9/11 movement that if the payload is plasma, the laser could turn a target into dust, as happened to WTC 1 and 2. This phenomenon was demonstrated in 1991 to U.S. Air Force officials by the Soviets demonstrated at Weimar, Germany. A German physicist who had been a researcher with the Soviet counterpart to the CIA reported they witnessed two cross-fixed infrared beams slowly transform a small solid object (a plate) to dust. The Soviets told their guests that in 1969 this technology destroyed a wall where the Ussuri river divides China from their country.(43)

The physicist intimated that a pair of infrared beams were responsible for the WTC buildings’ destruction. However, he did not say the payload included fluorine.(44)

Fluorine as a Causal Agent in WTC Destruction
Did fluorine play a role in laser beams to “oxidize” WTC 1, 2? Were DEWs used to fire huge, concentric holes from roofs to basement in WTC 5 and 6, or in exactly slicing WTC 4’s north wing from the south wing and destroying the latter?

The unclassified data on the Internet indicates the latest supposition about those effects indeed may have merit, particularly with lasers, possibly with fluorine in a chemical mix. To prove it, however, requires declassification of data—a highly unlikely prospect until generations have passed. Or in sleuths ferreting out the truth the hard way: an independent investigation by international and national experts in science and technology.

Given the holocaust-like events that followed 9/11—in Iraq and now Afghanistan—underwritten by American blood, treasure, reputation, and Constitutional violations, such a probe should be mandatory—let the chips fall where they may.

Conclusions:
1. Judy Wood, Ph.D., an engineer and a 9/11 expert, has helped define DEWS as an energy field from electrical power. Her research, while important, may have limited itself in defining what happened on 9/11. If DEWS also include linking chemical and atomic power, referred to as such in the use of fluorine in lasers, and if other sources are discovered in this (e.g., plasmoids), we may have at least two or more explanations for the twin towers destruction.

2. Much more research needs to be done on fluorine’s role, especially if theselaser technologies mentioned in this report about military uses of fluorine.

3. Finally, fluorine probably plays a “supporting
role” in other theories in thedestruction of WTC 1,2, and 7, just as it has played in the past with the Manhattan Project in dissociating uranium from other minerals. It has to be a
“powerful role” if it is being functional in laser technology (especially possible in plasmoid technology, one can only speculate as to its possible use in creating the large, concentric holes—roofs to basements—in WTC 5 and 6 and an exact clean cut separating WTC 4’s northern wing from the rest of the structure.

Again, as in the first conclusion above, one needs to have a firm grasp on the damage any kind of state-of-the-art lasers may cause, particularly if the Pentagon is exploring atomic beams. Have Department of Defense vendors created methods to cause dissociation of molecules? Or, as the damage to the WTC suggests, have they created weapons that work in concert with other energy sources? Was the WTC a dryrun for DEWs?
Sooner or later, the truthof what happened that day in mid-September will be unmasked. Sooner is preferable.


The three authors are founders of the Portland 911 Legislative Alliance. Barry Ball has been a Portland 911 group facilitator/activist and co-author of the 9/11 investigation bill and its presenter House members and the research director of the House Science & Technological Committee in Washington last September.
Barbara Ellis, Ph.D, is a long-time journalist (LIFE magazine, Washington, D.C. Evening Star, Beirut Daily Star) and was a technical-journalism professor (Oregon State University/Louisiana’s McNeese State University). She was a 2004 nominee for the Pulitzer Prize in history (The Moving Appeal) and, now, the principal of a writing/editing/pr firm.
Russ Hallberg is a Portland activist (impeachment/911/depleted uranium, low-level radiation studies). He says: “My history-teacher mother taught me well about false-flag operations and the 1898 sinking of the USS Maine.”


Endnotes

(1) Bryson, Christopher, The Fluoride Deception (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2004), 47, 55, 60.
(2) Smallstorm, Sofia, Conversations with Barry Ball, December 17, 2008; Barry Ball, Barbara Ellis, and Russ Hallberg, Dec. 19, 2008.
(3) William Rodriquez, Statement at Berbati’s Pan, Portland OR, November 7, 2007.
(4)“Cleveland Ohio Gas Explosion,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_East_Ohio_Gas_Explosion, passim. Ahmed, Ashfaq, “Human flesh scattered everywhere,” Gulf News, October 20, 2007. Rodriquez,Statement at Los Angeles 911 Conference, 2006.
(5) Wright, Lawrence, “The Counter-Terrorist,” The New Yorker, January 14, 2002; Clarke, Richard A, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004), 14.
(6) “Who Killed John O’Neill?” http://www.libertyforlife.com/eye-openers/911/who_killed_john_oneill.htm, 1.
John P. O’Neill, SourceWatch, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_P._O’Neill, 2, 3.
(7) “Suspicious Activity on the 34th Floor?”http://911stories.googlepages.com/suspiciousactivityonthe34thfloor%3F, 3.
(8) Ibid., 3-4.
(9) “A Dangerous Worksite,” U.S. Department of Labor, May 17, 2005, http://www.osha.gov/Publications/WTC/dangerous_worksite.html. “FREON 12: Composition/Information on Ingredients,” DuPont Fluoroproducts, http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:UVq3CVHHivgJ:win14.american.edu/safety/au/vault/000/000625.pdf+Freon+ingredients&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us, 1.
(10) Vincoli, Jeffrey W., Black, Norman H., and Burkhammer, Stewart C., “Disaster Response: SH&E (Bechtel Group, Inc.) at Ground Zero,” http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm.
(11) Cary Academy, “What Is Fluorine?” http://web1.caryacademy.org/chemistry/rushin/StudentProjects/ElementWebSites/fluorine/fluorineinfo.htm.
(12) Ibid.
(13) Ibid.
(14) “Fluorine,” Cameo Chemicals, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, http://www.cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/764.
(15) “Fluorine—History,” Global Oneness, http://www.experiencefestival.com/fluorine_-_history., 1. “Fluorine,” Cameo Chemicals, op.cite.Mellor, David Paver, The Role of Science and Industry (Canberra: Australian War Memorial, 1958). Mellor’s litany of fluorine’s volatility with other materials is extensive:

•Antimony is spontaneously flammable in fluorine, chlorine, and bromine. With iodine, the reaction produces heat, which can cause flame or even an explosion if the quantities are great enough, [Mellor 9:379(1946-1947)].
•The oxides of the alkalis and alkaline earths are vigorously attacked by fluorine gas with incandescence, [Mellor 2:13(1946-1947)].
•Fluorine causes aromatic hydrocarbons and unsaturated alkanes to ignite spontaneously, [Mellor 2, Supp. 1:55(1956)].
•Fluorine vigorously reacts with arsenic and arsenic trioxide at ordinary temperatures, [Mellor 9:34(1946-1947)].
•Bromine mixed with fluorine at ordinary temperatures yields bromine trifluoride, with a luminous flame, [Mellor 2:12(1946-1947)].
•Calcium silicide burns readily in fluorine, [Mellor 6:663(1946-1947)].
•The carbonates of sodium, lithium, calcium, and lead in contact with fluorine are decomposed at ordinary temperatures with incandescence, [Mellor 2:13(1946-1947)].
•A mixture of fluorine and carbon disulfide ignites at ordinary temperatures, [Mellor 2:13(1946-1947)].
•The reaction between fluorine and carbon tetrachloride is violent and sometimes explosive, [Mellor 2, Supp. 1, 198(1956)].
•The uncontrolled reaction between fluorine and chlorine dioxide is explosive, [Mellor 2, Supp. 1, 532(1956)].
• Fluorine and silver cyanide react with explosive violence at ordinary temperatures, [Mellor 2, Supp. 1:63(1956)].
• Fluorine and sodium acetate produce an explosive reaction involving the formation of diacetyl peroxide, [Mellor 2, Supp. 1:56(1956)].
• Selenium, silicon, or sulfur ignites in fluorine gas at ordinary temperatures, [Mellor 2:11-13(1946-1947)].
•Each bubble of sulfur dioxide gas led into a container of fluorine produces an explosion, [Mellor 2:1(1946-1947)].
•Fluorine and thallous chloride react violently, melting the product, [Mellor, Supp. 1:63(1956)].

Bretherik, Leslie, Bretherik’s Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards, 2nd, (Oxford UK: Academic Press, 1979) 174.
(16)http://www.experiencefestival.com/forum/vBTube.php?do=search&search=Fluorine&page=1&per_page=24.
(17) “Fluorine—History,” Global Oneness, op. cite, 2.
(18) “Fluorine at the WTC,” 911 Myths…Reading between the lies, http://www.911myths.com/html/fluorine_at_the_wtc.html. In April 2009, an article by Steven Jones and colleagues, now claiming nano-thermite traces were found, appeared in a pay-to-publish online peer-journal mill, one of 92 publications issued by Bentham Science Publishers (“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” The Open Chemical Physical Journal, Vol. 2, http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm, 7-31).
(19) “Fluorine,” http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567459/fluorine.htm, 2.
(20)“Fluorine,” Cameo Chemicals, 1. “Fluorine History,” Global Oneness, op. cite, 1-2.
(21)Ibid.
(22)“Moissan, (Ferdinand-Frederic-) Henry,” Encyclopaedia Britannica Micropaedia, 15th ed. , Vol. 6 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., 1979), 971.
(23)www.turpion.org/php/reference.phtml?journal_id=rc&paper_id= 2192&volume=46&issue=11&type=xrf.
The 19th symposium is scheduled for August 23-28, 2009 in Jackson Hole, Wy., http://www.chm.colostate.edu/shs/General_Conference_Information.htm.
(24) “Encyclopedia > Fluorine,” NationMaster, http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Fluorine, 3. The Gale Group, “Ozone hole reemerges above the Antarctic,” TheFreeLibrary, October 14, 1995, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ozone+hole+reemerges+above+the+Antarctic.-a017466940, 1. Bryson, passim.
(25) “Fluorine,” Encarta, op. cite, 2.
(26) “Fluorine,” NationMaster Encyclopedia, 3-4.
(27) Meiers, Peter, “Fluoride History,” December 6, 2008, http://www.fluoride-history.de/literature.htm, passim.
(28)Gosling, F.G.,The Manhattan Project: Making the Atomic Bomb (DOE/MA-0001; Washington: History Division, Department of Energy, January 1999), 3-10, 15-66.
(29) Luft, N. W., Wiseman, L.A., Skinner, H.A., and Springall, H.D., “A Note on the Thermochemistry of Fluorine and Its Compounds,” Report No. A010474, Ministry of Supply, London (United Kingdom Directorate of Materials and Explosives Research and Development, June 1949, http://www.stormingmedia.us/1/0104/A010474.html?searchTerms=fluorine, 1. Baum, Kurt, “Research in Fluoro-nitro Compounds, 1957-65,” Storming Media, http://stormingmedia.us/authors/BAUM_K_.html, 1-5. Interestingly, the lead researcher and his constant cohort at A-G C in Azusa were Kurt Baum and Vytautas Grakauskas, both considered expert enough in fluorine and explosives to be cited in a recent book on chemical explosives [Agrawal, Jai Prakash and Hodgson, Robert Dale, Organic Chemistry of Explosives (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2006)].
(30) “Fluorine-based chemical explosives,” The Naked Scientists Forum, February 27, 2004,http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=83801fb190b301427fbdfe2fdf086afa&action=printpage;topic=692.0, 1-2.
(31)Ibid., 2.
(32)Braeunig, Robert A., Ed. “Rocket Propellants,” Rocket and Space Technology, 2008,http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm, 2. Wheeler, Michael D., “Spectroscopy Reveals Fluorine’s Role in Rocket Propellant,” Photonics.com., April 1, 2000, http://www.photonics.com/printerFriendly.aspx?ArticleID=5998&Publication=5. Goliath Companies, http://www.ecnet.com. Wood, Judy D., “Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt,” July 10, 2007, http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt4.html, passim.
(33) Connaughton, Joseph, “The First Laser Gun Was Considered Too Cruel to Use,” Strategy Page, September 30, 2008, http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2008930224134.asp, 2-3.
(34) Connaughton, 3, 1.
(35) Souder, J. K. and Langille, D. B., “How Directed Energy Benefits the Army,” Storming Media, No. A903334, December 2004, http://www.stormingmedia.us/90/9033/A903334.html, 1.
(36) “Rayguns,” Wikipedia, March 7, 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_gun, passim. Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) invented the alternating current (AC) form of electricity that changed the energy sources of the industrial world. He also worked in electromagneticism, introduced theories of terrestrial stationary waves, and theorized a death ray that “could destroy 10,000 planes 250 miles away,” foreshadowing the Boeing laser beam (Hunt, Inez Whitaker, “Tesla, Nikola,” Encyclopaedia BritannicaMacropaedia, 15th Ed. [Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1979], Vol. 18, 161-62).
(37) Connaughton, 1. “Hydrogen fluoride laser,” Wikipedia, February 3, 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fluoride_laser, passim.
(38)Ibid. Webb, Dave, “Star Wars-The Next Generation: The Space Based Laser,” Scientists for Global Responsibility, July 23, 2001, http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/StarWarsNG_NL23.htm, 3.
(39)Ibid., 4-5. Ackerman, Robert K., “Mobile Laser Offers Tactical Defense,” Signal Online, ND, http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=94&print=yes, 1-4.
(40) Layer 8, “Boeing’s 12,000lb chemical laser set to fry targets from aircraft,” NetworkWorld.com, December 12, 2007, http://www.networkworld.com/community/print/22975, 1.
(41) Adams, Eric, “How It Works: The Flying Laser Cannon,” Popular Science, March 13, 2008, http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2008-03/how-it-works-airborne-laser-cannon?page=, 1-2.
(42)Ibid., 2.
(43) Bollyn, Christopher, “Laser Beam Weapons and the Collapse of the World Trade Center,”American Free Press, February 14, 2002, http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn1.htm, 3, 4.
(44)Ibid.

Part 3 of 4: Did Plasmoid Gas and Infrared Beams Cause the WTC Destruction?

By Barry Ball, Barbara Ellis, and Russ Hallberg
Portland 9/11 Legislative Alliance

[This is the third article in a four-part series stemming from our organization’s crafting and presenting a proposed bill in late 2008 to nine members of the U.S. House. It urges an independent investigation by national and international experts in science/technology to determine which of the 14 major theories about primary causal agents—fire and thermite to directed energy weapons—destroyed the World Trade Center Twin Towers. Since then, four other major theories have surfaced (nuclear reactors, mini-nuclear bombs, plasmoid gas, and flurorine) which will be included in the revised bill presented to key House members in Fall. The first article in the series was on the theory that nuclear reactors were the causal agent of destruction. Contact your House representatives to hopper a bill for this independent scientific/technological investigation to finally discover the cause(s).]

That World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by a combination of plasmoid gas and infrared beams is a theory first reported in early 2002 by 9/11 researcher/writer Christopher Bollyn an article for the website American Free Press. Others have followed his lead, at least on the laser-beam portion of directed-energy weapons pulverizing those 110-story skyscrapers.(1)

Basically, this theory posits that two infrared beams—each placed to meet in one spot targeted by an invisible cloud of plasmoid gas—were in position to destroy the buildings the moment aircraft struck it. The cloud was directly in front of the aircraft leading them. In less than an hour two-thirds of each tower disintegrated into curb-high dust throughout Lower Manhattan—concrete, steel, combustibles and people. WTC 7, not hit by aircraft, collapsed in 6.5 seconds on its footprint.(2)

The evidence rests heavily on an unnamed German physicist who had been a researcher with the Soviet counterpart to the CIA. Interviewed by Agence France-Presse, he reported a demonstration in Weimar of Soviet Union experiments in 1991 with beams that could transform small solid objects to dust. The Soviets staged the experiment benefit of the U.S. Air Force Electronic Security Command officials to indicate how they could bring down missiles and Stealth bombers. They bolstered such claims by saying that in 1969 they had destroyed a wall with this technology where the Ussuri River divides China from their country.(3)

Those dismissive of Soviet science/technology and/or this research still must reckon with what every beginning chemistry student learns about spectrometer operations; they parallel this theory in principle. To measure chemical elements in a sample, the spectrometer uses electricity and magnetic fields to break molecules into minuscule, dust-like electron particles (ionization). If a spectrometer can do this, consider what a super-powered pair of beams can do to transform concrete, steel, office furnishings, and people into dust and ash.(4)

The German physicist suggested a pair of fluorine-powered laser beams were responsible at least for the Towers’ destruction.(5)

Bollyn underpins stories about laser beams by bringing up what he knows about “infrared-radiation” weaponry being developed by researchers working under contract by the U.S. Department of Defense. He points out that the far-off infrared waves, like a microwave oven, produce heat and “cause increased molecular vibrational activity.” (6)

He describes the Soviet experiment, leaving readers to speculate about results if plasmoid gas and those laser beams were paired to vaporize buildings in general and the WTC Towers in particular:

“The physicist placed a slightly warmed plate on the floor of a kitchen in an apartment on the fifth floor, just below the roof. GRU headquarters in Weimar (DDR), where the infrared beam originated was less than one mile away on the other side of the valley and the second transmitter or reflector was 200 meters away, with no obstacles between. An infrared beam weapons requires two sources.
“The TV and the oven were turned on and the TV's remote control was put in the refrigerator. The physicist left the room and watched the TV screen, which went black for a few seconds. The physicist left the apartment for a half hour to allow AFESC personnel to examine the results.
“The plate had been reduced to dust that was difficult to pick up even with a vacuum cleaner, according to the physicist. ‘The plate was not “destroyed suddenly as if hit by a bullet. Rather, it disintegrated in a process taking about 15 minutes.’
“….If the WTC had been struck by a similar weapon, then it is very likely, according to the physicist, that one of the transmitters could have been placed in a high building nearby or on a moving platform such as a satellite, plane, or ship, and the reflector, or second source, on a ship or across the East River.” (7)

So where does the plasmoid cloud fit in? And what is it?

What Are Plasmoid?
Plasmoid itself is a derivative of plasma which comes from gas, one of the three forms of matter (solids, liquids, gases). Plasma is formed when that gas is heated to the breakup point (ionization) so that its atoms lose control of their electrons. Each atom then contains electrified nuclei and particles with both positive and negative charges. Thus, plasma’s form has changed into an electron-charged gas, making it able to conduct electricity and also “be affected by a magnetic field.” (8)

Though unidentified until 1954, plasmoids have always been around in electric storms that produce ordinary thunder and lightning or in tornadoes. They are plasma gases visible at the ends of lightning bolts and known as “ball lightning.” (9)

One expert in electrical storms says ball lightning is “associated with clouds” and, interestingly, notes that they

“…behave electrically usually, sometimes leave [carbon] deposits, bore holes, pass through holes much smaller than themselves, and sometimes pass through glass without a trace.” (10)

Tornados have the same characteristic, he points out, “either by passing through the materials or by sitting over one area for a period of time.” In one Soviet Union tornado, described in his research, the carbon fiber in the dust around the holes left by ball lightning had radiation levels “three times above normal.” (11)

Plasmoids were officially identified a half-century ago (1954-56) by American physicist Winston H. Bostick, Ph.D. He was brilliant enough to draw notice from Nobel laureate Arthur Compton who became his doctoral advisor for a cosmic-ray dissertation at the University of Chicago.(12)

His post-graduate credentials are a good fit with nuclear and space-age weaponry—and those researching and producing them. Though of draft age (25), Bostick escaped WWII service from 1941-48 by being a researcher at MIT’s radiation laboratory. From 1948-54, he served as an associate professor in physics at Tufts University while doing research on plasma effects. From 1954-56, he served both on the research staffs of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory at the University of California and the U.S. Air Force Weapons Research Laboratory in Albuquerque, N.M. At Livermore, his work, sponsored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, led to the discovery of plasmoids.(13)

But it was when he announced use of a “plasma gun” to propel lab-made plasmoids that earned him international fame in 1956. He had just been hired as a physics professor at New Jersey’s Stevens Institute of Technology for a career that was to span 20 years until retirement in 1986.(14)

Few lay people paid much attention to someone able to control and blast plasma (cloaked in a plasmoid) anywhere, especially when the discovery was couched in scientific terms. Undoubtedly, the public thought it might involve blood-bank donations. The science community largely seems to have had its focus elsewhere. But not contractors working for the U.S. Department of Defense when Bostick revealed that plasma could be directed at a target and might “undergo fission and possess spin.” (15)

They were astonished by the “shot’s” speed (450,000 mph), that it used man-made controls, but especially its nuclear weapons potential. As he explained his work:

“A plasma gun has been developed which projects ionized matter (metallic and deuterium ions) at speeds up to 2×107 cm per second. There is some evidence to support the hypothesis that the plasma projected by this gun comes off in an expanding torus which is shaped by its own magnetic field.
“When the plasma gun is fired into a DC magnetic field, the plasma forms a compact geometrical configuration (a plasma-magnetic entity called a plasmoid) which proceeds across the magnetic field.
“Plasmoids appear to be plasma cylinders elongated in the direction of the magnetic field. Plasmoids possess a measurable magnetic moment, a measurable translational speed, a transverse electric field, and a measurable size.
“Plasmoids can interact with each other, seemingly by reflecting off one another. Their orbits can also be made to curve toward one another. Plasmoids can be made to spiral to a stop if projected into a gas at about 10-3 mm Hg pressure. Plasmoids can also be made to smash each other into fragments.”(16)

Interestingly, in 1958, in what looked like an innocuous article involving astronomy, Bostick not only replicated that lab work, but added new material about increasing a plasmoid’s speed—that it could whiz over both magnetic and non-magnetic fields:

“A technique has been developed whereby ionized gas (plasma) can be projected, by magnetic forces, at speeds of 3x107 cm/sec through a vacuum region free from a magnetic field. The plasma has also been projected across magnetic fields in vacuum at speeds of 107 cm/sec.” (17)

From formation to completion, he had developed plasmoids into ring-like clouds closely resembling ball lighting.(18)

This is how that transformational process is explained today:

“In his laboratory experiment Bostick created a simple "plasma gun" consisting of a 4-inch diameter glass jar around which he wound a wire carrying an electric current that created a small magnetic field. Most of the air was removed from the jar and two titanium wires were connected to a high-voltage, high-current electric power source.
“On flicking the power switch, a 10,000 ampere electric current passed through the titanium wires, instantly vaporizing them and creating a puff of ionized gas (a plasma) traveling at 450,000 miles per hour. Bostick noted that the puffs of plasma formed distinctive shapes that resembled galaxies at various stages of aging and formation.” (19)

One of the shapes was what the lay public call “orbs,” the circular white spots that often turn up in digital snapshots. Some involved with the paranormal and/or supernatural regard them as restless spirits of the dead hovering near their old haunts—often protective, sometimes menacing, but seemingly always interested in visits from the living. Photographic investigators indicate they might be airborne particles picked up by a camera’s flash. But some regard orbs as objects packed with electrical energy.(20)

Bollyn quotes a physicist who suggested that orbs were the eyes and directional fingers marking the very floors of WTC 1 and 2 for the skyscrapers’ total destruction by a pair of laser beams’ deadly rendezvous. In 2008, a photograph accompanying an article on orbs purportedly whizzing around the World Trade Center’s destruction during the 9/11, did closely resemble both Bostick’s plasmoids and ball lighting.(21)

The article describes what seems to be ball-lightning with its traditional characteristic: plasma encased in a plasmoid cloud (aka “scalar cloud”). Prior to Bostwick’s discovery of plasmoids, plasma was usually described as just containing atoms with positive and negative particles. The orb was suspected by the article’s author of containing not just those properties, but “some kind of directed-energy device” that could ionize air and spray “soft metal flakes that make the [orb] invisible to radar.” (22)

As one science writer speculated about this phenomenon:

“The high electric potentials used to create air ions [in the orb’s plasma] are achieved by using capacitors to develop a high voltage (c.20,000 volts), low-current charge at an electrode. Such voltages can also generate ozone and NOx …. So this ionized air … is much more conductive than the previous non-ionized air.
“The ionization of air or gas creates plasma with conductive properties similar to that of metals. … the more density the more particles. This means that these particles which are colliding into each other will become more charged because there are more of them present to collide. What [the Defense Department is] ultimately trying to do [in space] is create a charged-particle field, plasma beam weapons….
“We know that these orbs can be used as transmitters and receivers because they have great refractory and optical properties. They also are capable of transmitting digital or analog sound and video. The[se] satellites can be programmed to track and monitor various areas. This is probably what they were doing at the time of the [9/11] attacks. …
“[They also] can dud-out electronics or cause large, electrical blackouts. It is standard practice in modern warfare to use electromagnetic jamming to disrupt the enemy’s electronic circuitry. Such a temporary disruption may have been applied for a few seconds only (in order to obscure missile approach) or even during … 102 minutes to obscure also the tower collapses. … no cell-phones worked properly that day, nor did the firefighters’ walkie-talkies.” (23)

The author included photographs with orbs hovering around the WTC scene. Unfortunately for him, so many accusations have been made about photo misinterpretations or the use of PhotoShop software to doctor 9/11 pictures, that credibility is too often in doubt about such illustrations.(24)

As to orb propulsion, the difference seems to be that unlike Nature or a lab gun directing a plasmoid cloud’s energy, that same author suggests that the orb’s guidance system involves laser beams. That these may be several generations beyond those Soviet-styled infrared beams that transformed a dish into dust.(25)

Linking Plasmoid Gas and Infrared Beams
Turn back now to the laser or infrared beams portion of this theory as the accessory to plasmoid gas in the WTC destruction.

Impossible? Not really, considering the U.S. has hundreds of Bostwicks doing research at the eight U.S. national laboratories like Lawrence Livermore at the University of California/Berkley. Each has multi-millions in undisclosed funds for secret military projects.

Too much evidence suggests that scientists have been working feverishly for military contractors in the 50 years since Bostwick’s discoveries, to master weather and produce space weapons to rule the world by controlling the environment and populations. The aim and claim seem to be security for the few, not for sustainability of the planet or they would have shared results with non-military audiences.

Bollyn notes that American and Israeli contractors have teamed since 1995 to develop an advanced, mobile infrared beam THEL (Tactical high-Energy Laser) to put both countries on the “leading edge” of directed-energy weapons. And he quotes author Jeff Hecht’s 1984 book Beam Weapons: The Next Arms Race who wrote: “The military ‘destructor beam’ definitely is in our future tactical arsenal.” Hecht provided the key features for what is said to be an anti-missile weapon:

• Firing energy “bullets” at or near the speed of light
• Redirecting rapid fire toward multiple targets
• Long range capability
• Transmitting lethal doses of energy in nanoseconds.
• Needing only a mix of deuterium-fluoride for fuel, not conventional ammunition, to power the generator
• Portability (two shipping containers) (26)

In midst of such weapon proliferation—even weather control— any concern for global welfare has always been cosmetic fiction to pacify the public. By 1976, the conquest of space and realization of space wars raised concern monumental enough for 100 major and minor powers (except for Israel) to adopt a United Nations resolution prohibiting military or “any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.” China, Russia, and the United States signed this treaty in 1977; the U.S. and Russia ratified it by 1980, China in June 2005. That today’s drone bombers, directed by Stateside technicians, can target houses in Pakistan and Afghanistan villages indicates the worthlessness of such agreements.(27)

Ever since 1994, that particular treaty has not deterred military minds from researching and producing methods to “direct and control” the weather, including hurricanes and perhaps trigger other natural phenomenon such as floods, droughts, and earthquakes. Current headquarters for the U.S. is in Gokona, Alaska where an extensive barbed-wire protective fence surrounds acres of a British-built “electromagnetic farm” of huge antennas and transmitter stations. The Pentagon calls the project HAARP (High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program).(28)

In the Soviet example, when those two infrared beams intersected, a significant energy field was created. Couple those energy beams with that contained in, say, a Category 3 hurricane and all that power might well turn skyscrapers such as WTC 1 and 2 into dust. Instead of having to wait on an unpredictable hurricane to show up to provide necessary energy levels, one could be generated, directed, and positioned by this kind of weaponry.

Military-directed Hurricanes
That being so, one suspicion of efforts to “fool Mother Nature” on 9/11 involve Hurricane Erin are held by Judy Wood, a renown 9/11 investigator and engineering professor, and others.(29)

This storm was warming up to Category 3 status in the Caribbean and tracked by the National Hurricane Center, beginning on September 2, 2001. It appeared to be heading for the Northeastern Seaboard, via Bermuda. By September 10, it hovered in place all day off New York harbor. In retrospect, suspicions have been raised that this “pause” was not caused by Nature so much as a man-made source generating Class 3 energy and directing it into position.(30)

Aerial photographs do show single, huge, roof-to-basement holes drilled into WTC 3, 5, and 6, and nearby buildings; WTC 4 was sheared in half with the destroyed wing showing the same sized crater. Whether carbon fiber was found amid all the dust may never be known because of inexplicable federal action classifying that kind of evidence. Even assigning structural failure to fire, thermite/ nanothermite, or falling debris has yet to explain those cylindrical holes or what sheared WTC 4 in half. Given the likeness of orbs to lightning-ball energies, however, and the possibility of man-made controls of plasmoidic matter—and the weather—the puzzle might well be solved one day soon.(31)

As to the super-charged beams, this particular theory suggests that they pulled in even more energy from that Class 3 hurricane conveniently hovering nearby. Under such a super-sized electric bombardment, the molecular structure even of such gigantic targets and anything “within the field” (concrete, steel, interior combustibles, people) were “changed” into dust or ashes within the hour. Just like that Soviet plate destroyed years before by the two intersecting infrared beams in Weimar.

The theorists’ views about the linkage between plasmoid gas and infrared laser beams is further supported by the Towers’ small pile of rubble and the heavy blizzard of Tower dust and ashes cloaking and choking New York City.

Conclusion
This theory posits that powerful outside forces such as plasmoid gas and infrared laser beams were paired by the perpetrators to transform not just the Towers, but the other WTC structures largely into ashes and dust.

Questions raised about this theory undoubtedly will be raised. Among them are:

• Because the Towers weren’t destroyed until at least an hour after the aircraft impact, why would a plasmoid-gas cloud “directional” be needed?
• The indication that an electro-magnetic force based in Alaska could be directed to New York City and not impact electricity across the country needs some explaining.
• September 11, 2001 was a cloudless day in Manhattan, judging from the photographs. If a Class 3 hurricane were anywhere in the vicinity, why wasn’t such a terrible storm reported?

[NEXT: Part 4 of 4: Did a Fluorine-Based Weapon Destroy the WTC? ]
__________________
The three authors are founders of the Portland 911 Legislative Alliance. Barry Ball has been a Portland 911 group facilitator/activist and co-author of the 9/11 investigation bill and its presenter House members and the research director of the House Science & Technological Committee in Washington last September.
Barbara Ellis, Ph.D, is a long-time journalist (LIFE magazine, Washington, D.C. Evening Star, Beirut Daily Star) and was a technical-journalism professor (Oregon State University/Louisiana’s McNeese State University). She was a 2004 nominee for the Pulitzer Prize in history (The Moving Appeal) and, now, the principal of a writing/editing/pr firm.
Russ Hallberg is a Portland activist (impeachment/911/depleted uranium, low-level radiation studies). He says: “My history-teacher mother taught me well about false-flag operations and the 1898 sinking of the USS Maine.”

Endnotes

(1) Bollyn, Christopher, “Laser Beam Weapons and the Collapse of the World Trade Center, American Free Press, February 14, 2002, http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn1.htm, 1, 3-7. Wood, Judy and Reynolds, Morgan, “The Star Wars Beam Weapons andStar Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW),” drjudywood.com, December 15, 2006, http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html, passim.
(2) Bollyn, passim.
(3) Ibid., 3-4.
(4) Tro, Nivaldo J. Chemistry: A Molecular Approach (Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2008, 68-69.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Bollyn, 4.
(7) Ibid., 4, 7.
(8) “Plasma,” Google definitions, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:plasma&ei=F0SjSea5HoS6nQfA0KH9DQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title, 1-2.
(9) Lewis, E. H., “Tornadoes and Ball Lightnings as Plasmoids,” Sciencejunk.org., http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:No4hpUD-6vsJ:www.intenex.net/~elewis/lewispaper/lewis2006tornadoblpaper.doc+Some+Observations+on+the+Tornado+at+Blackwell,+Oklahoma&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us.
(10) Ibid., 1.
(11) Ibid., 5.
(12) “Winston H. Bostick,” Wikipedia, http://sthweb.bu.edu/shaw/anna-howard-shaw-center/biography?view=mediawiki&article=Plasma_gun,1.
(13) ”Dr. Winston Bostick, Atomic Physicist, 74,” New York Times, January 25, 1991.
(14) “Physicist ‘Creates’ Universe in a Test Tube; Atom Gun Produces Galaxies and Gives Clues to Creation,” New York Times, Dec. 12, 1956.
(15) Ibid.
(16) Bostick, Winston H., Abstract: “Experimental Study of Ionized Matter Projected across a Magnetic Field,” Physical Review, vol. 104, Issue 2 (October 1956), 292-99.
(17) Bostick, Winston H., “Possible Hydromagnetic Simulation of Cosmical Phenomena in the Laboratory”, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 30, No. 3 (July 1958), 1.
(18) Ibid.
(19) Tresman, Ian, “Bostick’s Plasmoids,” Thunderboltsinfo, January 24, 2008, http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080124bostick.htm,1-2.
(20) NA, “The Orb Controversy, Millers Paranormal Research, http://www.millersparanormalresearch.com/Pages/Orb_Controversy.htm. Kimura, Mark, “Science of Orb Photos,” TheButterflygift.com, http://www.thebutterflygift.com/index.php/Articles/Science-of-Orb-Photos.html, 1-3. NA, “Scalar Weapons,” Spark Of Life Media, http://sparkoflifemedia.com/tag/scalar-weapons, 1-17.
(21) Bollyn, 6. “Scalar Weapons, passim.
(22) Ibid.
(23) Ibid., 3, 6, 8.
(24) Ibid., passim.
(25) Ibid.
(26) Ibid., 4-5.
(27) Resolution 31/72, passed Dec. 10, 1976, Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-first Session, Supplement No. 39 (A/31/39), pp. 37-38. International Legal Materials, Vol. XVI, No. 1, January 1977, pp. 88-94 (Engl.). List of parties to the Environmental Modification Convention, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Environmental_Modification_Convention.
(28) Chossudovsky, Michel, “The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: Owning the Weather for Military,” Globalresearch.ca, September 27, 2004, http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.globalresearch.ca/images/haarpohd.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php%3Fcontext%3Dva%26aid%3D3653&usg=__FCthThtOM4DgHaJXymlDYo9Tam8=&h=319&w=480&sz=33&hl=en&start=6&tbnid=aQNDEAJVNCUdYM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3DHAARP%2Binstallation%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG, 1. Begich, Nick and Manning, Jeane, “HAARP: The Military’s Pandora’s Box, harp.net, http://www.haarp.net, 7-8.
(29) Wood, Judy and Johnson, Andrew, “9/11 Weather Anomalies and Field Effects,” drjudywood.com, May 19, 2008, http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin, passim.
(30) Pasch, Richard J. and Brown, Daniel P., Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Erin, 1-15 September 2001, National Hurricane Center, November 20, 2001 and January 25, 2002, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2001erin.html, 1-9. Halverson, Jeffrey, Hock, B.T. , Cole, H., Simpson, J., Heymsfield, G.M., Pierce, H., Velden, C., and Brueske, K.F., “Thermal structure of Hurricane Erin's (Sept. 2-15, 2001) Core Using Dropsonde Data from 68,000 Feet and Comparison with AMSU Satellite Measurements,” 25th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology of the American Meteorological Society, San Diego CA, April 30, 2002, http://ams.confex.com/ams/25HURR/techprogram/paper_36816.htm. Hurricane Erin Tracking Map, Stormpulse http://www.stormpulse.com/hurricane-erin-2001, 1.
(31) Leaphart, Jerry V., Letter to Juventino R. Garcia, May 3, 2007, Figures 13, 12, 15, 25, 10=11, 18. Wood, Judy, and Reynolds, Morgan, “The Star Wars Beam Weapons andStar Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW),” drjudywood.com, December 15, 2006, http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html.

Part 2 of 4: Were Mini-Nuke Bombs the Cause of the WTC Destruction?

Part 2 of 4: Were Mini-Nuke Bombs the Cause of the WTC Destruction?
By Barry Ball, Barbara Ellis, and Russ Hallberg
Portland 9/11 Legislative Alliance

[This is the second article in a four-part series stemming from our organization’s crafting and presenting a proposed bill in late 2008 to nine members of the U.S. House. It urges an independent investigation by national and international experts in science/technology to determine which of the 14 major theories about primary causal agents—fire and thermite to directed energy weapons—destroyed the World Trade Center Twin Towers. Since then, four other major theories have surfaced (nuclear reactors, mini-nuclear bombs, plasmoid gas, and flurorine) which will be included in the revised bill presented to key House members in Fall. The first article in the series was on the theory that nuclear reactors were the causal agent of destruction. Contact your House representatives to hopper a bill for this independent scientific/technological investigation to finally discover the cause(s).]

It wasn’t just fleeing tenants and First Responders who insisted they heard explosions throughout the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2). Or reporters for The Washington Post and USAToday. It was the Federal Bureau of Investigation as well as the New York Fire Department’s celebrated Special Operations head, Timothy Roemer, an investigator of the 1993 WTC bombing and the Oklahoma City disaster. He said the South Tower (WTC 2) was bombed because: “The collapse of the building was too even to have been caused by anything else”).(1)
And at least one 9/11 circuit speaker—William Deagle, MD—and three other explosive experts believe the morning explosions in WTC 1, 2, and 7 were caused by nuclear mini-weapons, also called “milli-nukes,” or “micro-nukes. One is a Deagle colleague. The other two have been forced by these dangerous times to use pen names of “Anonymous Physicist” (“AP”) and “The Finnish Military Expert” (“FME”) in the tradition of satirist Voltaire during the French Revolution and Samuel Adams, the 1776 revolutionary with a dozen names.(2)

The three have arrived at a nuclear theory because in the 9/11 events, an estimated 45% of the nearly 3,000 who failed to escape the Towers’ destruction seemingly were vaporized into dust or bone debris in nanoseconds, much like Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s estimated 96,000 from the first nuclear weapons ever used. Vaporization is a signature of a nuclear weapon’s use.(3)
Moreover, the molten metals at the footprints of WTC 1, 2, and 7 were not extinguished via water and soil changes until December 19, 2001. They, too, are among the fingerprints of a fission-triggered thermonuclear blast’s aftermath in an enclosed environment.(4)

Placement of any kind of explosives presented challenges to the perpetrators. Each of the 110-floor Towers contained 47 core columns, each weighing 20 tons; the 236 outer columns weighed 50-tons. Deagle, his colleague, and “AP” believe these “mini-nukes” (from four to 35 per skyscraper) were the traditional high-yield kind, triggered by a fission source of energy that also emitted radiation.(5)
By contrast, “FME” believes that the causal agent was single low-yield fissionless (no-radiation) fusion mini-nukes:
“The thermonuclear bomb used was a 'pure' hydrogen bomb, so no uranium or plutonium [was used] at all. The basic nuclear reaction is Deuterium + Tritium > Alpha + n.” (6)
Further, he posited that preparing the destruction of WTC 1, 2 alone had to have involved six months of 20 people wrapping perhaps 10,000 cutter charges (possibly Thermate®) around each Tower’s 283 steel columns and 4,000 for those WTC 7, respectively. Added to that was the placement of napalm (“to draw the interest from the planes to fires”) and electronic homing devices to trigger the detonators.(7)
Definitions
What’s the difference between a pure fission-fusion bomb and a fissionless-fusion nuclear bomb?
Fission refers to dividing an atom into two or more atoms of different elements. For example, the original atomic bomb was a fission device. Fusion refers to combining two or more atoms of different elements to create a single atom. So fissionless fusion is a nuclear reaction without detonation by a radioactive fission device. The more powerful hydrogen bomb is a fissionless-fusion device, without long-term radioactivity.(8)
Because the fissionless-fusion bomb releases more energy, it has a greater explosive force. Some allusions to it in the literature, as shown throughout this paper, now call it a “fusion” bomb. An additional explanation and diagram by two experts is:
“The most common man-made fusion reaction, and the one responsible for most of the fusion energy release in thermonuclear explosions, involves two isotopes of hydrogen: deuterium (D) and tritium (T).4 Deuterium is a non-radioactive isotope, with one proton and one neutron in the nucleus. Tritium, which has one proton and two neutrons in its nucleus, is highly radioactive. A fusion reaction between these two isotopes produces an alpha particle, which is a helium nucleus and a neutron.
“….All ECF schemes have two basic components: the fuel pellet and the driver. The fuel pellet contains the fuel, typically a mixture of deuterium and tritium, as well as other components. The driver provides the energy to the pellet to compress it to the high densities and temperatures needed to initiate the fusion reaction.
“Types of drivers that have been considered include lasers, light and heavy ion beams, chemical explosives, and electromagnetic energy sources.(9)
Historically, hydrogen bombs once required a small fission bomb as a detonator. This is like needing a blasting cap to set off a charge of dynamite. The fission trigger did release long-lasting radiation, but not any more because of "fissionless-fusion" bombs.(10)

Fissionless fusion is part of the family of the once-disparaged, highly controversial cold-fusion process, forecast since 1989 to be our cheapest energy source. Cold fusion involves “the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium at room temperature.” "Cold fusion” here also refers to low-yield nuclear fusion, while fissionless bombs are high-yield nuclear fusion.(11)
Up to 2009, most establishment or influential scientists have either ridiculed cold fusion’s possibility or avoided experimentation to protect their reputations in the scientific community. But in late March, a team from the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command announced in a respected peer-reviewed journal—and at an American Chemical Society’s conference—that they had found “clear evidence” of cold-fusion’s output:
“Using a similar experimental setup [used by] Fleischmann and Pons, the researchers found the “tracks” left behind by high-energy neutrons which, they suggest, emerge from the fusion of a deuterium and tritium atom.” (12)

Meantime, the Pentagon, the national research laboratories, and their contractors have paid little attention to the nay-saying scientists outside their circles. They’ve been working on fissionless fusion bombs, low-yield fusion devices that don’t require a fission trigger for detonation. They can attain energy equivalent to the sun in one moment and, the next, “cool-down” to 10,000ºF in a nanosecond. And radioactivity is supposedly non-existent.(13)
Developmental History
One of the first atomic bombs was named “Fat Man” for good reason. Fully assembled, such a highly complex weapon weighed 9,700 pounds (including 140 pounds of uranium). They were 10-feet long with 28-inch diameters and came in two parts. The parts had to be merged almost over the World War II targets of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. Presumably, that was to ensure that the always unreliable fission did not “fizzle” out before being dropped on the two cities.(14)
American civilian leaders began warning that the military and its vendors certainly would not stop nuclear weapon design, testing, and production. They, political and military historians knew that once investment was made in any weapon, it would be tested—usually in secret—and then used on enemies. Only the self-deceived failed to recognize that the Age of Armageddon had arrived and the day would come when military leaders would regard those weapons as ordinary ordnance and, thereby, vaporize the world’s population (as at Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Or that storage of decaying nuclear waste eventually would make Earth uninhabitable for millions of years. Many also feared human error, carelessness, and/or drunkenness in transporting and/or storing these horrific weapons.(15)
Out of that concern came the founding in 1951 of the United Nations’ Disarmament Commission with the noble mission of banning nuclear weapons. But U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower was a pragmatist, made that way by being a former five-star general who was only too familiar with weapon makers and Pentagon thinking. In his 1961 farewell address, he warned Americans about the industrial-military complex and particularly their tacit and vital need for the science/technology world.(16)
His warning went unheeded except by “alarmists” and pacifists. Two years later, the Commission began what eventually seemed to be its only industry: Getting major and minor powers to sign nearly a dozen treaties for controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons as this list illustrates.
• 1963: Partial Test Ban Treaty
• 1967: Outer Space Treaty
• 1967: Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America
• 1968: Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty
• 1971: Seabed Treaty.
• 1974: Threshold Test Ban Treaty
• 1980: Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material
• 1985: South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty
• 1987: Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty
• 1995: Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
• 2002: Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty
The proliferation of these treaties would seem to indicate Eisenhower’s cynicism was well placed because without enforcement powers, the pacts were essentially worthless. Nations might sign and then ratify a treaty, but either find loopholes in the text to keep creating, testing, and producing nuclear weapons or quietly ignore what they had signed. Or like Israel, India, and Pakistan in 1968, they might refuse to be signatories. Even when U.N. members finally began using the power of economic sanctions to force compliance, it has failed to stop Iran and North Korea from pursuing nuclear research and development programs.(17)
Between the 1960s and 1980s, three U. S. National Research Laboratories (Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Sandia) and the munitions vendors raced in secret to comply with Pentagon demands for smaller and lighter nuclear weapons such as:
•The U.S. Navy’s 163-pound SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munitions) with a payload of 0.02-1 kiloton
•The U.S. Army’s 76-pound Davy Crockett rifle with a payload of 0.01 kiloton.
• The U.S. Army’s 59-pound B54 land mine. (18)
Despite Congressional ratification and presidential signatures for all those treaties, development of even smaller nuclear weapons was proceeding. Up to that point, only those closely involved in the American nuclear industry were likely to know that fission-driven mini-nuke success was being concealed from the public, just as it was for WWII’s Manhattan Project that produced the world’s first atom bomb. And with the same rationale: Neither frighten the public, nor telegraph enemies about the newest weaponry until the next generation of devices is well underway.
In this respect, Livermore researcher John H. Nuckolls in the late 1990s revealed his efforts from 1952-62 to create fissionless fusion. One major goal in 1959 was to figure out how to ignite a “minimum size, high-gain fusion explosion” without using fission as a trigger. He called it “IFE” (inertial fusion energy) and wrote:
“I proposed a novel scheme: implode a milligram of DT [deuterium and tritium] to super high densities by a radiation implosion in a tiny hohlraum [a closed metal tube, blackened on the inside, with a narrow slit cut into one of the flat ends] energized by a non-nuclear primary external to the hohlraum—an efficient, stand-off, repetitive ‘primary’ (known today as a ‘driver’).” (19)
By 1976, Livermore boasted publicly that it was testing hardware of “the first laser-driven radiation implosion product.” The energy source triggering the payload was not revealed even in Nuckolls’ 1998 report—30 years later. Nor did he include Livermore’s first- and second-generation experiments in the 1990s that required 10 to 20 laser beams to explode DT-loaded pellets. A Georgia State University scientist noted that one product might be particle-beam fusion weaponry:
“If a high-energy beam of electrons or other particles can be directed onto a tiny pellet or micro-balloon of deuterium-tritium mixture, it could cause it to explode like a miniature hydrogen bomb, fusing the deuterium and tritium nuclei in a time frame too short for them to move apart.” (20)
Livermore and probably the other national laboratories apparently had arrived at fissionless weaponry by 2000, the kind that left only two nuclear fingerprints: “shockwaves” sensed by people within a detonation’s range and (EMP) electromagnetic pulses that could destroy nearly everything electrical in a targeted area, including vehicle engines. But at least these fissionless bombs would not spew radioactivity.(21)
By 2003, monitors publicized the news that work on fissionless mini-nukes had been ongoing in at least three national laboratories: Lawrence Livermore (California), Los Alamos and Sandia (Arizona). The verdict on such activity was:
“These hypothetical weapons, if possible to develop, would not need a fission primary bomb to ignite the fusion of deuterium and tritium (heavy forms of hydrogen). For many years, the United States and Russia and perhaps other nuclear weapons states have researched whether it is possible to create high enough temperatures and pressures inside a confined space to fuse together deuterium and tritium for the purposes of a developing a novel weapon.
“Unlike these secretive military programs, the open civilian fusion research programs are well known and are not intended for nuclear weapons' development. Pure fusion weapons offer the possibility of generating a nuclear yield of very small amounts.
“A study several years ago expressed concern that pure fusion weapons research and development would subvert the intent of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Pure fusion weapons offer the advantage of reduced collateral damage stemming from radioactive fallout because these weapons would not create the highly radioactive fission products associated with standard nuclear weapons.
“Despite the many millions of dollars spent by both the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories in the years from 1952 to 1992 to produce a pure fusion weapon, no measurable success was ever achieved by either laboratory.
“The power densities needed to ignite a fusion reaction still seem attainable only with the aid of a fission explosion or in large reactors, such as the Sandia Z-pinch, the Livermore National Ignition Facility, or various tokamaks. Regardless of any claimed advantages of pure fusion weapons, building those weapons does not appear to be feasible.” (22)
Many scientists did not agree. A contributor to a physics website was among the enthused:
“…it is no longer impossible to imagine a fissionless fusion-based tactical nuclear ‘hand grenade’ for a modern, fission-free H-bomb trigger whose thermal output is capable of turning to plasma everything within a 10-foot radius.” (23)
As predicted, that excitement from both the science/technology fields and the Pentagon seem to have become so immune to the terrifying power of nuclear weapons as delivery systems become smaller and more sophisticated. Familiarity has bred contempt, unfortunately for those who may be vaporized.
Time was that nuclear tests were done on Pacific Ocean atolls or in the world’s deserts where populations were evacuated. Yet in 2000, many of those chosen for the Bush Administration staff, including the future Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Department Secretary Don Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, drafted a document suggesting that increasing national security and Pentagon funding would require a “new Pearl Harbor.” That kind of philosophy indicated the need for another surprise attack on American. Five years later, Cheney and Rumsfeld would institute a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes at the discretion of field commanders. So it is not surprising that an array of nuclear weapons such as mini-nukes would be included. By then, mini-nukes” were reclassified as “safe for the surrounding civilian population, minimizing the risk of collateral damage.” (24)
That this kind of thinking from powerful leaders in the Reagan Administration would suddenly be published may explain why many American activists now view the Oklahoma City bombing of April 19, 1995 as a dry run for 9/11 and achieving that cabal’s goals of a bolstered military that would dominate the world. Certainly, the explosion that destroyed the front of the federal Murrah building far exceeded the power law officials attributed to a “fertilizer” bomb—ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO)—in a truck, according to several explosives experts.(25)
The way the federal government seized total control of the investigation went beyond the involvement of a federal building. What looked like an open-and-shut case of a private vendetta against the government was being treated like a major military secret. The government could scarcely proclaim foreigners were responsible because Americans Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were found guilty. Federal officials closed off the area, took charge of the building’s demolition examinations, seized evidence and records, and in general shut out the baffled lawmen and officials.(26)
Local and national suspicions grew. It wasn’t long before such tactics were seen as a federal cover-up of something far more important nationally than a vengeful bombing. What was it concealing? That McVeigh and Nichols had filched an atomic bomb from the government? Both men are still seen by many as only hapless foot soldiers carrying out orders for a far larger organization.(27)
One expert in explosives was so curious about the authorities verdict that he tested the ANFO theory using three times the amount allegedly used by McVeigh and Nichols. Standing 1,000 feet away from his “Ground Zero,” he remained on his feet during detonation. He reported that: “…4,800 pounds of ANFO wouldn’t have scuffed the paint on the building!” So the causal agent of that monumental explosion had to be far more powerful than ANFO.(28)
Another expert was the Air Force’s Brig. Gen. (ret.) Benton K. Partin, considered one of the world’s major authorities on explosives. When no one in Congress raised questions of the Administration about the bombing, he was outraged enough to hand-deliver his analysis to every member of Congress. Among the points he emphasized:
“….reinforced concrete targets in large buildings are hard targets to blast. I know of no way possible to reproduce the apparent building damage through simply a truck bomb effort….
“The Murrah Federal Building was not destroyed by one sole truck bomb. The major factor in its destruction appears to have been detonation of explosives carefully placed at four critical junctures on supporting columns within the building.
“The only possible reinforced concrete structural failure solely attributable to the truck bomb was the stripping out of the ceilings of the first and second floors in the “pit” area behind columns B4 and By. Even this may have been caused by a demolition charge at column B3.
“It is truly unfortunate that a separate and independent bomb damage assessment was not made during the cleanup, before the building was demolished on May 23 and hundreds of truck loads of
debris were hauled away, smashed down, and covered with dirt behind a security fence.
“All evidence of demolition charges had been removed from the building site (i.e., the stubs of columns B3, A3, A5, A7 and the demolished junctures at the header with columns A3, A5 and A7). All ambiguity with respect to the use of supplementing demolition charges and the type of truck used could be quickly resolved if the FBI were required to release the surveillance camera coverage of this terribly tragic event.” (29)
Oklahoma’s Gov. Frank Keating agreed, telling television viewers:
“One device has been deactivated. Apparently, there is another device. Obviously, whatever did the damage to the Murrah Building was a tremendous…a very sophisticated explosive device.” (30)
One nuclear-medicine expert supporting that verdict was Deagle, then working in a Colorado hospital as an occupational physician. One of his patients had been a First Responder at the bombing. Deagle’s diagnosis was that the patient’s symptoms indicated fission nuclear weapons had been employed. With the patient’s permission to quote him, the oral statement was:
“….what happened in Oklahoma City wasn't caused by ammonium nitrate bomb in the small truck they say was parked by the building…..See this rash. It was caused by radiation. We broke three radiation detectors there. See, we were the same team that was sent to Riyad, Saudi Arabia and the bomb only blew the windows into the building. We estimated the explosion was by our calculations to be seven times more [than the] ammonium nitrate in that truck bomb. The whole front of the building was sheared off…. cleanest
controlled detonation our munitions expert forensic team has seen ever….
“There were micro-nuclear bombs placed on support pillars in the walls of the Federal Building, by special units of the ATF and FBI. They were paged out not to enter the building on the morning of the detonation, and the Federal Judge was warned to cancel court that day. We removed two undetonated softball sized micronuclear bombs, and one C4 pineapple bomb, attached to the pillars of the remaining building.” (31)
Mini-Nuclear Weapons at the WTC
The foregoing history underpins yet another theory about the destruction of the WTC 1, 2, and 7: That it was caused either by fission-driven or fissionless fusion mini-nuclear weapons. Even if these were part of a combination of causal agents—a “redundancy”—it would mean that the Bush administration had planned to commit that monstrous deed as an excuse to conquer Iraq and seize its oil fields. Or had teamed with another ally which had its own agenda—or with a global cabal bent on a subtle conquest of the world.
Perhaps suspicions started that 9/11 was “an inside job” because doubts arose that two airliners could ultimately destroy the entire World Trade Center’s seven buildings. Or incredulity that hijackers had made their way into Manhattan without a fighter squadron to deter them. That one pilot’s passport was found in near mint condition two blocks from WTC rubble (“he must have opened the window and thrown it out before crashing”). Architects, engineers and demolition professionals were even more incredulous that blame was attributed to jet-fuel fires when fire has never brought down a steel-framed building in history.(32)
Other evidence undermined the Bush Administration’s claims.
Several 50-ton exterior columns of the Towers were flung upward across streets to pierce the 15th and the 17th floors of the neighboring Deutsche Bank and American Express buildings, respectively, plus the 22nd floor of the Verizon building, the lower southwest corner of WTC 7—with no debris near it—and a college building behind WTC 7. Too, witnesses and First Responders at the Towers insisted they heard a string of explosions far beneath floors allegedly struck by aircraft. What about the energy of boiling black smoke and pyroclastic flow, all resembling a volcano—or an atomic-bomb blast? Doubts also fed on the Towers dissolving mostly into dust, not 30 stories of rubble as would have happened if the building had “pancaked,” as some theorize.(33)
The most mystifying event of all was that the 47-story WTC 7 (not hit by a plane) should collapse within 6.5 seconds almost completely in its own footprint late that afternoon. Again, NIST insisted it was caused by fires set off by WTC 1’s flaming debris penetrating its roof and windows. Yet a NIST photograph of a debris-free roof, locked rooftop doors and unbroken windows belied their own claim.(34)
New questions surfaced to challenge the Bush/Cheney Administration’s official explanation: Could a two-airliner crash emit shockwaves that knocked people off their feet? That could burn out vehicle engines and fling car doors to the pavement? What about the significant seismic and audio evidence of massive ground explosions—not just two for the Towers, but three bigger ones more than an hour later? What about EMP indicators of momentary communication shutdowns exactly on impact of planes and Towers? Or what about the discovery six days after 9/11 by the U.S. Geological Survey’s teams of astronomically elevated levels of nuclear residue: strontium, barium, vanadium, lead, and zinc. Above all, why couldn’t First Responders extinguish the pools of molten metal from WTC 1, 2, and 7 with water and daily changes of soil until December 19, 2001.(35)
One observer knowledgeable about nuclear weaponry toted up all this evidence and concluded:
“The factual evidence indicates that our government is using and has used 3rd or possibly 4th generation hydrogen bombs domestically and internationally. …The process of exclusion based on the known facts leaves only one viable option for the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings—a relatively pure hydrogen bomb.” (36)
In other words, most of the evidence to him and others pointed to a mini-nuclear bomb. His supposition was that the causal agent was a weapon capable, within little more than an hour, of destroying molecules of the Towers’ concrete, steel, interior combustibles—and people—into curb-high dust or borne by hurricane-force winds out to sea. That weapon also, he decided, reduced WTC 7 to five stories of rubble and produced pools of hot molten metal atop footprints of all three skyscrapers that burned for three months.
It would take monumental and masterly coordination of timing to get aircraft crashing into the Towers while—simultaneously—high-yield explosives hollowed out basements in six of the Center’s seven buildings, and then were followed by either mini-nuke blasts or high-yield demolition-type explosives to destroy the Towers and WTC 4, 5, and 6. This theory of mini-nukes is that WTC 7 was tumbled by explosives that also triggered a high-yield, non-explosive cutter-charge compound called Thermate®, hot enough to slice through steel beams holding up the building. The theory’s supposition involves the view that the wholesale destruction of the WTC required at least a year of planning.
Other evidence about explosions in the basements began to appear, some scientists also tagging nuclear weapons as the prime vehicle of destruction.
One major piece of evidence was the unusual Richter-scale readings from Columbia University’s seismic station across the Hudson River at New Jersey’s Palisades—and repeated at 13 of its 34 branch stations on the East Coast. A detriment to the plan was the Towers’ huge protective barrier—the “bathtub”—occupying Basement Levels 3 to 5. It was built to fend off the river from flooding Lower Manhattan basements and subway tunnels. Because the bathtub had three-foot concrete walls, it may have skewed precise readings up to the rim on Level 3.(37)
Judging from events, the perpetrators’ plan would have required matching aircraft hits high on the Towers—for show and political reasons—with basement explosions. Then, after an hour’s lull, mini-nukes would sequentially finish off the Towers and mask destruction of the three smaller buildings in the complex—WTC 4, 5, and 6—by mini-nukes. Debris from the Tower hits by aircraft would destroy the slim, 22-story WTC 3.
As for the 47-story WTC 7, no aircraft could come in low enough without plowing into neighboring skyscrapers. It would have to be rigged for destruction months before the Tower hits. The theory is that its beams would be wrapped in cutter charges to quietly slice them from holding the building together. (Cutter charges do not explode.) The theory’s supposition is that when the basement explosives were detonated, the building would collapse within seconds and fall neatly into its own footprint just like a controlled demolition in, say, Las Vegas. Most important, its demise would be barely noticed by the media in the chaos surrounding Tower destruction and fires in WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Statements by witnesses and First Responders also attested to hearing explosions as well as indications they were nuclear in power and signature. For example, two minutes after the North Tower was struck, New York firefighter Lt. William Walsh and his crew were at its West Street entrance and saw brown smoke coming out of the hit site—a sign of nuclear weapons—and a “lot of ash…[and] paper on the ground.” When they raced into the lobby:
“…[it] didn’t appear as though it had any lights. All of the glass on the first floor that abuts West Street was blown out, The glass in the revolving doors was blown out. All of the glass in the lobby was blown out.
“The wall panels on the wall are made of marble. It’s about two or three inches thick. They’re about ten feet high by ten feet wide. A lot of those were hanging off the wall. …In the center of [two banks of side express elevators from Floors 30 down would be elevators bound to lower floors. They were blown off the hinges….and you could see the shafts. [The other elevators] looked intact to me.
“….I noticed two civilians that had more than third-degree burns. They were in pugilistic position. They were black burnt. Their skin and their clothes were burnt off. They were smoldering. And they were trying to get up. They were just moving around. I estimated they had less than a half minute left in their lives…” (38)
Just prior to their arrival down in the North Tower’s Basement Level D, stationary engineer Mike Pecoraro was alerted to flickering lights by a coworker. Dreading the trouble of a power outage, they climbed to Level C where smoke made it difficult to breathe and see. But they found the machine shop gone (“nothing there but rubble”) and that a 50-ton hydraulic press had vanished. (It was later judged to have been vaporized.) The parking garage on that level was gone: “There were no walls. There was rubble on the floor. And you [couldn’t] see anything.” On level B, a 300-pound steel and concrete fire door was on the floor. It was “wrinkled up like a piece of aluminum foil,” he said.(39)
Minutes before a plane struck WTC 2, two city officials were ordered to get over to WTC 7, as was customary in “May-Day” protocol. The two were Michael Hess, the city’s chief corporate counsel, and Barry Jennings, deputy director of the Housing Authority’s Emergency Services Department. They rushed into the lobby which was intact and devoid of firefighters and most police. Tenants had been evacuated. Accompanied by a “police triage,” they took a freight elevator to the 23rd floor headquarters of Mayor Rudy Giuliani‘s Office of Emergency Management. What they assumed would be a beehive of action turned out to be empty quarters with signs of an instant evacuation: half-eaten sandwiches and hot coffee. When Jennings put in calls for information, the last one ordered them to “leave and to leave right away!” They were mystified because all signs downstairs indicated the building was safe.
Yet elevators were inoperable. So they sped down the stairs on the building’s North side. At the 6th floor landing, a tremendous explosion took out the landing and stairs below, presumably the primary bomb intended to open the basements for the building’s collapse—covered by WTC 2’s destruction across the street. They climbed hand over hand via the stair rails to the 8th floor in darkness, intense heat, and heavy smoke. Jennings broke one of the sealed windows with a fire extinguisher to shout for help from the firefighters ordered out less than an hour before. They promised to rescue the two.
WTC 1 was still standing, but shortly would disintegrate into huge dust clouds. Jennings said his prayers and sat down to wait for the firefighters—or death. As he described events immediately after his rescue:
“I was trapped in there for several hours. … And all the time, I’m hearing explosions. …I know what I heard.
“When [the firefighters] finally got to us, they took us down to what they called the lobby. I said: “Where are we?” He said: “This was the lobby.” …. Total ruins. ….It looked like King Kong had came through and stepped on it. Now keep in mind when I came in here, the lobby had nice escalators. It’s a huge lobby. And for me to see what I saw, it’s unbelievable.
“And [one of the] the firefighters that took us down, kept saying, “Do not look down!” And I kept saying: “Why not look down?” And we were stepping over people. And you know you can feel when you’re stepping on people.
“And I was so destroyed, I didn’t know where I was.
“And so they had to take me out through a hole in the wall. A makeshift hole that I believe the fire department made to get me out.
“This big, giant police officer came to me. And he says, “You have to run!” I said: “I can’t run. My knees are swollen.” He said: “Then, you‘ll have to get on your knees and crawl because we have reports of more explosions.” And that’s when I started crawling.
“I know what I heard. I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the [diesel] fuel-oil tanks. [But] I’m an old boiler guy. If it was the fuel-oil tank, it would have been wiped out of the building.” (40)
Curiously, Jennings and Hess’s accounts differ about the moments when firefighters failed to arrive and death seemed imminent. Both were immediately interviewed by the media—Jennings, a second time days later. Hess was interviewed, just before noon, a block from City Hall, nearly a half-mile from WTC 7. Though he was New York City’s chief attorney and supervised 700 lawyers, Jennings described him as panicked during their frightening ordeal (“We gotta get outta here!”). And he had just run a hair-raising half-mile in WTC dust. Yet he seemed too cool, too collected, and too careful in uttering his only televised remarks about their life-threatening experiences in WTC 7:
“I was up in the Emergency Management Office on the 23rd floor. And when all the power went out of the building, uh, another gentleman and I walked down to the eighth floor where there was an explosion and we’d been trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke all around us for about an hour and a half. But the New York Fire Department, as terrific as they are, just came and got us out.” (41)
Not even the ear-splitting noise seemed to bother Hess. But firefighter Lt. Robert Larocco was overwhelmed with it, especially from WTC 2 during its disintegration:
“…I heard that loudest noise in the world…getting louder and louder….It was the loudest noise I’ve ever heard in my life. It was in both ears. Kind of like those rockets that they launch the space shuttles with. It was like I had one going off in each ear. When I thought it was the loudest noise I ever heard, every second it was just increasing. Getting louder and louder and louder. [His fellow firefighters were] crying like babies.” (42)
Underground nuclear explosions are followed by pyroclastic clouds of materials initially almost as hot as the sun. What follows are shock and blast waves, and base-surge ground-hugging clouds of debris, plus and powerful electromagnetic pulses (EMPs). On 9/11, shock waves seem to have set vehicles afire. Base surges of dust and other debris were several stories high and filled the eyes, ears, mouths, and lungs of victims fleeing down nearby streets. EMPs apparently shut down all electricity momentarily—elevators, lighting, computers, radios, cell phones, vehicles. That would explain the Center’s lighting failures, elevator shutdowns, and the silence on many First Responders’ Handy-Talky radios. When Jennings looked out the window of WTC 7, he saw the shock-wave results: vehicles afire. A First Responder reported getting hit when a car flung its door. Four others—one from WTC 1’s sub-basements—suffered the “hanging skin” seen in survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.(43)
The two main advocates that mini-nuclear weapons were used at the WTC—fission or fissionless types—list several other giveaways:
• Pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra-fine dust particles that moved upward, steel particles moved downward.
• Nearly 2,000 missing people, presumably vaporized.
• Missing debris from two-thirds of the Towers.
• Partially vaporized steel beams from WTC 7.
• 50-ton corner beams from WTC 1 and 2 flung upward and across streets to pierce neighboring buildings nearly 400 feet away.
• Short seismographic spikes trailing off, indicators of ground-level explosions.
• Elevated levels tritium, strontium, barium, and zinc residue, all elements of nuclear weapons.
• Pyroclastic flow amid the boiling smoke, indicative of the volcanic-like energy of nuclear explosions.
• Afterglow of explosions.
• Vaporization of 200,000-gallons of water in sprinkler tanks on Tower roofs.(44)
If fissionless mini-nukes were used, radiation would be nil. But whether fission or fissionless types were used, they also were now “directable,” so the effects would be confined inside the Towers and WTC 7—and away from damaging the “bathtub” under WTC 1 and 2.(45)
How Mini-Nukes Might Have Entered the WTC
How could nuclear weapons have been planted at the WTC if Security was intensified after the 1993 bombing in the North Tower?
The destruction of the entire Center demonstrates it was easy and, also, that perhaps no high-rise building is entirely immune from those bent on destruction or bioterrorism in ventilation systems. The WTC, particularly the North Tower, has a history of those slipping past Security.
Back in August 1974, for example, France’s celebrated high-wire walker Phillipe Petit performed a 45-minute illegal, yet breathtaking, act crossing eight times from the North to the South Tower’s 110th floors. A friendly tenant had permitted him to store equipment and his team, all brought up in van on a freight elevator. And in February 1993, a van full of terrorists and urea nitrate got past North Tower basement guards. That explosion left six dead, 1,000 injured, and $500 million in repairs to five basement levels.(46)
Security was supposedly tightened in 1996 when the Port Authority hired Securacom. Its chief executive officer was President Bush’s cousin; his brother Marvin Bush was on its board. They did install cameras everywhere and added personnel. Vehicles, especially delivery vans, underwent minute examinations by staff and bomb-sniffing dogs. ID tags were de rigeur for tenants, clients, and sightseers. Despite all this, in January 1998 a Mafia-type team used “maintenance access” to grab over $1.6 million from a Brink’s crew about to enter the Bank of America on the North Tower’s 11th floor. One of the four had worked at the WTC for 20 years so his ID card was used in the robbery.(47)
The Towers also always had high vacancy rates—15% after their doors opened (WTC 1: 1970; WTC 2: 1972)—despite proximity to the New York Stock Exchange and global financial institutions. Empty floors and offices are ideal hiding places for those bent on destruction. On September 11, 2001, WTC 1 had 16 empty floors; WTC 2 had eight. No count of empty offices has been issued.(48)
WTC 7’s owner Larry Silverstein had almost no tenants in 1986 when that building was scheduled to open. He was rescued at the eleventh hour by a financier who later went to prison. But by that time, it was filled with federal agencies—SEC, IRS, Secret Service, FBI, etc.—retaining them up to 9/11 by attractive rent discounts. So dire was the situation in the Towers by 1996, however, that the Port Authority eagerly agreed to provide five empty floors in WTC 1 (8, 35, 85, 91, 92) as rent-free studios for artists and sculptors. They were supposedly vetted by the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council’s World View Project.(49)
True, the Towers were sightseeing icons, but internally and externally, they creaked and were rotting with age. Externally, the aluminum cladding was corroding and needed replacement before sections fell to the sidewalks and killed passersby. And aside from plumbing and wiring needs, the owners—the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey—kept postponing asbestos abatement while petitioning the city for demolition permits. In turn, the city complained the Port was still getting tax abatements on the Towers since their 1966 groundbreaking. Tenants complained about the “closely spaced, poorly-lit floors,” and when their iron-clad leases expired, many fled to more attractive space nearby. Undoubtedly, many more departed when Silverstein became the WTC landlord on July 24, 2001 and promptly raised rents by 40%. (50)
On September 11, WTC 1, 2, and 7 apparently contained 27 empty floors and an unreported number of vacant offices. Because most tenants and visitors in shabby buildings rarely give others a second glance, the perpetrators had an array of disguises: workmen, maintenance and restaurant personnel, the well-dressed feigning interest in renting offices or in visiting tenant allies. Or posing as “artists-in-residence” in jeans and sandals, lugging easels and equipment boxes and chattering in a foreign tongue. One victim’s brother recalled his saying in the months before 9/11, that several “foreign-looking” men were frequenting the communication center on the 110th floor of WTC 1 to make international calls in a foreign language. That witness was unusual. Most rarely give others a second glance.(51)
But in late July 2001, when Silverstein’s $3.2 billion bid for the WTC leases made him the landlord, abrupt changes began.(52)
He dispensed with the Port’s interim security system between September 1 and 7, 2001 “to let [Silverstein Properties] more fully operate everything from safety systems to tenant relations.” Yet it would have been impossible for his people to master that vast assignment, let alone monitor the thousands passing through Tower lobbies by September 11. Kroll Associates then took over security hiring the FBI’s deputy director John O’Neill on August 23. His forte was field assignments, however, not supervising building security.(53)
In that interim between July 24 and September 10, tenants may have been asked to temporarily shift quarters for “repairs” or “upgradings” of utilities. Those above the Towers’ 48th floors were notified three weeks before 9/11 that a powerdown to recable for expanded broadband was scheduled for the weekend of September 8-9. That meant no electricity on those floors, nor elevator service—or surveillance cameras—again, ideal working conditions for 9/11 perpetrators.(54)
An additional troubling sidelight was that at that time, one of the world’s leading demolition experts, Mark Loizeaux, admitted he was in WTC 7’s Emergency Management Agency on the 23rd floor when Silverstein became the Port’s landlord. His company had demolished 7,000 buildings, including Detroit’s Hudson Department Store. He was fully knowledgeable about the complex (“I did a report on the World Trade Center when I was at college and I knew exactly how it was built”).(55)
If Loizeaux were in Silverstein Properties offices in WTC 1 to discuss demolition of one of the company’s other properties, that was one thing. But it was quite another to be in Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s command bunker for the city’s security. In fairness, the session could have involved notification that Silverstein was preparing the aging, asbestos-laden white elephants for demolition and to make another plea for the city to issue the permits. Giuliani’s security people would need to be alerted.(56)
The latter case seems quite possible because after seeing the WTC 2 hit and jet fuel pouring down its sides, Loizeaux did not contact officials about fire and aircraft crashes. Instead, he “called a couple of people on the National Research Council Committee involved in assessing the impact of explosives.” That does seem to indicate demolition rigging was already in place.(57)
An author of a book theorizing about nuclear factors at the WTC, William Tahil, points to yet another angle to Loizeaux’s visit:
“It is clear that anyone intent on carrying out an illegal or clandestine controlled demolition of a building would require the advice of an expert on how to do it. The best way to obtain that advice would be under a pretext of some sort, such as security planning.” (58)
In short, the Center was wide open for planting any kind of explosives that would bring about its destruction. As previously noted, mini-nuke pellets are now small enough—5mm-diameter (0.195 of an inch)—for someone in a suit with hutzpah, carrying a briefcase—or a vendor in uniform, someone in a hard hat carrying cable and a box, or an artist type in jeans pushing a box-filled dolly—to sneak in parts of fissionless or fission mini-nuke.(59)
Fission-Driven Mini-Nukes
The two mini-nuke advocates whose theories are featured in this paper—“Anonymous Physicist,” (“AP”) and one calling himself “The Finnish Military Expert” (“FME”) agree on the simultaneous timing of aircraft hits and basement explosions to ultimately destroy all seven WTC buildings. However, they differ on whether fissionless- or fission-triggered devices were the initial weapon—with adjunctive cutter charge redundancies or conventional demolition explosives such as RDX. They also differ on the kiloton power (one kiloton vs. one-tenth of a kiloton), as well as how many devices were planted. Obviously, high-rise demolition experts had to have provided information to the perpetrators on the most effective locations.(60)
“AP” posits that fission-driven mini-nukes set off a domino effect with accompanying conventional explosives or non-explosive, high-temperature cutter charges to quietly slice and melt the WTC’s steel beams. He points out that explosions from nuclear weapons consume only 1 to 6% of the fissionable material. As for what happens to the remaining 99 or 94%:
“…the micro-nukes—even the properly fissioning ones used inside the WTC—were, at least partially, contained during the destruction. But as the buildings were being destroyed, even vaporized, the remaining fissile material would be able to reach all around the WTC area, and some would likely reach significantly beyond as well.
“Some fissile material from the sub-basement nukes, would likely be trapped in the largest concentrations, to be found in the aftermath, in these basement areas. These radioactive fragments would also be inaccessible to the usual radiation-lowering mechanisms that were extensively employed beginning the very next day--water hosing, and “coating” with sand /earth….Indeed all the facts involving exploding numerous micro-nukes in an enclosed (or partially enclosed) space appears to make the China Syndrome aftermath not only plausible, but inevitable!” (61)
He believes that the sun-like heat from the mini-nukes’ “radioactive fragments” created the molten pools of metal in footprints of WTC 1, 2, and 7 that smoldered for 99 days. He calls this phenomenon “the China Syndrome” because of the myth applied to Chernobyl that a meltdown of a nuclear reactor’s core could send the flow to penetrate Earth from Ground Zero to China.(62)
New York Fire Chief Jerry Gumbo attested to the heat, the greatest he had ever experienced, yet no fires were near him:
“At the time of the [planes] impact, we were able to feel heat that was generated from the explosion at the command post, which was across West Street. And West is fairly large street with that island in there, and debris was showering all over West Street.” (63)
Cleanup vendor Bechtel Corporation, with 40 employees at the site, also mentioned the heat in its report about working conditions:
“The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties. More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero.” (64)
Those views were echoed by California’s Rand Corporation’s statement when it sponsored a conference about lessons learned from First Responders:
“…the rubble pile was so hot in places that it melted the soles of boots (a problem noted by members of the trades, law- enforcement, and firefighter panels). Work shoes with steel reinforcements in the soles and toes protected feet against punctures by sharp objects, but often could not be worn because they conducted
and retained the heat, causing blistered or scorched feet. One special-operations member said, ‘Steel toes never break in. We’d all be sitting there at night bandaging up and everybody had the same blisters. It was related to wearing the steel toe for that duration.’ “ (65)
Weighing all available evidence about mini-nukes, “AP” declared:
“….fission was a certainty, and that fusion (fissionless) probably did not occur, and the tritium data release should be discounted. Some fission reactions even produce tritium.” (66)
He estimated the number of bombs used (35 per Tower), placements, and explosive power of each (one-tenth of one kiloton) and added:
“…at least a minimum of 4-6 nukes per tower were used. Each one having a radius of about 10-15 floors, or a diameter of about 20-30 floors.
“Nukes would be placed strategically (centrally?) to try to vaporize the strong 47-beam steel core—the sturdiest and most heat-resistant part of the towers’ structure—and therefore likely the last to get vaporized….
“With a nuclear device that vaporizes most of the inside—which will soon be micro-particles floating around outside—there would be little left of the inside to need support! While preferable to do away with as much of this 47 steel beam support as possible without “over-nuking” everything, it was therefore not essential for its entirety to be vaporized. Indeed, we may see [in photographs] that some of this support—up to about the 60th Floor—remained after “collapse” of WTC 1—and was then itself likely vaporized, during the “nuclear glow”.
“Why was there a need to vaporize the left-over support beams? Because…100% obliteration of these beams is more necessary for the bogus, gravitational “collapse” mechanism, than for the actual nuclear destruction mechanism!
“….A decision as to whether, or not, to use more nukes towards the end of each tower’s destruction—when smoke and debris would shield the state of the remaining building could have been facilitated by helicopters, planes, even satellites overhead—using wavelengths that see through smoke—and directed more nuclear (or conventional?) explosions—especially at the lower levels or ground—as needed.” (67)
As for the eight-story WTC 6 and the nine-story WTC 4 and 5, “AP” speculated that “underpowered nukes” were used so it could be later claimed that Tower debris and ground-level reverberations caused their destruction. “AP” believes an oversized mini-nuke was used on WTC 6 and might have been a mistake (“..smaller ones, to hide the nuking, was the order of the day…”).(68)
Aerial photographs of the dust-covered WTC by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on September 23, 2001, show sizeable basement-to-roof cylindrical holes in WTC 6 (100’ diameter). WTC 4 was sheared exactly from its flattened South wing. That wing seemed to contain the same size crater as WTC 6 and was three stories deep).(69)
“AP” suggests WTC 7, in contrast to its WTC companions, was a botched job because of the fission “fizzles” inherent to nuclear weapons. He posits that is why backup mini-nukes apparently were involved in the Oklahoma City bombing and immediately and quickly retrieved by federal agents from the premises after the bombing, as previously noted.
As to WTC 7’s destruction, the likeliest plan was to wait until WTC 1 and 2 were destroyed, then spread the rumor that this third skyscraper’s beams had been weakened either by: 1) ground reverberations from the Towers’ destruction; or 2) flaming debris from WTC 1 that somehow vaulted past WTC 6 next door and Liberty Street to set it afire. Besides, amid all the chaos of black clouds of dust, the shouts, screams, and sirens, few even in the media would notice that the nearby 47-story WTC 7 had collapsed in 6.5 seconds. In this, the perpetrators were successful.(70)
That all-day delay also permitted the scramble of key federal tenants in WTC 7—FBI, CIA, Secret Service—to rescue files while an estimated 4,000 tenants made their orderly, hour-long evacuation after the first airliner hit. Strangely, the staff at the Securities and Exchange Commission failed to remove 3,000-4,000 files on illegal activities by investment banks. And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would later report that 45 major case files were missing, including one against Morgan Stanley Global Investment Management. Add to that the IRS’s loss of critical files.(71)
If Jennings’ timetable was correct about the explosion that collapsed the stairs out from him and Hess, that had to be when the fissionless nuke went off in WTC 7’s basements to hollow them out for the rubble of 47 floors. The bodies in the shattered lobby they climbed over may have been maintenance workers or tenants caught in the basements’ blast or elevators, as had happened in WTC 1. One firefighter never forgot that scene:
“There was elevator doors ajar. There were elevator doors missing. I could see an elevator car twisted in the shaft….there was a bunch of rubble on the floor…about three feet high in the middle. The ceiling wasn’t charred. So I had thought the floor blew up...I came to learn that that was bodies. We had to climb over and around this pile.” (72)
The bodies in both lobbies, obviously retrieved from fire-blistered elevator cars, seem to indicate they were sacrificed by explosives under the shafts to clear basements for rubble.
Both a NIST preliminary report in 2004 and the final report note that between 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.: “Firefighters found individuals on floors 7 and 8 and [led] them out of the building,” but reported no bodies, but “heavy debris” in the lobby, in addition to white dust and hanging ceiling wires. Because a gash in the Southwest corner was photographed—lobby to the 10th floor—it would appear that damage was not done by debris falling from WTC 1, across the street. It had to be something large, perhaps a heavy column beam, propelled upward by a powerful explosive force from the WTC 7’s basement and through the lower floors of its southwest corner wall. Whether a single beam or several were thrust into surrounding buildings such as WTC 6 across the street is not known. What is known from photographs is that something large was flung from WTC 7 to penetrate what appears to be the sixth and seventh floors of the eastern side of the Verizon building across a side street between the two structures. In addition, behind WTC 7, large holes were blasted into the south façade and southeastern side of City University of New York’s Fiterman Hall. (73)
However, 15 minutes after Jennings and Hess had to have been led to safety, the deputy director of Giuliani’s OEM arrived. That report never included bodies, but did note signs of a tremendous explosion. NIST’s investigators evidently were ordered to ignore it in the Administration’s mandate to bring in a verdict of fire as the causal agent of WTC 7’s collapse. That meant ignoring an elevator car blasted into an upper hall, falling objects:
“…columns just hanging from the upper floors. Gaping holes in the floors above us.” (74)
WTC 7 May Hold Key to the WTC Destruction
Whomever Jennings called that morning about the evacuated OEM headquarters obviously knew the building was about to be demolished and shocked to learn two high-ranking city officials were on the premises. But considering the thousands to be killed in the Towers, it seems unlikely any change was made to the detonation timing. They at least had been warned to flee. Their lives were saved when the explosives apparently took out only the basement levels, not the entire building.
That WTC 7 was still standing after WTC 2 disintegrated and before WTC 1 was destroyed, indicated to “AP” that the perpetrator’s precise timetable seems to have gone significantly awry. Like a burned-out bulb on a string of Christmas-tree lights, he has surmised that one or more of the always-perishable fission bombs, “all its nukes—including the redundant one(s)—fizzled.” If true, the perpetrators now faced a spectacular predicament because it would be difficult to hide a second attempt at demolishing WTC 7. At least someone in authority had ordered almost all First Responders out of the building before the first attempt so the perpetrators could finish the job in secret.(75)
Their Plan B seems to have involved at least five major remedial tasks:
1). Replace the mini-nukes with fresh ones.
2). Get rid of the bodies in the lobby.
3). Set and stoke small and highly visible fires throughout the building.
4). Send out media releases that the building was about to collapse.
5). Silence Jennings and the firefighter(s) who rescued him.
“AP” envisioned the perpetrators’ frantic eight-hour activities:
“…it took a few hours to get replacements [for the mini-nukes], possibly even needing time to test, or try to test, the new ones before emplacing them…I would hypothesize that perhaps even the errant early notice to the worldwide media that WTC 7 had already collapsed [before 5:20 p.m.] may have been once again due to another defective nuke ‘fizzling.’ ” (76)
The clumsy damage-control efforts expended on WTC 7 doomed the Bush/Cheney story that Arab hijackers had destroyed the Center. For one thing, the perpetrators were unaware that fire had never brought down a steel-framed high-rise in history, something most veteran firefighters around the country know. And something probationers learned when the steel structures of WTC 5 and 6 remained erect, though gutted by fires. Nor did they seem to realize that high-rise demolition specialists would point out it takes months of preparation to achieve a collapse without damaging neighboring buildings. Or that WTC 7’s locked rooftop doors and sealed windows would prevent WTC 1’s alleged “flaming debris” from entering the building. It’s doubtful that debris would still be “flaming” after traveling 355 feet across the street.
Nor did those in charge know that arson should start on a top floor, not the seventh floor. Or that documents would show that the fire alarm system was turned off at 6:47:42 a.m. and back on at 2:48:22 p.m. when alarms were unneeded. Or that television cameras showing No. 7 still standing would be rolling when a BBC reporter said it had already collapsed. (At least one source found media reports that it had collapsed at 11:07 that morning.) And how could the planners know that a pair of videographers would capture its sensational 6.5-second collapse straight into its basement and somehow escape officials seizing tapes?(77)
What they did know was that most Americans would believe anything their President, his staff and the mass media told them about these terrible events. Not to overlook the public’s short attention spans and easily distractive natures, plus the anti-Arab dispositions from the 1993 North Tower bombing, the public’s patriotism and vengeful proclivities. The perpetrators also had to have demanded and received continued cooperation of those orchestrating the subsequent massive cover-up, especially when Bush administration was finally forced to institute and control the 9/11 Commission investigation.
Unfortunately, they overlooked the incredible power and world-wide reach of the yet uncensored Internet. Almost from Day 2 of the disaster, bloggers and hundreds of activists began to do the investigative work that three prizewinning mediums—The New York Times, The Washington Post, CBS News—failed or refused to do. These one-time matchless investigative mediums joined the perpetrators’ other accessories in the mainstream media in telling a shocked world that two airliners had leveled the WTC. And that Osama bin Ladin’s al-Qaida operatives had single-handedly done the deed. Most Americans up to that time also believed almost everything purveyed by television and the press, especially accounts from the Bush Administration’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In fairness to the Times, “AP” notes that an “inside job” was first inadvertently suggested in late November 2001 by one of its stories. In a “round-up” set of interviews from the national “community” of structural engineers and architects, the reporter wrote they were utterly baffled by WTC 7’s collapse. “Flaming debris” and the tanks of diesel fuel were ruled out because of thick asbestos coating the beams and that even the hottest fires had never destroyed steel beams.(78)
The explosion factor seemingly was ignored, but the reporter’s story included quotes from a renown fire-protection engineering professor, Dr. Jonathan Barnett. He was considered expert enough to be appointed to the WTC assessment team organized by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers. After that interview, he was not invited to be one of the experts producing the 2008 NIST report on WTC 7’s collapse.(79)
Prophetically, Barnett was quoted as saying that a definitive answer to the WTC 7 question was the most important question facing investigators. He followed that startling remark with the observation that some of the beams found in the debris pile appeared to have partly evaporated because of “extraordinarily high temperatures.” The intimation seemed to be the beams
were not melted by debris, diesel-fuel fires, or Thermate®. The primary cause might be vaporization caused by a nuclear weapon.(80)
However, his statement was not followed up by the Times or the mainstream media. Almost all mediums, except the Internet, seemed to deliberately ignore WTC 7’s spectacular collapse from the outset so that most people without computer access were unaware of the third skyscrapers’ existence and death—until a PBS special America Rebuilds included it on the first anniversary of 9/11. WTC 7’s owner Larry Silverstein was interviewed and admitted ordering the building “pulled,” a demolition term. As a life-long realty/construction-demolition expert, he knew “pulling” a building—especially a skyscraper—involved months of planning and implementation.(81)
He apparently forgot that NIST and his insurers attributed destruction to fire and that he was on track to collect $861 million in claims from his carrier. That damning gaffe was quickly explained by his spokesman as meaning “pulling out firefighters” in hopes the public would not know they had been “pulled” by mid-morning. The alibi was too late. Silverstein’s admission turned smoldering embers into a firestorm of doubt continuing to this day about WTC 7’s collapse.(82)
DVD and YouTube footage of that slip and a frame-by-frame postcard on the collapse seem to have been major recruiting tools for millions to question the “official” story that has set off two wars and a major recession. So did the 9/11 Commission Report which omitted mention of WTC 7’s existence and death. By then, thousands were regularly reading posts on proliferating 9/11 websites and downloading 9/11 documentaries (Loose Change, 9/11 Revisited, 9/11 Mysteries, etc.). Investigative books followed such as Crossing the Rubicon. Thousands of 9/11 groups organized. Street demonstrators distributed DVDs, literature, and promoted a national speakers’ circuit. Millions of T-shirts charged that “9/11 Was an Inside Job.” And millions more now believe it was, a late 2007 Scripps-Howard poll revealing that 36% of them “suspected that federal officials either actually assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them.” The same poll showed that 51% of Americans want Congress to investigate the roles of Bush and Cheney in 9/11.(83)
The Fissionless Mini-Nukes Theory
The view of Finnish Military Expert (“FME”) seems to dovetail with that of “AP.” He believes, however, that the mini-nukes were of a one-kiloton type, and fissionless—a non-radioactive “pure hydrogen bomb.” He evidently perceived its having the equivalent power of the 35 fission types that “AP” suggested were planted at each of the three skyscrapers. They were enhanced, he has theorized, by as many as 24,000 cutter charges wrapped around each beam, plus napalm for visual effects, and a directional radio homing device to direct the aircraft.(84)
The diagram below illustrates his concepts of what was used and the placement sites in this truncated version of one of the Towers.



“FME’s” Theory of Mini-Nuke Distribution in WTC 1 and 2 (85)
The fissionless mini-nuke described by “FME” was nine times more powerful than the fission bomb suggested by “AP”: one kiloton instead of one-tenth of a kiloton. According to “FME” the mini-nuke also used a tritium trigger and left some residual radiation in the WTC beams because high tritium levels were documented near Ground Zero, he wrote.(86)
He suggests labor-intensive preparations were required for wrapping 50-pound bags of cutter-charge compound around every beam of the three skyscrapers. At a rate of one worker assembling five charges per hour, his completion estimate of four to six months preparation mirrors the schedule described by professional demolition experts on high-rises. Add to that time factor the counting, handling and shipping time by vendors supplying 24,000 cutter charges. Add, too, the element of “powder monkeys” wrapping the beams undergoing the additional occupational hazard of clandestine conditions on empty floors and posing as construction crews or maintenance men.(87)
Another phase of his theory has to do with planting radio beacons at key spots in the three buildings so that both nukes and cutter charges could be detonated by remote control from either a nearby building or aircraft.(88)
He believes the perpetrators also secreted laser-beamed listening devices on every floor of the buildings to detect discovery of their work. The highest risk had to be getting caught red-handed. Supposedly, they had “guards” to deal with the curious. That they were never detected during that lengthy period—especially in WTC 1 and 7 where the FBI and Secret Service/CIA were quartered—strongly suggests those “guards” either did their job well or that collusion existed between perpetrators and key members of the security companies involved—or confederates among tenants or WTC management. (89)
His theory is that the mini-nukes were delivered on 9/11, perhaps to ensure freshness and would not fizzle. As he envisioned the action:
“From the command post facilities, the actions in towers are monitored. To hide the true nature of the operation, there was probably an agent on call in both towers who could silence the people finding out too much. (The agent probably did not know what was going to happen.) It is not likely that all the people, who knew about the demolition charges in the WTC, or those who installed the remote controls of the aircraft or did some camouflage paintings for drones are still are alive and capable of telling about their acts, which changed the world.
“The mini-nukes are transported to the cellar floors in elevators. After that the elevators are locked down, guarded and monitored—no service repairman will be allowed near these elevators. The thermonuclear device used in WTC 7 was different, its yield was set lower and it was directed in a way better suitable for that building.
“The explosions have been timed so that 99.9% of people around will look at the top of towers, and perhaps two seconds later the small thermonuclear bomb is exploded in the cellar of the south tower, and again two seconds later another very powerful charge in the WTC 6 customs building while nobody is looking that way. There are also the continuous explosions of the thousands of cutting charges tearing the south tower down at the speed of gravity-driven free fall…..
“The demolition operation is finished by destroying WTC 7 using a nuke and completely destroying the op center with its equipment. Concrete evidence like the military flight beacon and the remote control devices for cutting charges and napalm as well as the recordings of eavesdropping devices regarding events within the towers vaporize and vanish without a trace.” (90)
His view about detonation and the results was:
“The ignition of this [bomb] is the fine part, either with a powerful beam array or antimatter (a very certain way to get the necessary effect of directed energy in order not to level the adjacent blocks of high-rise buildings, as well)…. The thermal energy may absorb heat at a rate of 10 E 23 ergs / cm2 sec and near the bomb all surfaces may heat to 4000 °C or 7200 °F igniting or vapourizing violently.” (91)
“FME” suggests that once that the one-kiloton mini-nuke was detonated in the Towers, 10,000,000º F heat shot instantly from sub-basement to the top floors. As it traveled, it vaporized most of the beams that hadn’t been flung upward through the basement walls and into neighboring buildings. The shockwave, he indicates, would have sucked all the water from those walls, interior combustibles, computers, and people—and turned all into dust particles into the boiling clouds racing for the Atlantic Ocean.(92)
Then, there was the tell-tale nuclear heat after fires were extinguished.
Five days after 9/11, the heat at Ground Zero was unbearable for First Responders attempting to clear debris and federal investigators. The thermal survey taken by NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey for that period was:
Fº Building
1341 WTC7
1034 WTC7
1161 WTC1
963 WTC1
819 WTC3
801 WTC2
1377 WTC2
1017 WTC4 (93)
Rising Incidence of Radiation-Related Cancers
A significant increase in radiation-linked cancers also was noted by health officials in New York City. Cancer was diagnosed in 20,000 First Responders even in 2006—especially younger ones—being studied by the WTC Medical Monitoring Program at Mt. Sinai Medical Center, as reported in The New England Journal of Medicine. Types included leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma, and were said to be: “consistent with exposure to environmental radiation contamination associated with the destruction of the “9/11 targets.” (94)
To inform Congress about the seriousness of this Chernobyl-like issue, the president of the Federation of American Scientists—Dr. Henry Kelly—testified six months after 9/11 to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations about the possibilities of radiation not just around Ground Zero, but surrounding areas in New Jersey and Greater New York City. His was an oblique warning about potential nuclear attacks and the prospect of those cancers:
“[Radiological] Materials that could easily be lost or stolen from US research institutions and commercial sites could contaminate tens of city blocks at a level that would require prompt evacuation and create terror in large communities even if radiation casualties were low. Areas as large as tens of square miles could be contaminated at levels that exceed recommended civilian exposure limits. Since there are often no effective ways to decontaminate buildings that have been exposed at these levels, demolition may be the only practical solution. If such an event were to take place in a city like New York, it would result in losses of potentially trillions of dollars.” (95)
He cited the radioactive effects of a nuclear explosion’s gamma rays from strontium or cobalt. Kelly’s grim prediction about a single “piece” of cobalt failed to move Congress into action. But it did move many uneasy New Yorkers when he said three states could be contaminated:
“….Over an area of about 300 typical city blocks, there would be a 1 in 10 risk of death from cancer for residents living in the contaminated area for 40 years. The entire borough of Manhattan would be so contaminated that anyone living there would have a 1 in 100 chance of dying from cancer caused by the residual radiation. It would be decades before the city was inhabitable again, and demolition might be necessary.” (96)
Among his radioactivity exhibits was a Manhattan-area map to illustrate the possible cancer incidence emitted from a gamma-ray bomb. [SEE endnotes.] The exhibit was based on EPA data, an ironic touch in that the then-EPA director Christie Whitman pronounced the entire area free from pollutants a week after 9/11. Kelly’s dire prediction was generations of radioactivity and a recommendation that Manhattan and environs should be evacuated for years.(97)
As if to prevent discovery of radiation’s catastrophic losses to businesses and residents, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and a deputy police commissioner in early 2008 strangely and strongly urged the City Council to pass a bill requiring police permits to own Geiger counters and other air-monitoring devices—and to jail scofflaws. Citizens stormed into City Council chambers to question the need. The Commissioner’s response that permits were necessary “to prevent false alarms” only intensified the grilling and fury.(98)
The bill was quickly withdrawn, but he warned it was not dead. That threat apparently fooled neither savvy and scrappy New Yorkers, especially those knowledgeable about sophisticated weaponry—and highly suspicious about what destroyed the World Trade Center. Those suspicions have only added more signatures to the more than 47,000 on a petition to institute an independent New York City WTC investigation on the November 2009 ballot.(99)
Officials vigorously opposing such a probe now hang hopes on Congress and the public believing that the NIST reports will end global cries that “9/11 Was an Inside Job.” They sighed with relief seemingly when the 9/11 Commission published its findings, believing the public would never learn that the co-chairs wrote a book about the proceedings and charged it was a Bush/Cheney cover-up.
And even as NIST’s preparatory work began on investigating the causal agent of WTC 7’s collapse, its lead investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder’s seeming dread of having to deliver the Administration’s unlikely, yet mandated, verdict was manifest when an astute reporter asked him about his group’s preliminary hypothesis on the building’s collapse:
“…truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7.” (99)
When the report finally was issued in August 2008 attributing WTC 7’s collapse to fire, he and his research teams were blistered and scorned by architects, engineers, scientists and other 9/11 experts charging NIST was incapable of scientific research. They excoriated the report, particularly because much rested on the use of evidence heavily drawn from computer models, the inclusion of biased testimonies, and constant erroneous extrapolations of data.(100)
“FME” believes most Americans cannot recognize “collapses, controlled demolitions and underground nuclear demolitions.” Nor does he see them knowledgeable about state-of-the-art nuclear weapons unquestionably funded by the Department of Defense, designed by the national laboratories, and produced by vendors. That is, after all, the purpose of the sacrosanct commandment about National Security.(101)
Conclusion
Both “AP” and “FME” believe America’s major city was “nuked” in a false-flag operation involving the World Trade Center complex—specifically using mini-nuclear bombs under WTC 1, 2 and 7. The secondary causal agent, in their view, seems to be that cutter charges were used to weaken the building’s beams. They also point out that the perpetrators had the time, manpower, energy, and financing as well as a significant cache of mini-nukes with which to stage this attack. And if fissionless nukes were used, radiation would not be a byproduct.
However, as with any theory—certainly all major ones concerning the WTC destruction (fire and directed-energy weapons to thermite)—this one will need to undergo significant scrutiny by national/international experts in the science and technological fields. That is the thrust of a bill the Portland 9/11 Legislative Alliance has proposed to key members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Among questions asked of these two mini-nuke theorists, the chief ones undoubtedly will be:
• If only Department of Defense vendors have the capability and licenses to manufacture mini-nukes—fission or fissionless—how could the thousands estimated by these two theorists be obtained?
• How could all those mini-nukes be delivered at the WTC without being detected by the Security force?
• How could the perpetrators be assured that personnel placing mini-nukes and cutter charges would never talk about their work to outsiders?
• Were any of those WTC 1 tenants in the floors reserved for artists, questioned about being the saboteurs installing those mini-nukes and cutter charges?
• Despite the whirling dust surrounding WTC 1, Judy Wood’s photograph clearly shows that part of the interior core of beams was intact. If mini-nukes took out that core on the way up and out of the Tower, as these theorists claim, why are these beams untouched?
• The placement of 35,000 mini-nukes and wrapping 24,000 cutter charges around beams seems to be a logistical nightmare of excessive ordnance or is FME pulling our legs. Which is it?
• Explain how vendors delivering all those mini-nukes could possibly avoid having to wear haz-mat garb either en route to Manhattan or to the WTC service entrance and, thus, escape detection by the Security force.
• If the mini-nukes were fission types, why wouldn’t most Manhattan residents—or those escaping the Towers—be dead from radiation carried by the base-surge on streets near the WTC?
• Isn’t it possible that the bodies in the WTC 1 lobby were from jet-fuel fireballs dropped on elevators rather than from basement explosions? If so, where did the bodies in WTC 7 come from?
[NEXT: Were Plasmoid-Gas Weapons Used to Destroy the WTC? ]
__________________
The three authors are founders of the Portland 911 Legislative Alliance. Barry Ball has been a Portland 911 group facilitator/activist and co-author of the 9/11 investigation bill and its presenter House members and the research director of the House Science & Technological Committee in Washington last September.
Barbara Ellis, Ph.D, is a long-time journalist (LIFE magazine, Washington, D.C. Evening Star, Beirut Daily Star) and was a technical-journalism professor (Oregon State University/Louisiana’s McNeese State University). She was a 2004 nominee for the Pulitzer Prize in history (The Moving Appeal) and, now, the principal of a writing/editing/pr firm.
Russ Hallberg is a Portland activist (impeachment/911/depleted uranium, low-level radiation studies). He says: “My history-teacher mother taught me well about false-flag operations and the 1898 sinking of the USS Maine.”


Endnotes

(1) Avery, Dylan, Bermas, Jason, and Rowe, Korey, Loose Change, 3rd Ed., http://digg.com/political_opinion/video_Loose_Change_3rd_edition_RELEASED. Washington, George, “FBI Believed that Bombs used on 9/11,” OpEdNews, February 10, 2009, friendly.php?p=FBI=Believed-that-Bombs-Us-by-George-Washington-090210-596.html.
(2) Voltaire, the famous French satirist of the 18th century was the pen name of Francois-Marie Arquet (“Voltaire,” Micropaedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica 15th ed. (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1979), 490. Samuel Adams, called the Father of the American Revolution, used several pen names like “Vindex,” (Karl, Jonathan, “Revolution Is No Tea Party,” The Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2008).
(3) Hampson, Rick and Moore, Martha T., “Closure from 9/11 elusive for many,” USAToday, September 3, 2003. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-09-03-sept-11-son_x.htm. "Hibakusha": Those who Survived and How They Survived,” UCLA’s Project: Children of the Atomic Bomb, October 10, 2007, http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200712090011.html, 1-2.
(4) NA, “The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel,” 911-Oz, ND, http://www.911oz.com/links/dummies/8. Other indicators, all present at the WTC on 9/11, are: 1) hot pyroplastic clouds from the familiar stem and mushroom explosion that carry most residue from a nuclear blast; 2) ground-level blast waves igniting fires that are followed by shock waves; 3) ground-level base surge clouds enveloping a blast site with residue and radioactive materials; 4) unquenchable metal-based fires from radioactive materials until they decay; 5) ground samples yielding radioactive elements such as strontium, barium, vanadium, lead, zinc, etc.; 6) if from a reactor meltdown, Cerenkov’s Radiation, which emits a light-blue light to the heavens from radioactive isotopes (Tahil, William, Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Centre (Glasstone, Samuel and Dolan, Philip J., eds. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 3d (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, 1977), http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:24PrIIHH7BIJ:www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/effects/effects11.pdf+electromagnetic+pulse+effects&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us, 516-17. NA, “Nuclear Weapons Effects Technology,” The Militarily Critical Technologies List (MCTL), February 1998, Federation of American Scientists, http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mctl98-2/p2sec06.pdf, 2-3. Tahil, William, Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Centre (NP: William Tahil, 2006), http://www.nucleardemolition.com/GZero_Report, passim.
(5) “World Trade Center Towers Collapse, New York,” University of Manchester’s One Stop Shop in Structural Fire Engineering, http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm, 2-3. Anonymous Physicist, The Nuclear Destruction of the World Trade Center and the China Syundrome Aftermath, (Southwest: Anonymous Physicist, 2009), 23. NA, “Ground Zero Energy Surplus,” 911 University, ND, http://911u.org/Physics/WTCenergySurplus.html, 9. Ibid. 99-100.
(6) The Finnish Military Expert, “The Bombs in the WTC,” The Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11, Spring 2005, http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm, 1.
(7) Ibid., “The 9/11 Operation: A Summary,” 2-3.
(8)“Fission,” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. (Springfield MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.: 2002), 439; “Fusion,” ibid. 474.
(9) Zerriffi, Hisham and Makhijani, Arjun, “Pure Fusion Weapons?” IEER, Science for Democratic Action, Vol. 6, No. 4, Vol 7, No. 1, Energy & Security #6, http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-6/fusion.html, 2-3.
(10) “Micro-fusion work without fission trigger,” NASAspaceflight.com, December 4, 2008, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15177.0, passim. Nuckolls, John H., “Early Steps Toward Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) (1952 to 1962),” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-ID-131075, June 12, 1998, http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/658936-fpqpjO/webviewable/658936.pdf, 2-3, 8-9.
(11) ”Cold Fusion,” Columbia Encyclopedia, quoted in Answers.com, http://www.answers.com/topic/cold-fusion, 1-2.
(12) The journal is Naturwissenschaften (DOI: 10.1007/s00114-008-0449-x). Barras, Colin, “Neutron tracks revive hopes for cold fusion,” New Scientist, March 25, 2009, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127013.900-neutron-tracks-revive-hopes-for-cold-fusion.html, 1-2. The process for SPAWAR cold-fusion experiment was:
The team used a low-tech particle detector: a plastic called CR-39…When CR-39 is bombarded with subatomic charged particles, a small pit forms in the material with each impact.
The researchers placed a sample of CR-39 in contact with a gold or nickel cathode in an electrochemical cell filoled with a mixture of palladium chloride, lithium chloride and deuterium oxide (D20), so-called “heavy water.” When a current was passed through the cell, palladium and deuterium became deposited on the cathode.
After two to three weeks, the team found a small number of “triple tracks” in the plastic—three 8-micrometre-wide pits radiating from a point….The team says such a pattern occurs when a high-energy neutron strikes a carbon atom inside the plastic and shatters it into three charged alpha particles that rip through the plastic, leaving tracks. No such tracks were seen if the experiment was repeated using normal rather than heavy water. (Barras, ibid., 1-2).
(13) Szpak, S and Mosier-Boss, P.A. Eds., Thermal and Nuclear Aspects of the Pd/D20 System: A Decade of Research at Navy Laboratories, SPAWAR Systems Center Vol. 1, (San Diego: February 2002, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-vol1.pdf, ii-iii, 1-6. Chubb, Scott, “An Overview of Cold Fusion,” ibid., 109. Anonymous Physicist, Nuclear Destruction, 57.
(14) NA, “A Dangerous Place,” EU Referendum, February 1, 2006, http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/02/dangerous-place.html, 1.
(15) Badkhen, Anna, “USSR film on meltdown,” April 2001, Chronicle Foreign Service, http://www.vce.com/atomicnews/rumeltdown.html, 2. Wright, Robin, “In Gulf, Cheney Pointedly Warns Iran,” The Washington Post, May 12, 2007. Steinberg, Jeffrey, “U.S. Nuclear First Strike Doctrine Is Operational,” Executive Intelligence Review, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3221conplan_8022.html, passim.
Aside from the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island “events,” one source noted that “more than 26,000 mishaps have occurred at U.S. reactors” between 1979-88 alone, 35% of which were never reported presumably because it would harm the public image of the nuclear-power industry (. NA, “Accidents 1980’s,” Project of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/accidents-1980%27s-08.htm, 2.
Other significant reactor accidents include: Chalk River, Canada, December 12, 1952 (human error); Mayak Plutonium Facility, Russia, September 24, 1957 (cooling equipment failure); Windscale, England, October 10, 1957 (human error, poor management and faulty instruments); Lubmin, Germany, December 7, 1975 (safety systems failure); Aiken, S.C. , 30 between 1957-85; April, August 1988, January 1989 (human error, mechanical failures, design); Tokaimura, Japan, September 30, 1999 (human error) [ Schneider, Keith, “DuPont Asserts It Fully Disclosed Reactor Problems,” The New York Times, October 3, 1988; ibid., “Improper Test at Savannah River Causes New Accident in Reactor,” January 25, 1989. Shukla, Shobha, “Chernobyl Day: Do Not Break the Nucleus,” OpEdNews, April 27, 2009, http://www.opednews.com/populum/print_friendly.php?p=Chernobyl-Day-Do-Not-Brea-by-Shobha-Shukla--Ci-090425-3.html,
(16) President Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Farewell Address,” January 16, 1961, http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html. He said:
Yet in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite….Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.
(17) NA, “United Nations Disarmament Commission: Treaties,” Reaching Critical Will, http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/treaties.html, 2-3. The nuclear-weapons industry has good reason to regard the Commission as a toothless debating society instead of the powerful organization envisioned that would protect the world’s population from nuclear annhilation and Earth transformed into an uninhabitable waste dump for millions of years. In the last few years, its agenda has been cut from four items to two and its working period to three weeks a year. Members were reminded to stop “posturing” and start working in the 2006 session. A 16-page report in the 2007 session was regarded as “formidable.” And in 2009, the US delegation tried to shift the meeting from nuclear to conventional weapons, one of the two working groups suspended sessions in the struggle to elect a chair, agendas became stalemated, the only business accomplished was procedural. The upshot was the chair demanding the 2010 session set day on “critical self-assessment,” and Commission members voted to put off recommendations until April 2010 (Acheson, Ray, Reaching Critical Will: The Blog, April 14, 17, 20, May 1, 2009).
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/dc/dcindex.html
and http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/dc/dcindex.html#2009. “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty. (18) NA., “Atomic Demolition Munitions—Back Pack Size Nuclear Weapons,” Active Duty.com, June 16, 2008, http://www.active-duty.com/BackPackNukes.htm, passim. NA, “Mini-Nuke,” National Geographic, August 2005, http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0508/feature6/gallery4.html.
(19) Nuckolls, John H., “Early Steps Toward Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) 1952-1962,” UCRL-ID-131075, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, June 12, 1998, www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/658936-fpqpjO/webviewable/658936.pdf, 1. Nuckolls, 2. “hohlraum,” ChemiCool.com, http://www.chemicool.com/definition/hohlraum.html.
(20) Ibid., 14. Among the devices the author listed were the inertial confinement fusion, Livermore’s laser fusion systems called “Shiva” (lst generation using 20 neodynium lasers) and “Nova” (2nd generation using laser beams“ 10 times more powerful than “Shiva”), Nave, C. R., “Fusions,” HyperPhysics. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/finert.html#c4, 1-3.
(21) Glasstone, et al., 516-17. “Nuclear Weapons Effects, 2-3.
(22) Ferguson, Charles D. and Zimmerman, Peter D., “New Nuclear Weapons,” James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, May 29, 2003, http://cns.miis.edu/stories/030528.htm, 4.
(23) NA, “’Ground Zero’” Energy Surplus,” 911 University Department of Physics, http://91lu.org/Physics/WTCenergySurplus.html, 6. (24) NA, Rebuilding America’s Defenses:Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century (Washington, D.C.: Project for the New American Century, September 2000), 51. The policy is called “Doctrine for joint Nuclear Operations (DJNO). Chossudovsky, Michel, “Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?” GlobalResearch.ca, February 22, 2006, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2032, 1-3.
(25) Rebuilding America’s Defenses, 5. NA, “The Mannlicher-Carcanno Bomb,” http://www.constitution.org/ocbpt/ocbpt_01.htm.
(26) Ibid., 14-15.
(27) After a veteran policeman who was among the first to arrive at the building refused to change his report on what he saw and was found dead, the word soon spread in Oklahoma City that FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had forced silent cooperation with local lawmen not to investigate his death. Then, accusations soon emerged that if ANFO was probably not the causal agent—especially because the rental truck was parked in front of Murrah instead of the garage (NA, ”Micronuclear Devices Used in OKC Bombing: Explosives Placed by FBI, ATF,” Xiaodong People, November 14, 2004, http://xiaodongpeople.blogspot.com/2004/11/micronuclear-devices-used-in-okc.html, 1. Deagle, William, “Micronuclear Devices Used in OKC Bombing: Explosives Placed by FBI, ATF,” Prison Planet.com, September 8, 2004, http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904/okcbombing,htm).
(28) MysticalGroove, “Micro Nukes—Can and Do They Exist?” WTC Nuke, http://www.wtcnuke.com/micronukes.php.
(29) NA, “Terrance Yeakey: Oklahoma City Police Department. Gunshot Wound?” Blood Trails, (Mooresville IN: Thunder Publications, ND), http://www.thunderpublications.com/free/yeaky.pdf, 5-6.
(30) Ibid., 4.
(31) “Micronuclear Devices Used in OKC Bombing: Explosives Placed by FBI, ATF,” Prison Planet.com, September 8, 2004, http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904okcbombing.htm.
(32) Karpf, Anne, “Uncle Sam’s lucky finds,” The Guardian, March 19, 2002, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/mar/19/september11.iraq/print, 1.
(33) Statements of 503 First Responders and Witnesses, http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html, passim.
(34) Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, August 2008), xiii. “Claims of Severe Damage to Building 7,” WTC7.net, August 26, 2008, http://www.wtc7.net/damageclaims.html, 3.
(35) Ward, Ed, “The U.S. Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs-Domestic-WTC,” thepriceofliberty.org, September 25, 2006, http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm, passim. (36) Ibid., 1.
(37) Considerable doubt has surrounded WTC nseismographic data ever since it was turned over to NIST who then released it not only with errors in aircraft impact times, but unusually low (0.07 to 3.2) Richter readings (Meyer, Peter, “Reply to Popular Mechanics re: 9/11,” Serendipity.li,,ND, http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm. LaBTop, “Seismic Datga, explosives and 911 revisited,” Abovetopsecret.com, May 12, 2007, http://www.abovetopsecret.com%Fforum%2Fthread318887%2Fpg,2. NA, “Evidence for Explosives in the Twin Towers, ND, Sereindipity, http://www.ask.com/bar?q=WTC+seismic+data+questioned&page=3&qsrc=0&ab=9&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.serendipity.li%2Fwtc5.htm. Partanen, Antti, “Interviews with The Finnish Military Expert,” Saunalahti.fi, ND http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/H-device.htm, 3, 36). Accusations have even circulated that NIST changed readings above a magnitude of 5 to hide the explosions in all the WTC buildings. As one geologist commented about NIST’s secrecy:
Years of monitoring nuclear test ban treaty events has refined this analysis, but so far the most sophisticated seismic modelling of 911 has not been done. Nevertheless, the graphs which show any extreme spiking are very suspect and the burden of proof is on those who claim that they were not explosions to show how anything can mimic major explosions and also that all the other evidence can be explained away to make the timing fit the initial simpler speculations. More exact seismic matches may lie hidden in the vast CTBT archives to which we do not have access…. no one ever really got to see the real data, just what the government said it showed, no peer review nor independent tests (Davis, Steve, “Forensic Seismology of 911—Update,” rense.com, July 25, 2005, http://www.rense.com/general67/forensic.htm).

“Seismograms recorded by LCSN Station PAL (Palisades, NY), World Trade Center Attack, http://www.ideo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html, 1-6. Rayman, Graham, “Trouble With the Water, Engineer: Site can’t be rebuilt without new wall,” Newsday, February 7, 2002, http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-wtc0207.story, 2.
(38) Lt. William Walsh, NYFD statement to Chief Frank Congiusta, January 11, 2002, courtesy of The New York Times archives, http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110442.PDF.
(39) “We Will Not Forget: A Day of Terror,” The Chief Engineer, http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029, 2.
(40) Avery, Dylan, Bermas, Jason, and Rowe, Korey, Loose Change, 3rd Edition, http://loosechange911.com/index.shtml?p=89. De Micell, Amy, “Hanging Around WTC 7, Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, June 24, 2007, http://www.mujca.com/jennings.htm, 1-2. Nimmo, Kurt, “Bodies in WTC 7: Jennings Interview Demolishes Official Version,” Infowars, June 23, 2008, http://www.infowars.com/bodies-in-wtc-7-barry-jennings-interview-demolishes-official-version, passim. “Barry Jennings Uncut” and “Barry Jennings—9/11 Early Afternoon ABC7 Interview, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI&feature=related. “Michael Hess, WTC 7 Explosion Witness,”,” on 9/11,” UPN 9 News, September 11, 2001. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2E911blogger%2Ecom%2Fnode%2F17829%2Fprint&feature=player_embedded. Jennings may have been led through the hole in the Southwest corner of WTC 7 which Steve Spak’s photograph shows from the lobby to nearly the 10th story. Because First Responders said no debris was on that level, it would appear that an internal explosion, as at WTC 1 and 2, rocketed at least one steel beam in an upward trajectory to pierce WTC 6 or into the WTC 1 rubble or across West Street.
(41) Jennings, Barry, “Interview With WTC 7 Survivor,” September 11, 2001, http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=20643060. Ucciardo, Frank, interview with Michael Hess, “Michael Hess, WTC 7 Explosion Witness,” UPN 9 News, September 11, 2001, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2E911blogger%2Ecom%2Fnode%2F17829%2Fprint&feature=player_embedded. Michael Hess now is vice president and founder of Giuliani Partners whose senior partner is former mayor Rudy Giuliani. As the city’s corporate counsel, 1500 staff members reported to Hess (“Michael D. Hess,” Giulianipartners.com, http://www.giulianipartners.com/mhess.aspx.
(42) The Anonymous Physicist, “Eyewitness Testimony of Firefighters Believing They Were Nuked on 9/11,” World Demolition Blogspot.com, October 23, 2008, http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2008/10/eyewitness-testimony-of-firefighters.html, 3.
(43) “Barry Jennings Uncut.” Anonymous Physicist identifies the pedestrian as First Responder (EMT) Patricia Ondrovic. However, nothing in her official statement mentions a car door hitting her, Interview, WTCTF, October 11, 2001. “Eyewitness,” 24, 12.
(44) “The Finnish Military Expert,” Writings on 9/11,” (NP/ND), http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm, passim. Anonymous Physicist, Nuclear Destruction, passim.
(45) Ibid., 22-24.
(46) Man on Wire, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1155592. Glanz, James and Lipton, Eric, City in the Sky (NY: Times Books, 2003), 219. NA, “World Trade Center: February 26, 1993 bombing,” Criticism, Wapedia, http://wapedia.mobi/en/World_Trade_Center?t=2, 10-12. “World Trade Center bombed,” History.com, http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=article&id=4792, 1.
(47) Mazza, Jerry, “9/11 and the Greenberg Family,” Onlinejournal.com, September 29, 2006, http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_1261.shtml. 3. Reppetto, Thomas, Bringing Down the Mob: The War Against the American Mafia (New York: Macmillan, 2007), 279.
(48) NA, “The Process of Creating a Ruin,” Business Week, October 5, 2001. NA, “The Towers Rise,” http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.improbableco…art%3D20%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26h1%3Den%26sa%3DN, 2. “Socioeconomic Conditions,” Renew NYC, Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, Chapter 9, http://www.renewnyc.com/content/pdfs/eis/Chapter%209%20-%20Socio.pdf, 1. When the Port Authority was advertising for leasees in March 2001, one business writer said of Tower income: “…whoever wins the Trade Center can expect a relatively paltry stream of cash for some time, until the long-term leases are up” (Rice, Andrew, “Silverstein Recovers: Dark Horse May Win World Trade Center,” The New York Observer, April 8, 2001.
“List of tenants…” Wikipedia. These data must be carefully weighed for accuracy because CIA officials later admitted they had “secret offices“ in WTC 7, described as its second largest quarters in the U.S. One suite was on the 25th floor, shared with the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS also was the only tenant listed on the 24th floor. (“WTC History,” Improbablecollapse.com, http://www.improbablecollapse.com/screens2/history.html. 4. NIST, Final Report, 5-2.
(49) Shook, David, “The Sky-High Stakes in Vornado’s Twin Towers Deal,” Business Week, March 9, 2001.
Hoffman, Jan, “An Artist’s Garret, on the 85th Floor; Port Authority Finds Room for Painters in Trade Center’s Towers,” The New York Times, April 30, 1998. Bertozzi,Vanessa, and Brew, Kathy; York, Jamie; and Astrinsky, Elinoar, “Being an artist at the World Trade Center: World View artists-in-residence remember their time in the towers,” Sonicmemorial.org, ND, http://www.sonicmemorial.org/sonic/public/artists/artist.html, 1-3. Since 9/11, Silverstein Properties has donated space on the eighth floor of the 120 Broadway building to continue the LMCC’s artist residency program (The National Arts Policy Data Base, http://www.americansforthearts.org/NAPD/modules/resourceManager/publicSearch.aspx?id=11027).
(50) NA, “Silverstein Makes a Huge Profit off of the 9/11 Attacks,” Whatreallyhappened.com, ND, http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html, 2.NA, ”World Trade Center Back On The Block, Forbes, March 21, 2001. Anderson, Brian C., “The Twin Towers project: A Cautionary Tale,” City, Autumn 2001, http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id-j617. Rice, Andrew, “Silverstein Recovers: Dark Horse May Win World Trade Center,” The New York Observer, April 8, 2001. NA, “The Towers Rise,” http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.improbableco…art%3D20%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26h1%3Den%26sa%3DN, 2. “Socioeconomic Conditions,” Renew NYC, Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, Chapter 9, http://www.renewnyc.com/content/pdfs/eis/Chapter%209%20-%20Socio.pdf, 1. Leibovich-Dar, Sara, “Up in Smoke,” Haaretz, July 12, 2007.
(51) Anonymous Source known only to authors Ball, Ellis, and Hallberg.
(52) Bagli, Charles, “Deal is Signed To Take Over Trade Center,” The New York Times, April 27, 2001.
(53) Moss, Michael and Bagli, Charles V., “After the Attacks: The Instincts to Flee Competed With Instructions to Remain” The New York Times, September 13, 2001. “List of Tenants..,” 4-5. Strangely, while Wikipedia lists the 34th floor being occupied by four tenants (Royal Thai Embassy Office, Thailand Tourist Authority, the Port Authority of NY/NJ, Port Commerce Department), the WorldTradeAftermath.com website lists no tenants on that floor. It lists the Thai offices on 37, and the Port’s offices only on 3, 14,19, 24, 28, and 31. The Lehman Brothers offices, however, were the same in both sources (“1 WTC [North] Tenants by Floor,” WorldTradeAftermath.com, http://worldtradeaftermath.com/wta/wtc_info/tenants_by_floor_wtc1.asp, 1-2. Wright, Lawrence, “The Counter-Terrorist,” The New Yorker, January 14, 2002.
(54) Lehrman, R. Leland, email from Scott Forbes of South Tower’s tenant Fiduciary Trust, “Letter to Swiss Re,” http://www.serendipity.li/wot/lehrman.htm. 2.
(55) Else, Liz, “Baltimore Blasters,” New Scientist, July 24, 2004, 48. “Silverstein Properties, Inc.,” Fundinguniverse.com., http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Silverstein-Properties-Inc-Company-History.html, passim.
(56) “Silverstein Properties, Inc.,” passim. Clark, Richard, “Former high-level officials challenge the conventional explanation of how and why the Twin Towers came down,” OpEdNews, November 3, 2007, http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_richard__071103_former_high_level_of.htm, 3.
(57) Else, op cit.
(58) Tahil, 92.
(59) NA, “Toshiba Builds 100x Smaller Micro Nuclear Reactor,” XHELI.COM, December 17, 2007, http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html, 1. Fehrenbacher, Katie, “Hyperion’s Nuclear-In-A-Box Ready By 2013,” GigaOM Network, August 1, 2008, http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01hyperionsnuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013, 1. Though these small portable reactors have a near-future production date, the history portion of this paper points out that weapons probably have been ready for production five to ten years earlier. So developers such as Livermore Laboratories and vendors tend to be significantly cautious about announcing the marketability to the public until production has been long underway. For example, Livermore in 2004 admitted its researchers were “pursuing a concept called SSTAR, a small, sealed,transportable, autonomous reactor” (Rennie, Gabriele, “Nuclear Energy to Go: A Self-Contained, Portable Reactor,” Science and Technology, July/August 2004, https://www.11n1.gov/str/JulAug04/Smith.html.
(60) Anonymous Physicist and Finnish Military Expert, passim.
(61) “Anonymous Physicist,” “Micro-Nukes in the WTC--Creating The China Syndrome: Important Matters of Completeness & Plausibility” Humint Events Online, June 28, 2008, http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/06/micro-nukes-in-wtc-creating-china.html, 2.
(62) Ibid. Anonymous Physicist, Nuclear Destruction, 99-100.
(63) Ibid., 1.
(64) Burkhammer, et al., 8.
(65) Jackson, Brian, Peterson, D. J., Bartis, James, LaTourette, Tom, Brahmakulam, Irene, Houser, Ari, and Sollinger, Jerry, “Performance and Availability of Personal Protective Equipment,” Protecting Emergency Responders: Lessons Learned From Terrorist Attacks Report, The Rand Corporation, 2002,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF176/CF176.ch3.pdf, 27.
(66) Ibid. 39- 40. One Thermate® ingredient—thermite—does instantly turn steel into molten metal. According to a contributor in almost identical thermite entries on several websites (Wikipedia, Answers, tripatlas, the infovault, etc.) thermite creates its own oxygen, cannot be “smothered” or “extinguished with water.” Ordinarily, thermite cools fairly quickly, but when “smothered” with daily soil changes and constantly watered, thermite’s peculiar extended life—just “enriched” by those calling it “nanothermate”—may have been created as a visual distraction to conceal explosives being detonated in WTC 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Too, if mini-nukes were used in the Oklahoma City disaster, as mentioned earlier, a “China Syndrome” should have followed, but did not because the explosions were directed toward the street. Anonymous Physicist, 28.
(67) Ibid., 23-24.
(68) Overbye, Dennis, “Under the Towers, Ruin and Resilience,” The New York Times, October 9, 2001. Anonymous Physicist, 17.
(69) NOAA/U.S. Army JPSD, “NOAA Conducts More Flights Over World Trade Center Site,” NOAA Magazine, October 30, 2001, http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/wtc-lidar092701.- 1. “ 5 and 6 World Trade Center: What Caused the Large Holes Visible From Above?” 9-11 Research.com, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc4.html, 1. Overbye, op.cite. “6 World Trade Center: The September 11 Attack,” 9-11 Research.com, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc5.html, 1. Ibid., http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc6.html, 1; ibid., http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc4.html, 1.
(70) Ibid., 39. Collins, Glenn, “Herculean Effort to Restore a Landmark: Battered on 9/11,” The New York Times, January 6, 2004.
(71) NIST, Final Report, xxxii. Fisk, Margaret Cronin, “SEC & EEOC: Attack Delays Investigations,” National Law Journal, September 17, 2001, http://www.wantoknow.info/010917nylawyerwallstreetsecfiles, 3.
(72) Walsh, William, Interview, WTCTF, January 11, 2002. NA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations (Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, May 2002), I: 4. Green, William, Interview, WTCTF, December 26, 2001.
(73) McAllister, Therese, Project 6: WTC 7 Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Washington DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2004), http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf, 13-15. A descriptive of the Verizon building damage includes photographs showing the penetration of some object involving at least two floors above No. 7’s five-story debris pile. The source says that the building:
…had thick, heavy masonry used in the infill exterior walls, which enclosed the building’s steel frame. Brick, cinder, concrete and other masonry materials encased interior steel columns, beams, girders and other structural elements. The extensive use used of heavy masonry allowed the structure to absorb much of the energy from [WTC] debris hitting the building (Szoke, Stephen S., “maintaining Structural Integrity,” WTC Technical Conference, September 2005, Proceedings, NIST, quoted in “Verizon Building,” NationMaster Encyclopedia, http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Verizon-Building, 2-3).
Kaysen, Ronda, “Work to demolish damaged Fiterman Hall may actually begin,” downtown express, January 13-19, 2006, http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_140/worktodemolish.html, 1-3. NA, “This Is Me, by 30 West Street aka Fiterman Hall,” 911 Guide, http://911guide.googlepages.com/fitermanhall, 2-3. Some of the reports attributed Fiterman damage to ricocheting debris from the WTC 7 collapse (NA, “Fiterman Hall,” LowerManhattan.info, November 29, 2007, http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/project_updates/fiterman_hall_39764.aspx, 1). One source’s full description of the damage was:
The southern half of the west facade and most of the south facade were severely damaged or destroyed, but there was no fire…. Portions of the south facade from the 15th floor collapsed. a vertical section of the perimeter wall extending 5 floors down from the setback at the center of the south facade was raked away. Local collapse also occurred at the southwest corner. The majority of the glass panes were knocked out on the south façade, in a triangular pattern that extended to the full width of the base. Floors 9 through 14 had two collapsed bays, and floors 3 through 6 had three collapsed bays. A considerable amount of debris was on the 8th floor (911 Guide, op. cit., 2-3).
(74) World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations (Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration: 2002), Appendix L.1.8; McAllister, 13-15. NIST, Final Report, Fig. 11:IIC. “Timeline: WTC” BBC News, http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files7437516.stm, 3.
(75) Ibid., 42.
(76) Ibid.
(77) McAllister, Therese, op.cite. McAllister reported that the first fires were observed on the 7th floor around 12:15 p.m. None were reported any higher than the 30th floor in a 47-story building. NIST, Final Report, Chapter 5, passim.
NIST, AFA Protective System, exhibit Figure 6-2, NIST, 107. “Jane Standley Reports on 9/11,” September 11, 2001, YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63TJaUnW9zY. “The BBC’s ‘WTC 7 Collapsed At 4:54 p.m.’ Videos,” Whatreallyhappened.com, September 11, 2001, http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bbc_wtc7_videos.html.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7.gif&imgrefurl=http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/&usg=__fD7k8T9b88jQyNYdgxOMCrqLjnQ=&h=270&w=360&sz=3884&hl=en&start=19&tbnid=4uvuc1YQqbLyOM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=121&prev=/images%3Fq%3DWTC%2B7%2527%2Bcollapse%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG. 2001 CBS News Archives, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf.
(78) Anonymous Physicist, 68. Glanz, James, “Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center,” The New York Times, November 29, 2001.
(79) Ibid. NIST, Final Report, iii-x. Barnett is a visiting scientist in the same department at Worcester Polytechnic Institute and a contact for CSIRO Manufacturing and Materials Technology (http://www.cmmt.csiro.au/home/contacts/resume.cfm?id=1109&printmode=yes).
(80) Glanz, op. cit.
(81) “America Rebuilds,” PBS, September 2002, wmv.video. http://www.whatreally happened.com/cutter.html.
(82) NIST, Final Report, 5-21. NA, “Silverstein May Use Insurance Money to Pay Bondholders,” Insurance Journal, June 7, 2002,
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2002/06/07/15925.htm?print=1.
(83) NA, “What the Polls Say,” The NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative, December 2007, http://www.nyc911initiative.org/polls.htm, 1.
(84) Anonymous Physicist, 22.
(85) Finnish Military Expert, 5.
(86) Anonymous Physicist, 22.
(87) The Finnish Military Expert, 2. “FME” claims that extra attention was given to obliterate Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s Emergency Management Agency quarters on WTC 7’s 23rd floor and the Securities and Exchange offices with its investigative files on the ENRON scandal as well as that WTC 6, the Custom House, suffered a larger nuke than WTC 5 and 6 (Ibid., 3).
(88) Ibid., 2-3.
(89) Ibid.
(90) Ibid. 3.
(91) Ibid. 1. Glasstone & Dolan, 276-324, passim.
(92) Finnish Military Expert, “Why the Towers of the World Trade Center Collapsed,” op. cit., 3-4.
(93) Op.cit., 3-4, 7.
(94) Conroy, Scott, “Cancer May Be Next Wave of 9/11 Illnesses,” Associated Press, May 31, 2007, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/31/health/main2872809.shtml?source=search_story, 1-2. Loughrey, Scott,
New York City Was Nuked,” Mediacriticism.com, 1.
(95) Kelly, Henry, testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 6, 2002, http://www.fas.org/ssp/docs/kelly_testimony_030602.pdf., 1.
(96) Ibid., 4-5.
(97) Johnson, Kirk, “Uncertainty Lingers Over Air Pollution in Days After 9/11,” The New York Times, September 7, 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/07/nyregion/uncertainty-lingers-over-air-pollution-in-days-after-9-11.html?pagewanted=print, 1. Kelly, Figure 2, 10:
Potential Long-Term Contamination in New York City & Environs
From Gamma-Ray Bomb,
According to Today’s EPA Standards


Courtesy, Henry Kelly, MD

Inner Ring: 1 Cancer death per 100 people from remaining radiation.
Middle Ring: 1 Cancer death per 1,000 people from remaining radiation.
Outer Ring: 1 Cancer death per 10,000 people from remaining radiation.
EPA recommends decontamination or destruction of area.

(98) Thompson, Chris, “NYPD Seeks an Air Monitor Crackdown for New Yorkers,” The Village Voice, January 8, 2008.
(99) Ibid. NYC Ballot Initiative, NYC911initiative.org, January 28, 2009, http://www.nyc911initiative.org. NA, “FAQs,” NYC Can, http://www.nyccan.org/faqs.php, 1.
(100) Dykes, Aaron, “FEMA Runs from Confrontation on WTC7 and Camps,” July 24, 2007, http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/240707_fena_911.html, passim. NA, Greening, F.R., “Withering critique of the new WTC 7 report,” The 9/11 Forum, August 29, 2008, http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkid=67529, passim. Gourley, James R., et al. letter to Stephen Cauffman, September 15, 2008, http://stj911.org/blog/?p=42. Jacobson, Mark, “The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll,” New York Magazine, March 20, 2006, http://nymag.com/news/features/16464, 11.
(101) Finnish Military Expert, 4.