The “anonymous physicist” has new ideas on the nuclear demolition of the towers of the WTC. In destroying the World Trade Center on 9/11/01, the U.S. regime (and those who control it) once again wanted to employ a plan that allowed for their coveted “plausible deniability.” As an aside, the plausibility is usually for the American masses. Anyone who is able to think and change usually has more than enough clues to get pretty far into the truth. Now only nuclear devices and their concomitant EMPs fit all the evidence—along with conventional explosives used in a subordinate manner. But this ultimate truth must be hidden. Just as the regime still hides the likelihood that it nuked its own sailors in the Port Chicago explosion in 1944.
The "Powers That Be" (PTB) knew the “plausible” ruse that they would put out. It would be the pseudo free fall time for the bogus planes/fuel/gravity/pancake hypothesis. The perps desired that WTC1 and 2 have top-down “collapses” to go along with the bogus plane hits. The PTB also always have their disinfo agents waiting in the wings to come out when enough people see that the official ruse is NOT plausible.
With the analogous JFK assassination, when enough people saw that the patsy Oswald (himself CIA/ONI) could not be the culprit shooting from behind, as the fatal shot was from the front; the PTB put out a "Babel" of CONTROLLED alternatives: Mafia, LBJ, Cubans, Grassy Knoll, rogue elements, etc (some of which were involved). All of that was to hide the horrifying, ultimate truth that the alleged government protector did it—- as has been discussed by Spooked previously.
With 9/11, the Babel of planes/fuel/gravity, thermite/thermate [etc.], DEW, car bombs in the basement, and surely more to come, was waiting when a critical mass of people rejected the (always) ludicrous, official, “investigation” conclusion. The massive, rapid outward—as well as downward and upward—explosions of the two towers, the toasted cars (but not paper), and popping ceiling lights (Ondrovic—see below), the micron-sized dustification of tower contents, the levels of tritium and heavy metals, the underground molten steel and high temperatures weeks and months later, all can only be accounted for by nuclear devices and their EMPs. The fact that the explosions are simultaneously outward, downward and upwards means we have a spherical blast wave, such as occurs with a nuclear device.
The anonymous Finnish military expert—- to whom all real 9/11 truth seekers are indebted—- appears to believe that only one fusion device in the 1-kiloton range was used in each tower. This may be so, but it should be debated. I believe the evidence indicates several fusion bombs went off during the destruction of the two towers.
In fact, the dimensions of the towers likely required several nukes. The towers are much taller than their other two dimensions. A single large nuclear, spherical blast wave large enough to destroy a tower's complete height would have been too powerful to be contained in its other two dimensions. The results would have been seen and (more) catastrophic. So several smaller nukes likely were needed, and used. I believe also that there is much evidence that WTC 3, 4, 5, 6 also were taken down with internal nuclear devices.
WTC7 appears to have been imploded with conventional demolition methods as videos show no concomitant vaporization, nor massive chunks expelled outwards during “collapse,” nor any internal spherical holes as in WTC6 and WTC3 (in between the “collapses” of the two towers).
Accurate analysis may forever only be possible by the perps themselves. This is because of many factors including the immense variation in the possible power, number, and type of nuclear devices used, false evidence (doctored videos, photos, witnesses, media, government reports), complexity of a nuclear explosion, inclusion of non-nuke elements in the “collapses” etc. For completeness, I note that William Tahil, a technology consultant, claims that his research leads to the conclusion that each tower had a nuclear fission reactor underneath it that was forced to criticality. He has a free summary, and offers a full report (for purchase) that I have not read.
In initiating discussion of the possible details of the nuclear devices used on 9/11, I note that the number and energy release of these devices are perhaps the most relevant parameters. Spooked has publishedgovernment documentation of nukes as small as just pounds of TNT, or about a millionth of a kiloton.
I go along with the Finnish expert that fission-free fusion devices were likely used. The Finnish expert states that a 1 kiloton (TNT equivalent) basement fusion device was used on each tower. I believe that a total of 1/10th of that amount was more than sufficient, including the power needed for vaporization/dustification of each tower’s contents. I believe this 1/10th kt total energy per tower occurred in several blasts (per tower), and in just one per other WTC buildings (possibly 3, 4, 5, 6). I believe that WTC7 did not have a nuclear device used during “collapse,” but could have had one just afterwards to vaporize evidence as all the federal alphabet agencies were in that building, and it would have been a likely planning/command center for 9/11 with a lot of evidence to definitively “lose.”
What would have been the right range of energy for the desired events while maintaining “plausible deniability?” Or the illusion of that-- many people go into a deep state of denial, just begging for any ludicrous “big lie” from their government (as Hitler noted). Too large a nuke and you would instantly vaporize the towers and maybe surrounding areas (and lose the bogus gravity/pancake theory). Too small a nuke and you wouldn’t have “shock and awe,” nor insure total (pseudo free fall) collapse and vaporization of the buildings’ contents which was apparently desired—- always destroy the evidence, and kill the witnesses. This was apparently aided by the taking of much (radioactive?) material by China—- a supposed adversary—but another indication of the actual, global control of the PTB. Other material including human remains went into road pavement. Was all this, including the human remains, radioactive?
The fission devices that went off at the Trinity/Alamogordo site, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were said to be of the order of 10-20 kilotons of TNT. Such devices yield great fluxes of neutrons and gamma rays. Also resultant are air pressure blasts, and tremendous heat of the order of 100 million degrees. Modern devices are “steerable” in terms of desired percentages of these output parameters. The “radius of total destruction” in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was about one mile in each city. Total destruction includes vaporization of buildings and people nearer to the hypocenter or ground zero. The fate of buildings and people near the hypocenter of a nuclear device is indicated by this: “The Shima hospital, the hypocenter of the [Hiroshima] atomic bomb was vaporized, along with all her patients.” Farther away from the hypocenter, the so-called shadow people left their shadows on buildings as the people vaporized, but not the buildings. Other people still further away, but not vaporized, were left in a charred condition. Farther away still, survivors had burned, or torn away skin. Are all these reasons why we are not allowed to see any photos of any human remains from 9/11? We cannot expect every single, murdered person to have been completely vaporized. Photos of body parts in morgues have also not been allowed to be seen by the public. Indeed EMT Patricia Ondrovic has seen the body parts in the city morgue. Is this part of the redactions to her statement?
Returning to the parameters of the nukes of 9/11, given the energy, the destruction radius and other parameters of Hiroshima and its comparison to WTC1 or 2, the Finnish expert concluded that a single 1-kiloton, underground nuke was used. I conclude that likely several nukes per tower were used—- but totaling 1/10th of a kiloton per tower. One key in my analysis is the number of times we suddenly see massive chunks of building expelled outwards like the trajectories of large chunks of earth seen in (above-ground) photos of underground test nukes. Remember WTC 1 and 2 destruction events look more like the Nevada nuclear tests than the Hiroshima bomb. This video even appears to show a central mushroom cloud at the end of it. The similarity to underground test nukes means that any and all nukes were set off at least several floors below any extant levels. A nuke per floor was not needed or desired. Rather I see this tremendous outward exploding of large chunks of WTC 1 and 2, about two or three times per tower. But remember, what we see is soon obscured by dust/debris, and that other buildings also prevent us from seeing much of the bottom half of each tower’s destruction. In discussing this aspect, it is important to realize I write now of powerful outward explosions of massive chunks—- often appearing to emanate from the center which indeed was the likely location of the nuke(s). These outward explosions need to be distinguished from the “peeling away”—- and then falling-- of the outer structure (sometimes in very large chunks) of the towers. IMO, this peeling away occurred because there no longer was any inside structure at that level at that time! (The remaining, succeeding, inside top portions looked like the final photos of the inside of WTC6.) There would still be some outward-vectored force all along the outer structure at all times due to heat and over-pressure inside, causing the peeling-away of the outer structure observed. But I refer to the large chunks that suddenly were flung to great distances. The videos seem to indicate that this happened 2-3 times per tower, and again we do not see most of the bottom half.
However I note that the well-known collapse/vaporization of the remaining steel core after WTC1 fell is seen at the same time that we see the so-called “nuclear glow.” Notice how this glow from the WTC1 (nuclear) demolition (seen on the left side) causes the whole background to brighten at one point, and then how the camera is panned to the right so as to no longer video what they were showing in the first place! Was this a “cleaner nuke”—see below—inadvertently captured because there was no building to contain it? Again it would be good (from the perps’ viewpoint) to vaporize any remaining people and building contents (evidence) just after final “collapse.” So I believe about 4-6 nukes per tower were used. Each one would have 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. However I now make the assertion that completely doing away with the 47 beam steel support core was not necessary! Why? 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 that some of this support--up to about the 60th floor (the "spire")-- remained after “collapse” of WTC1-- and was then itself likely nuked/vaporized, during the “nuclear glow”. Why was there a need to vaporize the left-over support beams? Because, as my argument above asserts, 100% obliteration of these beams is more necessary for the bogus “collapse” mechanism, than for the actual, nuclear destruction mechanism!
The perps would want maximum use of each nuke for its full diameter. Pre-planted conventional explosives (thermite/thermate/other, or very tiny nukes) were used to initiate each tower’s visible collapse, at the appropriate floor (where earlier conventional, shape charges had simulated plane dimensions, and provided initial shock and awe in their fireballs)—- for public consumption. A properly, pre-placed nuke subsequently went off in each top part, centered in each separated top part after initial demolition began at the appropriate floor. Remember the floors that were “hit” were in fact just exploded as part of the plan, so nukes were pre-placed in the centers of the pre-known dimensions of the top tower parts for their subsequent vaporization. These nukes and top vaporizations were initiated shortly after the demolitions began at the “plane-hit” levels. This could explain the kinking noted by Spooked in the WTC2 top corner. The nuke has caused some loss of integrity (from neutrons or even direct heat) in the structure at that point (and other less visible points), shortly before vaporization. Kinking is also a sign of wave interference as wave energy builds up at corners, and the kink is near a corner. The fact that there was a 30 story part of the tower that was tilted and about to fall “badly” is part of the “beauty” of the nuking of the towers (from the perps’ viewpoint). This was not likely supposed to happen. But they simply vaporized their error! This is also analogous to the dipping of the radio tower of WTC1 before the top piece accordions into itself, then vaporizes.
The radio tower is in the center, and a centrally placed nuke’s spherical blast wave (causing loss of structural integrity) will reach a point directly above it before it would reach all around the building to start the “accordioning” of the entire visible circumferences. This is part of what I call the inside/out effect which occurred along with the top/down effect. Now the two tower tops had vertical lengths of about 18 and 30 floors, not counting the radio tower (very little of which was found at Ground Zero, like a great deal of the towers). A key factor is that the nukes (not counting any underground ones) are always several floors beneath remaining building levels when they go off. Otherwise—if the nuke was at the surface of the remaining building at that time—- building parts would have been expelled to great distances, perhaps many miles away. Also we might have seen more visual evidence of the nuking. Perhaps this is consistent with the “nuclear glow” seen at the end of WTC1 “collapse”, as there was little or no building left (only debris clouds) at that time to obscure this. Was the glow from a final nuke that also collapsed/vaporized the remaining/standing steel core? 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, which could have scanned the site—- using wavelengths that see through smoke—- and directed more nuclear (or conventional?) explosions (especially at the lower levels or ground), as needed.
Because there was no plane crash excuse for WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6, probably “underpowered nukes” were used inside these buildings. WTC 4, 5, and 6 were each 7-9 stories high. The PTB wanted to claim that these edifices were damaged by falling parts of the two towers. So these buildings were not vaporized in near total fashion, as were the two towers. Their outer shells were left over. But the large, nearly, spherical hole in WTC6, and its deep underground hole, are indications of a likely internal, nuclear spherical blast. In particular, I think that on-scene, EMT, Patricia Ondrovic’s statements to Killtown and her heavily redacted interview with the WTC task force indicate that she saw—- right next to her—- EMP [Electromagnetic Pulse] effects from a nuke set off in or near WTC6. I refer to her observations of ceiling lights popping in the lobby of WTC6, and the cars just outside catching fire at this same time. Indeed the EMP-induced heat on one car door near her, caused it to rapidly expand and explode off the vehicle and hit her. Her interviews indicate that the overheard, commencing, rumbling collapse of WTC2 (further away from her) occurred just as she saw WTC5 and 6 start to explode (”collapse”) right near her. The timing Ondrovic states here indicates that WTC2, WTC5, and WTC6 had nukes go off inside each one simultaneously. Fortunately for her, as I noted above, these (WTC 5, 6) explosions were “underpowered,” and left much outer structure standing, and she was far enough away from WTC2 to be able to run away from the area and survive.
WTC7, the possible planning/command center with its plethora of federal agents, was special. No nukes, at least not above ground. I suggest that it was NOT a faux pas that Silverstein, on public TV, admitted they “pulled it” with conventional demolition! But the regime tried to “take it back” when a public outcry began over that admission!
WTC3, the 22-story Marriott Hotel, may have also had a nuke vaporize most of its top floors, or this one may have been destroyed by falling debris? Let us analyze this. A picture of WTC3 after the first WTC2 collapse, but before WTC1 collapse, indicates WTC3 had its own “underpowered” internal nuclear spherical blast wave damage it, a la WTC6:
The final state of WTC3 reveals about three floors remaining and does not show the massive parts of WTC2 that allegedly fell on WTC3:
Did the nukes going off in WTC 2 vaporize these chunks before they hit WTC3? Did the nukes of WTC1 cause the outer shell of WTC3 to later vaporize? Did after-collapse nukes do this? Should we call these “cleaner nukes” in analogy to how the regime sends in its “cleaners” to remove evidence after one of their agents has performed some nefarious deed?
Now I must include some related and important issues. Were deep underground nukes set off a few seconds before the start of visible “collapse” as audio and video indicates? Included herein is the supposed vaporization of the underground 50 ton steel press. Some of the testimony on this however comes from William Rodriguez who I cannot trust because of his apparent deep background. He was a TV magician cum janitor cum press agent cum janitor—cum hero! And he was not in his usual place (high up) at his usual time that morning.
What happens if a large flux of neutrons, gamma rays, pressure, heat etc. reaches another, unexploded mini-nuke? Will the latter still go off somewhat as planned—- i.e., have its own chain reaction-- or will it fizzle? If it goes off, what percentage of its maximum potential will be realized? Would it at least be interfered with and compromised, probably to a significant level? Or could it have been sufficiently shielded? Is it not likely that only non-interfered, or “virgin” nukes would be used? The perps would want to have things go as much as possible exactly the way they want. This would be unlike conventional charges which could have one trigger the next etc. I would imagine that the placement of mini-nukes would be such that one would be out of the range of affecting the next one. But I cannot know this for sure. But this is what I have assumed in this discussion.
However we need to examine this matter of “left-over” nukes that may have been “compromised.” What if some nukes, maybe even one or more final “cleaner nuke(s)” destroyed the integrity of the shielding of “left-over” nukes? It is indeed possible that sub-critical components subsequently interacted and would then release significant energy for some time! They could well act like the nuclear reactor proposed by William Tahil (above). This idea seems to be far more likely (and feasible) than his hypothesis that the perps had surreptitiously built two underground nuclear reactors there. One or more compromised nuclear fusion (or possibly even fission—if Tahil’s take on the government’s report is correct)—- bombs, with their sub-critical, but now interacting, components releasing significant amounts of energy and heat at their locale(s) could indeed be responsible for the high temperatures (and molten steel) seen at the WTC weeks and months after 9/11. This also dovetails with reports of “unexploded micro-nukes” being removed from the Oklahoma City bombing by federal agents—after being placed there and used by other federal agents! Bill Deagle, M.D. has reported that one military agent, and patient of his, told him: “We removed two undetonated softball sized micronuclear bombs [from the Murrah building].”
Perhaps even the “nuclear glow” seen in the CNN footage—which I note is sustained for some time, as the camera pans away from it—- is the initiation of a nuclear reactor-like event (caused by a “cleaner nuke” or earlier demolition nuke, or even conventional explosives) and undergoing a limited criticality event like the “tickling the dragon’s tail” experiments—performed at Los Alamos. Massive visible blue light emission (as well as neutrons and gamma rays) resulted when criticality was attained in this limited fashion. I believe that with all the other materials exploding, some could even have acted as “control rods” yielding a sustained, pseudo-nuclear reactor. And there could have been several unexploded nukes “left-over” in each tower. Or even a single nuclear device could have had its components blasted to several locales. But never forget, the massive heat released when a nuclear reactor goes awry is why they called it the “China Syndrome.” The heat released (in theory) could melt all the way down to China!
The above discussion of possible interactions of pre-planted, mini-nukes leads to the matter of the outer structure demolition. With this aspect, there may well have been interacting conventional (or other) explosives. But before we delve into this, it must be noted that what occurred, or was observed, in this regard was likely done for public consumption. What happened inside was not directly observed—- with the possible exception of some events like the “nuclear glow” that shone through. We must also realize that the videos and photos promulgated of the outer destruction of the two towers may be as doctored, as are nearly all the videos of the two alleged “plane hits.” The regime wanted to make it “plausible” that a rapid, pseudo-free fall, pancaking occurred. People who have analyzed the public videos of WTC 1 and 2 outer structure “collapses”/demolitions report a 10 floor per second “collapse.” This is presumably for that first second. I note that this is much faster than simple, gravitational collapse would allow in that first second (16 feet.) After the initial “collapse” has started, dust and debris and other buildings soon obscure things. Those right there videoing had to stop and leave as fast as they could. But if the times for total collapse of the towers are about 10 or 11 seconds, and we have about 100 floors involved (as I am not counting separated top parts of the towers which seem to be disappearing shortly after initiation of final events.) Thus we apparently have an approximately constant outer floor demolition rate of about 10 floors downward per second throughout.
We need to examine the possible mechanisms for this and how this outer structure demolition dovetails with the inner, nuclear demolition hypothesis. Were pre-planted conventional (or even tinier nukes?) used to blow out the (visible) outer structure of each floor while the inside was being vaporized with nukes? Did these presumably outer building conventional explosives interact with each other, or the nukes? One possibility is that an explosive in the outer structure of the floor above reached, and then triggered, the explosive in the outer structure of the floor just below it, and so on. Could these charges have been placed in or at the outer structure soon before 9/11/01, or even when the buildings were erected–- for those who know “ultimate truths”? There are so many possibilities—- including a visible (yet “disconnected”) “standard” demolition for the outer structure. But always remember, my central hypothesis here is that the towers were demolished primarily by hidden, internal, nuclear devices. The outer structure demolition events were created-- or faked-- for public consumption and “plausibility.” One could even argue that this issue is a side-show to distract from the nuking of the towers, and likely several other WTC buildings. There may even have been precedent for this. Dr. Deagle's military expert's revelation to him even indicates that the OKC bombing may have been, in a way, the blueprint for the WTC bombing, as follows: The expert indicated that the truck's conventional bomb went off at the same time the micro-nukes were detonated, and acted as cover for the micro-nukes. Numerous explosives experts had separately stated that the truck bomb could not have had sufficient explosive power to do the damage observed. My hypothesis for the WTC tower bombings also has conventional explosives being used as cover for more massive damage done by simultaneous nuclear devices. I assert that what was happening inside—- nuclear detonation(s)—- caused the collapses, regardless of what any outer explosions did, or were faked to appear to have done. This may even be consistent with the towers’ demolitions actually beginning with the large explosions-- apparently in the sub-basements of the towers-- recorded several seconds (see above) before the visible “collapses” began near the tops. In the final analysis, I assert—- as per the above detailed nuclear mechanism—that even if there were no outer structure explosions, the outer structure would have “peeled away” anyway because of what was occurring inside.
Finally in writing this WTC nuke hypothesis, I have left it somewhat in the chronological order that it was written. In this light, I have seen video evidence that appears to clearly supersede some of the ideas above. However, I will leave those in, as it is still possible that numerous things were used by the perps to confuse the issue, or for later release when the time suits them, and for completeness for future researchers. But this video—- which also fits the geometry of the situation—- is one of the clearest of the initial destruction of WTC1, and appears to fit a nuclear demolition only—- i.e., conventional explosives appear not to have been needed or used.This video (if genuine) indicates that a central, nuclear, spherical blast occurred at the central level of the bogus plane hit—- about the 98th floor or so. Now imagine many lines (representing blast energy) radiating away from this nuclear bomb center at the same time. The shortest distance—- or time—- to the outer structure occurs occurs along the horizontal level with the bomb, which is, as per the above, about the 98th floor. (This can also be imagined as a sphere inside WTC1 whose horizontal diameters just touch the inside of the tower at the 98th floor.) Next to reach the outer structure would be the radii just above and just below this floor. Again, the next radii after this to simultaneously reach the outer structure would be two floors below and two floors above this 98th floor. Thus we would have succeeding downward exploding outer floors at the same time that we would have succeeding upward exploding outer floors. But (rising) smoke, and debris quickly obscure things. As the visible “wave” of exploding outer floors travels downward, the top piece of WTC1 accordions into itself and vaporizes. This accordioning rate appears to be at the same rate as the rate below the “hit” level. Also, gravity would not have much effect on these rapid explosions (and these ideas) if the 10 floors per second “collapse” rate for that first second is accurate. So it appears that no separate nuke was essential for destroying the top pieces. The nuke used at “collapse” initiation was sufficient to both vaporize a significant part of the tower both below and above the “plane hit” level, and the video shows this. As above, this nuke had a diameter of about 30 floors, and likely two more were needed and used, not counting any cleaner nukes. Also I believe “extras” were in place at points along the height of the towers, and near the base for use as needed.
Summary and Conclusions
This article has attempted to elaborate on how nuclear devices demolished the WTC towers, and to explain related phenomenon observed at that time, and afterwards. While the immense complexity, removal of evidence, and alteration of evidence makes certainty quite impossible, the above analysis indicates the following scenario may be the most likely. Bogus plane hits (perhaps accompanied by genuine plane/missile fly-bys) were really explosions of pre-planted conventional shaped explosive charges simulating plane outlines. After a certain amount of time for (the bogus claim of) melting the steel support, the towers were demolished (as were other WTC buildings with concomitant EMP evidence), with internal nuclear devices, most likely mini-fusion bombs. The demolitions began in each tower with a nuclear device going off at the “plane hit” level. The geometry and the video evidence indicate several more were used per tower, and that a cleaner nuke was used at the end. This article is also perhaps the first to provide a plausible explanation for the remarkable high temperatures and molten steel , observed for weeks and months after 9/11, at the WTC. The explanation given here is that one or more non-exploded, nuclear devices lost their integrity from the effects of other nuclear devices going off. These “affected” nukes attained some criticality akin to a nuclear reactor, and gave off high heat for weeks and months afterwards. This nuclear scenario hypothesis appears to be consistent and complete; and has no need for other things such as thermite (except possibly at the bogus plane hits/explosions), or directed energy beam weapons, or other exotica.
The author hopes that this article will initiate comments, corrections, improvements, and much needed discussion and action. Shills should always remember that the perps who placed the nukes were likely the first to be eliminated on 9/11. The author wishes to thank Spooked for his helpful ideas during the writing of this article, and for posting it.
It is hoped that people never forget that this horrific event was nothing less than a wanton, nuclear holocaust perpetrated against nearly 3,000 people by their so-called government. And used as an excuse to murder countless more thousands of human beings who had nothing to do with the events of 9/11/01.
On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist"
In a similar vein, is anyone foolish enough to trust a certain physicist’s alleged data on his tests of a single steel beam and a friend’s apartment? This is the same physicist whose alleged data shot down the whole field of cold fusion, which might have, by now, obviated some of the need for oil, if this field wasn’t shot down? Could his “data” on cold fusion have been accurate if many scientists around the world (who aren’t govt disinfo agents) continue to publish data showing that cold fusion works? When this same physicist tries to shoot down the fact that mini-nukes were used to demolish the twin towers, he rightly knows that he has to address the issue of the evidence of EMPs (Electromagnetic Pulses). But he barely mentions it, and simply says that other factors could have caused the power outages. No mention of the toasted cars--and not people or paper right next to them. See Ondrovic’s statements already alluded to by me. Read how she was knocked down by the car door right next to her overheating from the EMP and exploding off the car and hitting her. Note that nothing heated her up directly (which also eliminates DEWs). That physicist knows well that there is no other explanation for these events, except EMP, so he does not include this evidence of the toasted cars or Ondrovic’ eyewitness (heavily redacted) testimony. No one knows better than that nuclear physicist that nukes were indeed used to kill nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. That is why his statements are replete with omissions, and other falsifications not worthy of a complete rebuttal. Except to say one last thing. When he mentions the high temperatures and molten steel, at the WTC, he bogusly writes about this as if this occurred only during the demolition or just shortly thereafter. He ignores (as he must) the fact that flowing molten steel, and extremely high temperatures were found days, weeks and months after 9/11. Does anyone believe his beloved, bogus thermite was still generating massive heat days, weeks and months later? Any heat generated by thermite would have been gone minutes or hours after the event. Indeed, the heat from the mini-nukes themselves would also have dissipated within a short period of time. There are no reports of molten, flowing metal or high temperatures days, weeks or months after the events of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. This is why I had to propose another cause for this in my nuclear demolition article, other than the nuclear bombs themselves. And also why I included Tahil’s website as his is the only other explanation released about a possible source that could have generated high heat days, weeks and months afterwards. And I think my hypothesis of undetonated “extra” nukes impacted by the exploding nukes and going somewhat critical, is far more likely than his theory of two underground nuclear reactors having been surreptitiously built. But his reference was included by me, as it is not impossible. And someone interested in the truth includes other theories and other facts, and does not try to cleverly suppress them.
Also regarding the radiation issue, in this abstract of an article, a scientist, in 1969, published the following, “Nuclear device characteristics and the factors affecting radionuclide production and distribution are described along with some recent nuclear experiments conducted by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission for the purpose of providing technical data on cratering mechanisms and special emplacement techniques which could minimize the release of radioactivity to the atmosphere.” This shows, even back in 1969, that the govt experimented with using nukes to construct canals. It shows that they worked on having nukes with blast effect, and little or no radioactive elements created. The article’s abstract hints at two methods for obviating atmospheric release of radioactivity. 1. Steering the device towards low radionuclide production and 2. "special emplacement techniques" which means place it where you won't get much or any radiation released into the air. As this was back in 1969, they likely have perfected very low (or no) radiation nukes. There should be better, more recent articles on this topic, but I didn't find any so far. Maybe I know why?! Could it be because they perfected this, and classified this, as they knew they would be using this on the “home front,” such as on 9/11? Could small nukes to be used for “construction,” have morphed into nukes used for “destruction?”
Regarding 9/11, never forget that whatever radionuclides may have been created were sent to China, or otherwise were not allowed to be studied. This remarkable article states that before the steel was shipped to China, it was "first sent to be washed down"— a standard method of decreasing radiation levels! This article also has a top secret demolition expert/geologist saying that even the 1993 WTC bomb was a nuke, and they wanted him to be in charge of "better" nuking of the WTC in the future, and he refused! In this light, I always thought it strange that the govt basically admitted that they were the ones to use actual explosive in 1993 WTC hit. They even had a TV movie made depicting this. Do you recall how their inside man, an Egyptian agent, worked with the FBI? When he allegedly asked the FBI to switch to a non-exploding dud, the FBI allegedly told him to use the actual explosive! Why weren’t these FBI agents charged? Why would the FBI/govt admit to this malfeasance? Now it makes sense-- whenever the regime admits to something really bad, it's usually because the truth is vastly worse still! The same demolition expert said of the 1993 nuke— after he examined the basement of that tower: "The particular type of construction type micronuclear device is mostly radiologically clean." So, as I indicated in my WTC nuclear demolition article, recent nuclear devices can be designed to be “steered” towards blast capability, and away from any (significant) radiation release.
For completeness, I note that if there was significant radioactivity released, some such elements have short lives both in terms of time and distance. Few, if any "citizens" right there had Geiger counters, most of which have serious limitations. These nukes went off basically inside steel boxes. The government’s own study found significant levels of tritium (a signature of a fusion device, and according to Tahil, if he is honest, even end-products of fission were found). But the govt study notes that they were “unable” to test at numerous places— but especially deep underground, which was where the high temperatures and molten steel were observed! Of course, there is the possibility (since this is the govt), that they did test at these places, and discarded anything that would have proved the case for mini-nukes. With other government “investigations,” whistle-blowers have revealed that often there is much evidence, but it is eliminated. Sometimes absolute proof of nefarious deeds by govt elements is sent to Congress, and they immediately "LOSE" it. The govt has apparently used the most horrific methods to silence a FEMA photographer (Sonnenfeld), one of only two people, the govt allowed to video the WTC site.
The bottom line is that the govt is known to have created construction/destruction mini-nukes that likely produce little radiation or radionuclides. The govt’s own WTC study admitted to finding tritium (with a laughable explanation of its possible source) and other elements that could have been from a fusion (or even a fission device according to Tahil). The local govt leader (Giuliani) colluded with the federal perpetrators to cart off the evidence including building components and people’s remains, and disallowed their examination which clearly is obstruction of justice, but which prevented proper radiation studies—except apparently later for one steel beam. Was the latter chosen carefully, if you know what I mean? This govt has repeatedly proven that it would never release any data that would be complete proof that could lead to the prosecution—for mass murder and high treason here—of its officials all the way to the top…whoever that really is.