911 - Breakthroughs Toward Attaining A Complete Understanding of the Nuking of the WTC on 9/11

Breakthroughs Toward Attaining A Complete Understanding of the Nuking of the WTC on 9/11-- The Likelihood of Sabotaged, Fizzled Nukes

By The Anonymous Physicist

This article will include breakthroughs that may provide a complete understanding of all the anomalous matters in the nuclear destruction of the WTC. My previous articles on the WTC nuclear destruction of the WTC, and its aftermath are here and here. There is much evidence that the sub-basement of WTC 1 was hit with a nuclear bomb around the time of the first “plane hit. The accounts (I have previously given) of surviving burn victim Felipe David and stationary engineer Mike Pecoraro, strongly indicate that this sub-basement, massive blast was nuclear. My article on Felipe Davidmade clear that David’s hanging and burnt skin was from the radiation from a nuke. Pecoraro’s account of a vaporized 50 ton hydraulic press, missing parking garage, and the 300 pound steel and concrete door shriveled up “like aluminum foil” also were from this nuke. We also had phone outage from an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) that is part of a nuclear bomb’s effects, at this time and long before the tower’s destruction, as you can read here. Perhaps the early-on EMP is why there were so many military helicopters and planes at the towers— possibly even initiating conventional and/or nuclear explosions, including the final nuclear destruction, via direct line-of-sight lasers into the towers, because radio communications either failed or could not be counted upon, after the first nuke (and EMP).


Now regarding the nuking of the WTC, let me re-introduce the crucial concept of “redundancy.” When the PTB decide to do something, and that it must not fail, various forms of redundancy are utilized. If a nuke is to go off in the basement, and say on several upper floors, they would likely have emplaced more than one at each of those levels. Why? Because nukes have been known to fail to detonate, or fail to detonate with their maximum potential. To have a nuclear bomb go off with its maximum potential devastation achieved is very complicated and intertwined. Maximizing the nuclear chain reaction— while necessarily minimizing the time interval of the chain reaction, after having a successful, complicated, conventional explosion, involves many things being done near perfectly— including having properly manufactured/enhanced substances, and triggering mechanisms. This can never be 100% guaranteed. (I am assuming that the trigger is conventional explosives, as opposed to possible newer modalities including laser or sound waves.) We also have Bill Deagle relating how an ATF agent from the OKC bombing told him he removed unused extra— i.e. redundant-- micro-nukes from the Murrah building. If a nuke at a level is crucial for the demolition scenario (including its secondary, fall-back scenarios), there likely was more than one there, in case the first “fizzled.”

Because with a fizzled, crucial nuke, the failed remains would provide a giveaway that the regime itself just tried to nuke the WTC. Clearly the plan called for the complete destruction of the WTC, followed by evidence removal. Now, I assert that great redundancy, and the alternative (bottom up) tower destruction mechanism, and “leaning” (recall my John Miller piece) scenarios, were partially employed, or prepared, because this was the first time a top-bottom set of nukes going off vertically, and very complexly, and timed with conventional explosives was done. Indeed the bogus “leaning” was the fall back scenario if the planned nuking scenario proved untenable. And things did not go perfectly at all. There would be numerous “fizzled” nukes!

While we can never know with certainty which type(s) of nukes were employed, they would likely have used ones that were likely the most dependable. Now the evidence indicates that both fission and fusion occurred at the WTC. The govt’s publicly released studies found Uranium, and Tritium (fusion source); while Plutonium was never tested for (or such data was not released.) Relatively massive amounts of Strontium and Barium were found in the dust in at least one WTC area, conclusive toWilliam Tahil that a significant amount of fission occurred. So the presence of both tritium and fission by-products (Strontium and Barium are by-products of the fission of Uranium or Plutonium) indicate that fission and fusion took place. Tritium boosting (fusion) has been incorporated into fission bombs. These nukes may have been thought to be the most dependable. “Fusion boosted fission bombs can also be made immune to radiation from nearby nuclear explosions which can cause other designs to predetonate, blowing themselves apart without achieving a high yield. The combination of reduced weight in relation to yield and immunity to radiation means that most modern nuclear weapons are fusion boosted.” But Wikipedia is CIA-connected. And note the conflict between the alleged “immune to radiation” claim and the information, I will reveal shortly, that neutrinos can, in effect, “evaporate” sufficient nuclear material to prevent a full chain reaction.


So let us assume this type of nuke was used, and that several of them “fizzled.” First I need to clarify the difference in “fizzling” that I will delve into now, and the fizzled nukes I wrote of in my first articles. The core idea is the same— nuclear bomb fragments gave rise to the "China Syndrome". But earlier I wrote of exploded nukes that impacted unexploded nukes. The latter then giving rise to these fragments, as is, or partially detonating thereafter. But now I will highlight crucial, new evidence that indicates numerous nukes “fizzled” on their own, through likely sabotage, and not from the effects of other nukes. When these nukes that would “fizzle” were triggered, there are several possibilities. If their conventional triggering explosives failed, there would be nothing. If these powerful, conventional explosives went off (and the evidence herein indicates they did), there would be blast from this; and likely some subsequent, partial nuclear criticality would have been attained with some, or all, of these fizzled nukes. But the blast, and neutron, and other, radiation released was a fraction of what was supposed to happen— and insufficient to bring down a building such as WTC7. The result was a (much) smaller nuke going off, and the beginning of the China Syndrome of nuclear reacting fragments exploded about— but perhaps mostly in the basements, if that’s where the first nukes went off, as is probable. These fragments would be the HEAT SOURCE that would give rise to the molten steel at the bottoms of the three WTC skyscrapers in the coming months. The molten steel’s heat source was the remnants from fizzled (likely sabotaged) nukes. These sub-basement nuke fragments were unable to be completely removed, according to the evidence and logic I have presented, for six months, or so. Now if a “fizzled” nuke went off high up, in one of the twin towers, it would likely disperse these fragments about the WTC (with much finer “bits” dispersed much farther out), and give rise to more widespread, but lower level of heat that was measured.


How many fizzled nukes were there? I can only surmise. At least two for WTC7 (the first, and at least one redundant one), and one or more per tower. Remember that the three skyscrapers had molten steel underneath them for months. That would be a minimum of four fizzled nukes. If the Murrah/OKC Deagle story is true (ATF agents removed several, unexploded micro-nukes), there may have been significantly more than these four, at the WTC. I believe all the evidence indicates that there were likely more than these four. I also assert that the likely reason there were numerous defective nukes is because they had been sabotaged— and this was not realized by the perps until after the fact! There are numerous possibilities. This could have been performed by elements of the military who tried to save Americans from their fate. Another possibility is that the nukes could have been hidden in place for a long time, and gone bad. (Not probable, IMO.) Sabotage could have been performed by others, even from far away, such as with neutrino beams, even through the Earth. As the end of this article indicates, neutrino-irradiated nukes may act as if they have undergone effective "evaporation of nuclear material.” And this negates the wiki/CIA claim above that these, or any other, nukes are “immune to all radiation.” Here we learn that Japan, in 1999, began through the Earth neutrino beaming, to distant targets. Always remember that with such military and nuclear matters, and technologies, public release of information is often decades after actual military use has gone on. There are other possibilities that could have led to the unknowing emplacement of sabotaged nukes, but that is described elsewhere by me. Successful, redundant or replacement nukes may have been of a different design, or intensity, than the ones that “fizzled”.


Note that the scenario of a small nuke whose core is sabotaged, via removal of sufficient fissile material to prevent complete criticality, and full chain reaction, was depicted in the 1997 Kidman/Clooney movie, “Peacemaker.” This form of sabotage would not likely be relevant here (due to detectability by the perps emplacing them.) More likely is the scenario (neutrinos) described above (or something similar), that would have allowed for having previously, and surreptiously sabotaged numerous nukes.

What happened, and didn’t happen, to WTC7 is crucial to this scenario. New information regarding earlier explosions in WTC7 will soon be detailed. Recall the following. I first wrote that WTC7’s demise was a conventional controlled demolition (CD). Then in a later article, I revised this and wrote that I had become certain that WTC7 was a nuclear CD, not a conventional CD. I quoted the unimpeachable source, Fire Engineering Professor, Dr. Barnett who had observed remnants of vaporized steel “from extraordinarily high temperatures” in the WTC7 rubble. I had conclusively proven, by then, that the months long eyewitnessed and photographed high temperatures and molten steel was accurate despite all the desperate disinfo from the OCT and DEW crowd(s). The difference between my earlier WTC7 hypotheses and this article is, in part, due to the well-hidden fact of WTC7 explosions during the time of the towers’ destructions. It is now clear to me that they didn’t demolish WTC7 earlier that morning, because they couldn’t— but not the way I wrote months ago. They couldn’t destroy WTC7 early that morning, because they tried, and it “fizzled.”


Let us now examine WTC7 in detail. We have Tris McCall of Jersey City, NJ. on November 24, 2003 stating, “I said I'd talk a little bit more about WTC7…From our vantage point atop the palisade, we could see the top stories of the trapezoidal structure peeking out between the skyscrapers of Battery Park City….Just before the fall of the North Tower, we saw a large explosion coming from the street-level area around World Trade Center 7. …it looked distinctly like a bomb had been detonated underneath the city, and, of course, that's exactly what I thought had occurred.” On 9/11 itself, the major media put this out: “After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel. They were the only ones there. They felt and heard another explosion, probably the collapse of one building. He broke a window and screamed for help. Then they went down a stairwell. "I told Hess, `We've got to try to get out of here."' They got to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I thought I was dead. The whole building shook. ... I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell. It was like a bad movie. Though covered in soot, Jennings was not physically injured. He said Hess escaped safely as well.” Note how the article tries to claim that the lobby blast was from the collapse of another WTC building. But now we learn that Jennings was the Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Dept. of the NYC Housing Authority, and is now stating he is certain that he heard and felt explosions in WTC7, shortly after 9 A.M. First as he is coming down the stairs at about the eighth floor. Then there is proof of a large explosion that impacts the WTC7 lobby. Jennings first indicates he is sure the “fuel/oil tank explosion” explanation is bogus. Then he says, “I heard explosions… [Note the plural.] The lobby was totally destroyed… They had to take me out through a make-shift hole in the wall the fire dept. had to make to get me out.” Then Alex Jones comes on this Youtube piece and says that all this happened within minutes of the first “plane hit”— before either tower’s “collapse.” Other information is that this happened in between the two tower demolitions. Jones says that Jennings also says (in the full tape) he saw numerous dead bodies, presumably in the lobby, and was told not to look at them. Could the reason Jennings is told not to examine the bodies be that they showed evidence of being nuked?


I assert that the explosions Jennings hears, and experiences, in WTC7 were one or more fizzled nukes. What would happen to WTC7 at 5:20 P.M. was actually meant to happen at about the same time as all the other WTC buildings were destroyed! Is it not likely that WTC7 was also planned for simultaneous destruction? I don’t blame Jennings for hiding out, if his story is true, nor for being too scared for six years to tell his more complete story. Now any dead bodies Jennings saw in the WTC7 lobby, were likely from these fizzled nukes. I assert that WTC7 was not demolished early on, with the other buildings, because all its nukes-- including the redundant one(s)-- fizzled, as described above! I further now hypothesize that this matter, fizzled nukes, is likely the reason for the long 7-8 hour delay— even beyond the planned time that the regime errantly pre-told the media— for the WTC7 “collapse.” The perps were likely replacing defective nukes! This would have taken time to get them from wherever they were brought in from. Apparently all nukes in WTC7, despite redundancy, were defective, again, IMO, likely sabotaged. And it took a few hours to get replacements, possibly even needing time to test, or try to test, the new ones before emplacing them in WTC7? Indeed I would hypothesize that perhaps even the errant early notice to the worldwide media that WTC7 HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED, was once again due to another defective nuke unexpectedly “fizzling!” So it seems that my hypothesized scenario of defective, likely sabotaged, nukes and replacing them as needed (WTC7), appears to explain every single anomalous fact on 9/11, and the China Syndrome afterwards.


There are other related anomalous WTC7 matters. We see that WTC7 was ordered evacuated at 9:03. I guess the federal perps knew the end result ahead of time, and ordered their own to leave immediately, while people in WTC1 and 2 were told to stay in, or go back to, their offices!! Maximize the deaths of the citizens, and minimize the deaths of the feds. Some of the 9/11 perps may have been agents working in WTC7, but the vast majority, I would presume would not know of the matter, or its details. All reports of the earlier explosions in WTC7 would be hidden by the lackey media. During the 7-8 hour interval, firefighters were not allowed to fight the relatively small fires that likely resulted from “fizzled” nukes. You wouldn’t want firefighters to witness many things, including federal perps bringing in the replacement—- “better” nukes! Likely those perps would be wearing radiation-protecting garb. While the WTC7 fires would be “officially” blamed on ejecta from WTC 1 or 2, photos of WTC7 show limited damage to the facade which cannot account for the complete global "collapse" of the tower.

Moreover, the lobby of WTC7 was shielded by the presence of WTC6 from any ejecta from WTC1 and 2. The first WTC7 explosions are now said to have occurred before any tower destruction. Now regarding these fires several floors up, there could have been one or more mini-nukes that fizzled therein, or criticality fragments from partially exploded defective nukes could have been blasted up a few floors. Recall the Chernobyl core explosion that blasted off the roof itself and left some 30 criticality fragments burning away on the roofs of adjacent buildings— the China Syndrome. And I trust you know why WTC7 could not get a reprieve? It was even more imperative now for the perps to “eliminate” WTC7, because its lobby, basement and possibly some of the floors where fires were, now contained the proof of one or more fizzled nukes— the nuclear reacting criticality fragments that link back to the U.S. regime, and not 19 Arabs and “plane hits.”


Perhaps all redundant nukes in the towers that finally, successfully exploded were of a different type than the fizzled ones. Redundant nukes that were successfully exploded in the towers’ upper floors, after any initial “fizzled” nukes went off at those levels, would have widely dispersed the fizzled nukes’ contents which had presumably undergone partial criticality (nuclear reacting fragments). Of course, even properly functioning nukes will give off some radioactivity, but Hiroshima, and Nagasaki did not have surface hotspots, for weeks and months. Now, at the WTC, these fragments gave rise to the widespread hotspots all over the WTC, after the “collapses” were over. These areas thus had to be massively, repeatedly washed down, and treated with dirt, that was then removed and carted away (as was the neutron-bombarded metal itself)— this took weeks. Thus we had the high temperatures, melted firemen’s’ boots, etc. from surface hotspots. Fizzled nukes, in the sub-basement levels of the three skyscrapers were entrapped therein, and thus were effectively more concentrated, and nearly impossible to “treat” with dirt or water, and not reachable for months. These deep underground hotspots stayed hot for six months or so (as documented at this blog), giving rise, all the while, to such phenomena as molten steel for six months.


To sum up, it appears that this author has herein revealed a consistent scenario that includes the cause of the resultant, and now massively documented, China Syndrome of high temperatures, molten steel, and nuclear irradiation of responders, and NYC residents, and the long WTC7 demolition delay— namely defective, likely sabotaged, nukes and the time interval needed for replacement (WTC7). Possible mechanisms for the hidden nuclear bomb sabotage have also been revealed here. I assert this is now the most consistent, and perhaps the simplest, scenario that includes the most heretofore inexplicable factors— long WTC7 destruction delay, errant WTC7 destruction time given to the media, the WTC7 “preliminary” explosions, and the resultant China Syndrome, with the greatest and longest time-line for very high temperatures and molten metal underneath the three skyscrapers of the WTC, all of which had one or more “fizzled” nukes! This article may have eliminated the last mysteries of the nuking of the WTC on 9/11 by the Federal American regime. It is up to each of you now to promulgate this! The life you save may be your own!

Breakthroughs Towards Attaining A Complete Understanding of the Nuking of the WTC on 9/11, and its China Syndrome Aftermath: Part II

by The Anonymous Physicist

This is part of my continuing efforts to decipher, and expose, the details of the American regime’s nuking of the WTC on 9/11/01, and the China Syndrome aftermath of high heat emitting, radioactive/fissioning fragments at, and under, the WTC. As I have detailed herein (see the archived URL’s noted at the bottom), the China Syndrome documentation includes massive evidence of high temperatures, melted boots, flowing molten metal, and much more. Inherent in this, was the perpetrators’ crucial need to keep the nuking of the WTC, and the China Syndrome aftermath, hidden from Americans (and the world.)

Now any nuke that might be significantly larger than expected, and thus might blow through a building, and be videotaped, had to be prevented, as the nuclear op would be clear to all. Now you might think that if a larger nuke than expected became visible, the regime would just say that Osama bin Laden (aka Tim Osman of the CIA) had obtained nukes after all. But they couldn’t, because they had already put out the (CGI) “plane hits”, and it is not plausible that anyone would go to all the trouble of hijacking planes, and “flying them into the towers”, if they had already planted nukes therein! The perps would lose their coveted “plausible deniability.” So it was crucial to use nukes that might be underpowered, or even fizzle (as this could be [and was] corrected later); and not to use nukes that might have a larger yield than predicted. And better to have many smaller ones— redundancy— which could be corrected as needed— as was WTC7. I have stated that the bogus “towers are leaning,” said on the air by the regime’s intel operators/”reporters” was related to the fall-back position of using larger nukes in the sub-basement of the towers— which would not be visible-- to knock the towers over, if the intricate top to bottom scenario, with many smaller nukes, fizzled completely.

In more detail, uncertainty in the lower boundary of destructive nuclear yield, was far more tolerable, than uncertainty was, in the upper boundary of yield. The former is OK, as even fizzling (insufficient yield) could be, and was, “corrected” later— a la WTC7.http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/09/breakthroughs-toward-attaining-complete.html
How might this relate to the fission vs. fusion issue? Perhaps either fusion bombs cannot be made with very low yield-- or perhaps more likely-- a very low yield cannot be guaranteed for fusion devices, as well as it can be for fission devices. Note the Castle Bravo H-Bomb test of March 1, 1954, where “The 15 megaton [thermonuclear] bomb delivered a force far more powerful than expected”. This leads me to the “official” tritium finding— and release-- from the USGS (aka the UCal/Berkeley/Livermore) study. See also William Tahil’s analysis of this, and his perhaps, crucial findings and analysis of levels found of Strontium, Barium, and other elements, of the fissioning of Uranium or Plutonium.

Now regarding the tritium, there are three possibilities:
1. Tritium was used as a booster in fission nukes at the WTC, and/or
2. Tritium was used in fusion nukes at the WTC, or
3. The Tritium finding is bogus, a straw man.

Now you might ask why would the federal regime release data that might indicate the use of a fusion device at the WTC? Precisely because of the existence of the China Syndrome aftermath! And stating there was tritium could be a straw man, in the sense that 911 researchers would be diverted into believing that fusion (only) devices were used— including the so-called, hypothetical “pure fusion” nukes, and therefore there could be no China Syndrome aftermath, as that requires fissioning fragments. (At the same time, of course, different intel assets would claim that the tritium finding doesn’t mean anything.) So the pure fusion debate could be a red herring. Recall earlier, I have written that whenever the federal regime releases something that seems very damaging, it will likely turn out that the truth is far worse, and is being hidden. The bottom line is that the federal regime could have easily prevented the release of the tritium finding, if it were genuine. All they had to do is to claim the usual “national security” excuse to censor anything. Recall I have asserted, and demonstrated, that the 2nd AVIRIS WTC ground temperature data is false, as well as the seismic records. Anything that indicated the China Syndrome has been particularly censored.

Anything and everything coming from the federal regime must never be taken on face value. Indeed, statistically, one would be better off assuming any statement, assertion, or data regarding any very important issue, is a lie. The regime knew from the outset that the China Syndrome had begun. This was either from knowing this as WTC destruction happened, or from its intel assets on the ground, or from satellites or planes high overhead— assaying heat or radiation spectra. The feds then informed their stooge/mayor, Giuliani, who immediately ordered the trucking in and out of sand/earth, and hosing down of the grounds, to lower the radiation levels.

I find it fascinating that one of the proponents of the nuclear WTC hypothesis repeatedly cites the tritium finding, but has never once written the words, “China Syndrome.” We must also be aware of how the regime easily keeps these words from being mentioned in the MSM, and had its assets waiting in the wings with their hangouts to hide this. I refer again to the thermite and “DEW” hangouts. The thermite physicist ludicrously claims that thermite would maintain molten metal temperatures for months. While the DEW engineer claims that each time the firemen/responders hosed down the very hot rubble pile, and steam (photographed) and hissing sounds were emitted, that instead “cold molecular dissociation clouds” appeared, or the latest “New Physics” gibberish (it will never end: the sign of an intel op)-- the “Hutchison effect.”

So in trying to obtain a complete understanding of the nuking of the WTC on 9/11, and the China Syndrome aftermath, I can state the following. There is a good probability that numerous low yield (mini- or micro-nuclear) fission bombs were used. There is the possibility that the tritium “finding”, that was released by the govt, may be a straw man to lead researchers to the red herring of “pure fusion”, and away from the evidence of the China Syndrome. In all likelihood, the regime has kept proof of radiation release at the WTC during demolition, and the later China Syndrome from public release. The ludicrous hangouts of thermite and DEW were created to hide the China Syndrome, and the nuking.

Some of the people of New York City have learned well the nature of their regime, and have bought Geiger counters (which are of limited use). The regime knows this, and is trying to ban the possession of Geiger Counters by the citizenry. So the citizens are trying to determine directly for themselves if they will be hit with any more nukings of their city. What possible reason would the regime have for denying them this right— other than the obvious, nefarious one? The current NYC stooge/mayor Bloomberg’s own Police “counter-terrorism deputy commissioner,” R.A. Falkenrath, makes it clear with his own words from the last URL. The restriction is so that “we know where these detectors are located…” Translation: They want to make sure that there will be no WORKING Geiger detectors nearby at the time the regime does its next nuking of NYC. Those of you who understand all that I have written here, will realize that “counter-terrorism experts” like former “reporter” John Miller that I exposed herein, are likely long term deep undercover intel “assets.” They are the terrorists themselves, and/or working directly for the regime’s terrorists who have done, and will do, the next nuking— or other use of a WMD against the citizenry.

But the people are obviously catching on. And I hope with my articles herein, that we can see more and more clearly exactly what they did on 9/11, and its aftermath. Please post this and my archived articles on the nuking of the WTC, and the China Syndrome aftermath at wtcdemolition.blogspot.com and wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com at all forums and blogs. And tell your friends and neighbors. The life you save may be your own. While this mass murdering, terrorist regime may desire to ban Geiger counters, and guns, the people have learned that the way to counter this is for everyone to get them now, and never give them up.

911 - Further Observations on WTC1 Stairwell B

Further Observations on WTC1 Stairwell B

1. Did Pasquale Buzzelli Surf Down The “Collapse”—or Do Conflicting Reports Collapse the O.C.T.?

2. Does the Revealed “Upward Wind” During “Collapse” Prove the Final “Cleaner Nuke”?

by The Anonymous Physicist


Pasquale Buzzelli is a structural engineer who was working for the Port Authority in the North Tower on 9/11. Genelle Guzman [McMillan is added now—due to subsequent marriage] was a co-worker of Buzzelli’s at that time. Both would be among only 20 alleged survivors of the “collapse” of the two towers. Curiously all 20 were in the North Tower. Buzzelli would become famous for claims that he, in effect, “surfed” down 22 floors during “collapse” as described here. 

He was found ATOP the rubble pile, and taken to safety, at least three hours after the “collapse.” Guzman-McMillan, who started out with Buzzelli on the 64th floor, would become famous as the last person rescued alive from beneath the rubble, about 24 hours after the “collapse.”

However, Guzman-McMillan’s description of events leads to the collapse of credibility of Buzzelli. As archived here, Guzman-McMillan states that she was on the 13th—not 22nd—floor just before the “Collapse” began; and that Buzzelli was BELOW her. She states that Buzzelli was below her as he led a group of people (including her) down. She does not know, at that point in time, how far below her he was. So this could be but half a flight of stairs, or several flights. But Buzzelli, and his fellow claimants thus lose AT LEAST nine flights of “collapse surfing” from Guzman-McMillan’s account. Also please consider the possible implications in the differences in how they were found. Guzman-McMillan was buried BENEATH some rubble, while Buzzelli was ATOP the rubble pile. Curiously Guzman-McMillan also relates pressure from the Port Authority on its reported orders to Tower workers to stay put after the “plane hits.” The article above states, “On instructions from the Port Authority, McMillan declines to discuss why she stayed [initially].”

Guzman-McMillan “felt hot” while awaiting rescue. Reports from the 12 firemen who survived in Stairwell B also have them saying they felt heat in the Stairwell even when initially climbing up. (This fits with my articles on the early sub-basement nuke’s thermal rays that affected many people, including Felipe David.) Indeed I might say that the following report from Rick Cushman is the very first report of what I have lengthily described as the China Syndrome Aftermath. See this blog: wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com. Now Rick Cushman was a marketing manager and National Guardsman from Saugus, MA. He rushed to Ground Zero from Massachusetts. For 12 hours he searched for survivors in the rubble. “But he had not seen any — only pieces of bodies. Beneath his boots, heat billowed up through the web of steel.” Then Cushman heard Guzman-McMillan’s shouts and directed rescuers to her.

Now this article reveals numerous things. Despite the fact that there was likely a large number of people going down Stairwell B at the moment of collapse— as there were only three stairwells in each tower— people survived only at a few locations along Stairwell B. There are several possibilities, according to my many small nukes hypothesis. As previously hypothesized here, there could have been several failed or fizzled nukes. Or there is the possibility, that at certain intervals, those who were in an effective nodal region— between nukes—may have survived, at least initially.

Now Stairwell B contained 14 survivors— including 12 firefighters— who survived the tower’s final destruction. Two others— Buzzelli and Guzman-McMillan— were on Stairwell B at the onset of “collapse,” but were found elsewhere in the rubble pile. And four others were found in the underground Mall. (This includes the two Port Authority policemen depicted in the Oliver Stone movie.) Again it appears that the South Tower’s “collapse” curiously did not have any such survivors. Now the New York Magazine article indicates again that some of these Stairwell B surviving firemen surmised that they survived a nuclear attack: “[Captain] Jonas and his men, finally freed from their stairwell, looked around at fires and flattened buildings. They thought they were witnessing a nuclear attack.” My articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC have detailed how many firefighters surmised this. Why? Firefighters are well familiar with heat from fire, but if they feel great heat on their skin and they are nowhere near a fire, they know something very different is going on! Readers of my articles, and of this blog by Spooked, and his 33 blog herecan also see the involvement of the PTB, when the article states “When Buzzelli called at 3:30 everything changed, though not as she’d expected. Soon, she’d know that he’d somehow landed safely in the midst of acres of destruction, a lone soul dropped to safety on a concrete slab…”

The New York Magazine article has other quizzical matters, and should be read in its entirety. There is the matter of the 12th Floor as depicted here. “Jonas picked up a Mayday from the lieutenant of Ladder Five, who reported that he was in Stairwell B on the 12th floor. Jonas had passed him on the way down, helping a civilian. “I’m trapped and I’m hurt bad,” he said. Jonas, who was on the fourth floor, tried to climb the stairs but couldn’t ascend more than a floor, and in any case, as he’d later learn, the stairwell had no 12th floor. “I’m sorry, I can’t help you,” he radioed back.”

The highest-ranking officer on Stairwell B was Chief Richard Picciotto. He later wrote a book, as the article continues: “Picciotto’s Last Man Down became a best-seller. It would also end his friendship with Jonas—“It’s a very bad book,” says Jonas— and whatever camaraderie he shared that day with the others from Ladder Six. “We don’t speak to him,” says Komorowski. “Liar,” Butler wrote in his copy of the book.”

““It was part of my personality to take charge of a situation,” Picciotto writes. “I’d never been the type to sit idly by while someone else called the shots, and I wasn’t about to start now…Picciotto was the highest-ranking guy, but he was not the commanding officer. He was doing nothing. He was balled up in a corner,” says Jonas.”

Picciotto’s book says he was on the 7th Floor when the North Tower “collapsed.” These articles indicate that the extant height of Stairwell B, after tower destruction, was five flights. And this should be kept in mind when researching where people were at the moment destruction began, and where they ended up. It appears that each flight had two levels of standard zigzag stairs as depicted here. We must keep in mind that anyone being blasted on the stairwell, but remaining in the stairwell, would have been blasted in a straight line, and shouldn’t have been blasted more than a flight of stairs. This is different from those—like Buzzelli and Guzman-McMillan— who were apparently blasted OUT of the stairwell, at some point, during the tower’s destruction.

(And, of course, the stairwell above the fifth floor may have been vaporized, or otherwise destroyed.) With Guzman-McMillan ending up buried under some rubble, and Buzzelli atop the rubble. I also note that there appears to be no pictures that show the very TOP of the extant five-floor Stairwell B section. Could this be because the top contains obvious indications of the great (nuclear) heat of tower destruction? Have these photos been cropped, as many photos were in the Kennedy Assassination? I was the first to note the similarity of the remnant of Stairwell B, and the remnant of the tower from the fizzled Upshot-Knothole Ruth nuclear fission bomb test of 3/31/53. At least the bottom third of the bomb’s tower remained because the nuke had fizzled—it had a yield about 1/15th of what was expected. See here:


Note the date has a 33. The tops of the Ruth test tower and Stairwell B have some similarities as I indicated to Spooked, and as he has in his article at his blog here on 3/12/09. The tops indicate some steel has melted and twisted downward.

Finally, I cite the book, Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts at the World Trade Center by Dennis Smith [not read by me]. In particular I cite this review by Sterling D. Allan, an apparent alternative energy expert. After reading that book, and Stairwell B’s survivors’ accounts, Allan reveals, “a cohesive conclusion: A POWERFUL WIND WAS GOING UP THE STAIRS AS THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING DOWN. This would seem to refute the official pancake theory of collapse in which one floor after another fails as the mass from above comes down.”

Allan includes this familiar hypothesis, “One possible explanation for these survivors, in the demolition model, is that explosives that were placed in the vicinity of this stairwell section failed to go off.” Allan however appears to only consider non-nuclear matters, but his review is dated in 2006, before my articles, and that of others, on the nuclear destruction of the WTC appeared. 

But I conclude with the question—does the now-revealed UPWARD WIND, of final tower destruction, indicate a nuclear blast from the ground, or perhaps more likely from the basement? Is this upward wind another indication of the final cleaner nuke that I have written about for several years now? As I have written, this final cleaner nuke may also have been seen as the so-called “nuclear glow” that TV cameras panned AWAY FROM while purporting to show what was happening at the WTC.


So-- we have seen now that “surfing the collapse” is not as the regime wishes to have it depicted. Many floors of “surfing” are missing, and ending up atop the rubble— with a huge building “collapsing” on top of you— is incredulous. Also we see that firemen’s accounts of the upward wind of final collapse fits well with my nuclear destruction scenario, but it impossible with the OCT, as there would be no wind until the pancaking floors hit that level, and that would have been a downward wind.

911 - The Fall of the WTC1 Spire and the Intact WTC1 Stairwell: Proof of Demolition Near Bottom of the Tower

The Fall of the WTC1 Spire and the Intact WTC1 Stairwell: Proof of Demolition Near Bottom of the Tower

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/ 
After the destruction of WTC1, this stairwell in the core of the building remained-- three to four stories higher than the rest of the rubble pile:


Now remember the "spire" of WTC1 that remained for a few seconds during the destruction of the tower?


It was a good 70 stories high, and was part of the WTC1 core:


The spire didn't topple over, but fell more-or-less STRAIGHT DOWN:


IF THE SPIRE MERELY COLLAPSED, FALLING STRAIGHT DOWN, THE HEAVY CORE COLUMNS SHOULD HAVE OBLITERATED THE STAIRWELL AT THE BASE OF THE CORE!

Rather-- the stairwell WOULD survive if the spire was blown with bombs at the base-- a few stories above the stairwell. In this way, the higher spire columns could fall to the side as the base was blasted out. Perhaps several bombs along the base of the core were used to create this result. But it seems clear that a collapse of the spire could not result in this intact stairwell. It also seems likely that this nuclear blasting along the core/spire would account for all the missing WTC1 core columns!

Also this:

911 - The Effect of a Low Yield Nuke on a Steel Structure

The Effect of a Low Yield Nuke on a Steel Structure

 http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/ 

The Ruth shot was a fizzle. The predicted yield was 1.5 to 3 kt, while the 200 ton yield was a fraction of that.Especially embarrassing to UCRL was that only the top 100 feet of the 300 foot shot tower was vaporized (though much of the remainder was scattered across the desert). It was standard practice at that time for each test to totally erase all evidence associated with it (automatically "declassifying" the site), which Ruth failed to do.

Hard to tell how tall this tower remnant is but I would guess about 100 feet, if the cross-sections are 10 feet apart (which would fit what looks like a ladder near the base). 

Compare the above pic to this pic of the WTC1 core remnant :

Note the wilted pieces of steel dangling down.

Note-- this puts the WTC destruction into good perspective. If a 200 ton yield nuke can vaporize 100 feet of steel structure, and destroy 100 feet or more of it, you can imagine the yield nuke that would be required to vaporize the innards of the 208 foot wide WTC while leaving the outer walls more or less intact. What's not clear is if there is a linear correlation between nuke yield and vaporization radius-- I would guess it's not perfectly linear.

911 - WTC Nuke Thesis from "Anonymous Physicist"

WTC Nuke Thesis from "Anonymous Physicist"

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/
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"

The “anonymous physicist” has this to say on the issue of radiation during and after the WTC nuclear demolition. We must dispense with any naiveté on this important issue. If the EPA and Whitman had found massive radiation and/or radionuclides (radioactive/decaying elements) at the WTC after 9/11, does anyone believe they would ever release this data to the people? Relatedly, it later became known that they found high levels of (asbestos, mercury and other) toxins shortly after 9/11, and yet told the world, and the responders, that “the “air was safe.” They lied, for quite some time, about what they had found in this sense. Now if the EPA tested for, and found, significant radiation, and/or radionuclides, and failed to tell the responders this; it resulted in the responders not wearing radiation-shielding, protective clothing. This would then likely lead to cancer and other illnesses. I note that there has been cancers, in 9/11 responders, and people living nearby; and asbestos is known to usually take far longer for its victims to get cancer. Could these cancers be the result of radiation? Cancer can be caused by even the very lowest levels of radiation. The father of the field of health physics, Dr. Karl Ziegler Morgan, has so stated. The EPA officials and Whitman would be liable for charges of mass murder and treason, just for this cover-up. Also if the government perpetrated 9/11 (and no one else could), would they allow another section of the government to give it all away? Do not the people know how the government lies, in perpetuity, about the Pearl Harbor set-up, the Kennedy assassination, and many more nefarious deeds it has perpetrated?

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------