The Discovery


Could a DU missile have hit the Pentagon?

High-Ranking Army Officer – Missile Hit Pentagon
Radiation Expert Claims High-Radiation Readings Near Pentagon After 9/11 Indicates Depleted Uranium Used
By Greg Szymanski

Geiger counter readings record high levels
“.. Geiger counter readings right after the attack shows high levels of radiation 12 miles away from Pentagon crash site.”

Radiation from depleted uranium missile?
‘”What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used,” said radiation expert Leuren Moret in a telephone conversation this week from her Berkeley, CA home.’

Tell-tale hole in the building and paucity of sizable plane parts
“‘When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile’s impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile,’ said Maj. Rokke from his Rantoul, IL home this week.”‘

Flash of missile at the WTC?
‘”Also, if you look at the WTC and the disturbing flash hitting the tower right before the impact of the airplane, it also looks like a missile was used.”

And to prove the government’s jetliner theory is wrong, Moret said the quick actions of a friend near the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11, provide even more suspicion.’

Geiger counter readings astonishing
‘Thinking radiation might be involved, she quickly asked Dr. Sherman, 77, a radiation expert and medical doctor who lived about 12 miles from the crash site, to get a Geiger counter reading.

What the pair of experts found is astonishing. What they found is not only astonishing but four years after 9/11, what’s even more incredible is that their findings have been completely ignored by most everyone, including the Bush administration, the 9/11 Commission and the mainstream media, all who appear more interested in rubber stamping the official 9/11 story then getting at the real truth.’

Geiger counter readings eight to ten times higher than normal
‘”Dr. Sherman was downwind from the Pentagon on 9/11 and her Geiger counter readings show an extremely high reading, a reading of more than eight to ten times higher than normal,” said Moret, also an expert in the cause and effects of depleted uranium.’

Geiger counter readings conformed by radiation experts
‘After notifying the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency (NIRS), experts from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the FBI were alerted and according to Moret, radiation experts later confirmed high radiation levels at the Pentagon crash site possibly from the presence from depleted uranium or other unknown causes.’

Readings ignored but question remains – how did an airliner smash through twelve walls?
‘But what disturbed Moret most has been the Bush administration’s lack of concern and its failure to mount a thorough investigation into what really caused the high radiation levels, saying perhaps the findings might reveal something contrary to the official story that a jetliner rammed through 12 Pentagon walls of solid concrete.’

400,000 Nagasaki bombs?
‘”It has been determined that the equivalent of more than 400,000 Nagasaki bombs has been released in the middle east since 1991,” said Moret, citing a report and subsequent speech at a 2000 depleted uranium conference given by Professor Yagasaki, a physicist and well-respected nuclear radiation expert.’

Gulf War Syndrome – uranium radiation poisoning?
‘”The ailing Gulf War heroes from all 27 coalition countries slowly die from of “unknown causes,” they wait for answers from their respective governments, but no satisfying or even credible answers have come forth from the military establishment. Records that span over a decade point to negligence and even culpability on the part of the U.S. Department of Defense and their disposable army” mentality.’

Effects of DU shocking
‘Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, former chief of the Naval Staff in India, reported the following shocking details about the effects of depleted uranium:

“In the 2003 war, the Iraqi’s were subjected to the Pentagon’s radioactive arsenal, mainly in the urban centers, unlike in the deserts in 1991. The aggregate effects of illnesses and long term disabilities and genetic birth defects will be apparent only 2008 onwards. “By now, half of all the 697,000 US soldiers involved in the 1991 war have reported serious illnesses. According the American Gulf War Veterans Association, more than 30% of these soldiers are chronically ill, and receiving disability benefits from the Veterans Administration.’

Radiation readings in Iraq as high as 1900 x background readings
‘”Near the Republican Palace where US troops stood guard and over 1000 employees walked in and out, the radiation readings were the hottest in Iraq, at nearly 1900 times background radiation levels.’

Children the most vulnerable victims
‘”At a roadside stand, selling fresh bunches of parsley, mint, and onions, children played on a burnt out Iraqi tank just outside Baghdad, the Geiger counter registered 1000 times normal background radiation.’

Long term effects of DU radiation poisoning include cancer
‘”The long term effects, as Dr Asaf Durakovic elaborates, after the early neurological symptoms are cancer, and related radiation illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome, joint and muscle pain, neurological and/or nerve damage, mood disturbances, auto-immune deficiencies, lung and kidney damage, vision problems, skin rupture, increase in miscarriages, maternal mortality and genetic birth defects/deformation.’

Plastic knives or nuclear missiles?
‘”It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it’s physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we’re talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the MISSILE to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.”‘
Donald Rumsfeld answering Parade Magazine reporter Lyric Wallwork Winik in Pentagon Press Conference Oct.12, 2001. (Posted on the Pentagon website)


Depleted Uranium Released During Canadian Plane Crash
Little-Known Use of DU in Commercial Jets Exposed
By Christopher Bollyn

[My comments in bold]
Canadian Plane Crash
The recent crash of a Boeing 747 in Halifax, Canada, raises a number of questions about the use of depleted uranium (DU) in airplanes, public health concerns and the 9-11 attacks.”

As much as 1,500 kg of DU on a plane
`A 747 may contain as much as 1,500 kilograms [3,300 lbs.] of the material,` the Canadian Press reported.

Oxidized uranium a danger
In 1988, American physicist Robert L. Parker wrote that in the worst-case scenario, the crash of a Boeing 747 could affect the health of 250,000 people through exposure to uranium oxide particles. `Extended tests by the Navy and NASA showed that the temperature of the fireball in a plane crash can reach 1,200 degrees Celsius. Such temperatures are high enough to cause very rapid oxidation of depleted uranium,` he wrote.

Pentagon – high radiation
In Alexandria, seven miles south of the burning Pentagon, a doctor with years of experience working with radiation issues found elevated radiation levels on 9-11 of 35 to 52 counts per minute (cpm) using a `Radalert 50` Geiger counter.

33 miles from the Pentagon – high radiation readings
One week after 9-11, in Leesburg, 33 miles northwest of the Pentagon, soil readings taken in a residential neighborhood showed even higher readings of 75 to 83 cpm.

Readings are an underestimate
The Radalert 50, Folkers said, is primarily a gamma ray detector and `detects only 7 percent of the beta radiation and even less of the alpha.` This suggests that actual radiation levels may have been significantly higher than those detected by the doctor`s Geiger counter.

Did DU counterweights in the airliner cause high readings at the Pentagon?
`The question is, why?` Folkers said.

No DU in 9/11 planes
`Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747,` Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing`s 767, told AFP. `Sometime ago, we switched to tungsten, because it is heavier, more readily available and more cost effective.`

Was DU used in a bunker-buster missile that hit the Pentagon?
DU is used in a wide variety of missiles in the U.S. arsenal as an armor penetrator. It is also used in the bunker-buster bombs and cruise missiles. Because no photographic evidence of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon is available to the public, 9-11 skeptics and independent researchers claim something else, such as a missile, struck the Pentagon.

White flash seen at Pentagon
A white flash, not unlike those seen in videos of the planes as they struck the twin towers, occurs when a DU penetrator hits a target.

Round holes in 1.5 to 2-feet thick walls
Photographs from the Pentagon reveal that large round holes were punched through six walls in the three outer rings. The outside wall is 24 inches thick with a six-inch limestone exterior, eight inches of brick and 10 inches of steel reinforced concrete; the other walls are 18 inches thick.

Ultra-fine oxidized uranium particles can pass through the filters of respirators
Thomas Cahill, professor of physics and atmospheric sciences, analyzed the plumes from a station one mile north of the burning WTC rubble. `The small particles worried me the most,` Cahill told AFP, referring to the sub-micron-size particles, which can pass through the filters of respirators.

More people may die from the dust than died on 9/11
`If you expose a person to this amount of lead, cadmium, benzene, asbestos and glass shards, they are going to be sick,` he said. `More people could die from this than died on the day of 9-11.`


Is depleted uranium a health risk?

Depleted uranium – Anatomy of an atrocity


Depleted Uranium, or DU, is a waste material left over from the nuclear industry. A vast amount of this waste DU is produced when natural uranium is enriched for use in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. Only the uranium isotope U-235 can be used in nuclear processes, such as reactors and weapons. As most of this isotope is removed from naturally occurring uranium, the remaining uranium product comprises U-238 and smaller amounts of the more highly radioactive U-235 and U-234.

DU is chemically toxic and radioactive
DU is both chemically toxic and radioactive. It is this latter product, the left over uranium, comprising mainly U-238, which has been used to make ‘depleted’ uranium weapons. It is used for weapons because this heavy, dense metal is judged by the army to be an excellent penetrator of enemy armour, tanks, and even buildings.

DU is contaminated with plutonium and other radioactive substances
A large amount of DU in the stockpiles held in the United States has been contaminated with recycled spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors. For example trace amounts of U-236 and highly radioactive substances such as plutonium, neptunium and technetium were found in a DU anti-tank shell used in Kosovo.

DU is many more times radioactive than uranium ore
Governments have largely ignored the serious dangers this recycled fuel represents. A common defence used by the British and US governments and their militaries is to claim that depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium and therefore does not constitute a risk to human health. This statement is, however, misleading. In its natural form uranium is present in our environment in very small quantities as an ore, for example in rocks and soil. Conversely, the DU used by the military has been concentrated relative to background amounts, and is therefore many times more radioactive than uranium ore.

Radiation levels 1900x higher than background radiation
In May 2003 Scott Peterson, a writer with the US newspaper CSM, examined radioactivity levels next to DU bullets in Baghdad and found Geiger-counter readings were 1900 times greater than background radiation levels next to DU bullets. When natural uranium is concentrated in a similar form to ‘depleted’ uranium it emits about 40% more alpha radiation, 15% more gamma radiation and around the same level of beta radiation. The chemical toxicity of uranium does not depend on the isotope, therefore enriched, ‘normal’, and depleted uranium are equally toxic chemically.

US has 1 billion tonnes of DU stored
It is extremely difficult and expensive for the nuclear industry to store DU. It is thought that the US currently has 1 billion tonnes of depleted uranium radioactive waste, while the UK has at least 50,000 tonnes.

Some stored in leaky and corrosive cylinders
This waste is stored in cylinders at many sites across the US and UK and is vulnerable to corrosion and leaks owing to ageing cylinders and outside storage. It is stored mainly in the form of depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) which can leak if the corroding cylinders are breached. At least 10 cylinders are known to have breached during the past 10 years.

Trying to make money from DU and causing an environmental disaster
Turning this DU waste into weapons solves some of the problem faced by the Government and nuclear industry, concerning what to do with these large stockpiles. Not only is DU practically free of charge for the arms manufacturers, but it no longer has to be stored and monitored indefinitely.


When a DU weapon is fired, it creates radioactive dust
There are three main routes through which DU exposure on the battlefield takes place: inhalation, ingestion and wounding.(2) As a DU penetrator hits its target some of the DU from the weapon reacts with the air in the ensuing fire and becomes a fine dust (often called an ‘aerosol’) that makes inhalation and ingestion a possibility for those in the area. Even after the dust has settled, the danger remains that it may be resuspended in the future by further activity or the wind, and again pose a threat to civilians and others for many years into the future.

DU dust is insoluble and stays in tissues causing bone marrow irradiation and cancer
Inhaled DU dust will settle in the nose, mouth, lung, airways and guts. As a DU penetrator hits its target, the high temperatures caused by the impact ensure the DU dust particles become ceramic and therefore water insoluble. This means that, unlike other more soluble forms of uranium, DU will stay in the body for much longer periods of time. This aspect of uranium toxicology has often been ignored in studies of the health effects of DU, which base their excretion rates on soluble uranium. DU dust can remain in the sticky tissues of the lung and other organs such as the kidneys for many years. It is also deposited in the bones where it can remain for up to 25 years.(4) This helps explain why studies of Gulf War veterans have found that soldiers are still excreting DU in their urine over 12 years after the 1991 conflict (5) . Ingested DU can be incorporated into bone and from there will irradiate the bone marrow, increasing the risk of leukaemia and an impaired immune system. (6)

Kidneys the first organ damaged by DU
Inside the body, DU poses a health risk in a variety of ways to different organs. The kidneys are the first organ to be damaged by DU. At a high dose kidney uranium levels can lead to kidney failure within a few days of exposure.8 Lower doses lead to kidney dysfunction, and can lead to an increased risk of kidney disease later in life.

Tiny nuclear bombs in the lungs emitting radiation for years
As a radioactive emitter, DU also presents a risk to the lungs. Traditionally, radiation dosimetry measures the extent of harm by calculating the external radiation absorbed by the tissues; the so-called ‘absorbed’ dose.(9)However because DU dust is inhaled or ingested, it can remain in the body tissues and emit intensive radiation over a longer period. This way it can cause a large amount of damage over a relatively small area, changing a person’s genetic codes and causing cancers.

Low-level radiation can cause genetic damage
There is much new evidence emerging about the risks from so-called ‘low level’ radiation and the damage it can do to DNA. Considerable evidence has been accumulated recently about the ‘by-stander’ effect, which shows that irradiated cells pass on damage to surrounding healthy cells. In this way it is thought low-level radiation can cause much greater damage than would otherwise be expected.(10) Studies have also shown that irradiated cells pass on chromosomal aberrations to their progeny so that non-irradiated cells several generations, or cell divisions later, will exhibit this radiation-induced genomic instability (RIGI).(11)

Causes birth defects – Gulf War babies have 50% more chance of deformities
It’s not just in terms of increased risk of cancer that DU DNA damage can affect health. It is also implicated in causing a depressed immune system, reproductive problems, and birth defects. For example, a study of US Gulf War veterans has found that they are up to three times as likely to have children with birth deformities than fathers who had not served; and that pregnancies result in significantly higher rates of miscarriage.(12) A major 2004 Ministry of Defence-funded survey study from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has found that babies whose fathers served in the first Gulf War are 50 per cent more likely to have physical abnormalities. They also found a 40 per cent increased risk of miscarriage among women whose partners served in the Gulf.

Basra – 5x congenital malformations; 4x cancers
In Basra, in southern Iraq, there have been striking reports for a number of years about the rise in local childhood cancers and birth deformities seen there. The findings of a leading Iraqi epidemiologist, Dr Alim Yacoub,13 were presented in New York in June 2003 and suggest there has been a more than five fold increase in congenital malformations and a quadrupling of the incidence rates of malignant diseases in Basra.(14)

20 cases out of 4000 Iraqi babies had missing eyes
The Dutch Journal of Medical Science reported the findings of the Flemish eye doctor, Edward De Sutter. He found 20 cases out of 4000 births in Iraq of babies with the phenomenon anophthalmos: babies who have been born with only one eye or who are missing both eyes. The very rare condition usually only affects 1 out of 50 million births.


Children are at special risk
The damaging effects to health that DU weapons present are of particular concern because of the likelihood of civilians becoming exposed after conflicts have ended. Children especially are at risk because of playing in and ingesting contaminated soil and most of the health risks discussed are of particular danger to younger children.


DU gets into the food chain and water supply
The release of DU into the environment can pollute land and water for decades to come. Its danger is not limited to battlefield releases but will expose present and future generations of civilians to contaminated food and water supplies. Environmental releases of this sort can also be expected to have negative effects on plant and animal life although little is known about this.

DU dust in soil
DU dust in the environment can become resuspended through weather conditions and human activity, such as farming. Of particular worry is that children are especially vulnerable to receiving significant exposures through playing on sites and ingestion of contaminated soil by way of typical hand-to-mouth activity.

DU can also contaminate soil through corrosion from the original penetrator. It is believed that 70-80% of all DU penetrators used in the Gulf and the Balkans remain buried in the soil.

Reckless firing of DU weapons
The British and US militaries have demonstrated extreme irresponsibility in releasing DU into the environment, using it without proper monitoring or information about the risks it poses even in their own countries. In January 2003, the US Navy admitted routinely firing DU from its Phalanx guns in prime fishing waters off the coast of Washington state since 1977. At the Dundrennan testsite in Scotland around 30 tonnes of DU rounds have been fired into the Solway Firth. Only one has ever been retrieved, when it was found in a fisherman’s net.


DU – cheap and deadly
DU is used in a variety of military applications. It is attractive to the military, governments and the nuclear industry for three main reasons. Firstly, as mentioned earlier, it is in cheap and plentiful supply and solves the problem of storage and monitoring. Secondly, it is a very effective battlefield weapon because its high density and self-sharpening qualities enable it to penetrate hard targets with ease. Thirdly, DU is pyrophoric, which means it burns on impact, enhancing its ability to destroy enemy targets. The UK test firing of DU began at the Eskmeals range in Cumbria in the early 1960s.

Government knows DU causes cancer
In 1993, a leaked Pentagon report revealed how the use of DU could lead to increased cancer risks: this leak caused the US manufacturers to switch to tungsten alternatives. Because of this the Royal Navy has been forced to convert its replacement ammunition to tungsten too, although it still has stockpiles of DU.

DU in widespread use across the world
The US military uses DU mainly for its Abrahams tanks and A10 warplanes, although it is also used in its Bradley fighting vehicles, AV-8B Harrier aircraft, Super Cobra helicopter and its Navy Phalanx system. It is also used by the US military for a variety of other applications including bombshells, tank armour plating, aircraft ballast and anti-personnel mines. Although the US and UK militaries are the only countries who have been properly documented as using DU weapons, they are known to be held by at least seventeen other countries including: Australia, Bahrain, France, Greece, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.

Testing of DU weapons releases radiation
The testing of DU weapons has caused considerable contamination at test sites across the world. At Dundrennan, in Scotland, for example, a 2004 Ministry of Defence report revealed how, since 1982 over 90 shells had either been misfired or had malfunctioned and scattered fragments of DU across the ground. Despite searches, some of these fragments have never been recovered. Contamination levels were high in these areas, which have had to be fenced off.

US Army Surgeon General – DU causes cancer
Furthermore, a leaked 1993 document from the US Army Surgeon General’s office said, “When soldiers inhale or ingest DU dust they incur a potential increase in cancer risk … that increase can be quantified in terms of projected days of life loss.”


320 tonnes of DU in 1991 Gulf War
The 1991 Gulf War saw the first verified use of DU weapons. Around 320 tonnes of DU in weapons were used in the war, of which about 1 tonne was used by the UK military. According to data from the US Department of Defense, tens or hundreds of thousands of US military personnel could have been exposed to DU. Both the US and UK Governments refused any responsibility for decontamination and both refused to study the exposure rates or after-effects of this DU use. After a few years, evidence began to emerge from Iraq about the increasing incidence of cancer and birth deformities in the south of the country. After heavy US lobbying in November 2001 the UN General Assembly voted down an Iraqi proposal that the UN study the effects of the DU used there.


BOSNIA 1994-1995

3 tonnes of DU in Bosnia
DU rounds were used in Bosnia by US A-20 warplanes under the auspices of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Around 10,800 DU rounds, or 3 tonnes, were used in Bosnia. However NATO always denied DU had been used until 2000, 6 years after the attacks, when media reports began to emerge. For all this time no cleanups or public awareness campaigns could be run, leading to unnecessary civilian exposures. The UNEP report,1 mentioned earlier, and released in March 2003, found DU contamination of drinking water and radioactive ‘hotspots’. UNEP recommended ongoing monitoring of drinking water, cleanup of DU sites, cleaning of contaminated buildings and the release by NATO of all DU-attack coordinates.


US A-10 aircraft fired around 31,300 rounds of DU, or 9 tons of DU in areas of Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro during NATO action there in 1999. Partial information about the use of DU was released a year after the war when UN Secretary General KofiAnnan sent a letter requesting the information to NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson. An analysis in a UNEP Post-Conflict field study of recovered DU shells, published in March 2001, found that some of the shells were made with recycled uranium (that is, with uranium that had been through a nuclear reactor) and were contaminated with plutonium. The study did not find widespread contamination but did find evidence of airborne movement of DU dust.

U-238 10,000x background levels
It also found localised points of concentrated contamination showing U-238 at 10,000 times normal background levels. The study recommended decontamination, removal of penetrators and drinking water monitoring. A separate report published by UNEP on DU contamination in Serbia and Montenegro found “widespread, but low-level DU contamination, airborne DU particles” and that “DU dust was widely dispersed into the environment.”

Leukemia part of the “Balkans syndrome”
As well as official reports there has been widespread anecdotal evidence of so-called ‘Balkans syndrome’ among both soldiers deployed in the region and civilian populations. Symptoms are similar sounding to “Gulf War Syndrome” with heightened levels of leukaemia, respiratory and immune system illnesses.

27 Italian soldiers are thought to have died from DU-related problems
By mid-2004 twenty-seven Italian soldiers have died of symptoms thought to be linked to DU exposure. A court in Rome ordered the Italian Ministry of Defence to compensate the family of Stefano Melone, a soldier who died of a malignant vascular tumour. According to the court, Mr Melone’s death was “due to exposure to radioactive and carcinogen substances” on missions in the Balkans.

AFGHANISTAN 2001- 2004

There is some evidence that DU has been used in Afghanistan, although this has never been confirmed officially. For example, US A-10s and Harrier aircraft, which both use DU ammunition, are known to have been active in the region. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that the US has found radioactivity indicating DU use by the Taliban or Al-Qaeda.

Spreading ‘democracy’ or spreading radiation from DU?
Surely “spreading democracy” should no longer be allowed to appear in print, between now and 2008, unless accompanied by a parenthetical clarification (“not true,” stated as profanely as local standards allow). And that, of course, would only be the media’s first step back into integrity with the public.


Double and triple cancers in the one patient
“Two strange phenomena have come about in Basra which I have never seen before. The first is double and triple cancers in one patient. For example, leukemia and cancer of the stomach. We had one patient with two cancers — one in his stomach and kidney. Months later, primary cancer was developing in his other kidney — he had three different cancer types.

Cancer clusters in families
The second is the clustering of cancer in families. We have 58 families here with more than one person affected by cancer. . . . My wife has nine members of her family with cancer.”

This is Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, director of the oncology center at the largest hospital in Basra, speaking in 2003 at a peace conference in Japan. Why is it that only peace activists are able to hear people like this? Why hasn’t he been asked to testify before Congress as its members debate the future of this war and the next?

Children more vulnerable to DU than adults
“Children in particular are susceptible to DU poisoning,” he went on. “They have a much higher absorption rate as their blood is being used to build and nourish their bones and they have a lot of soft tissues. Bone cancer and leukemia used to be diseases affecting them the most. However, cancer of the lymph system, which can develop anywhere on the body and has rarely been seen before the age of 12, is now also common.”

Half-life of 5 billion years – the same age as the earth
Depleted uranium — DU — is the Defense Establishment euphemism for U-238, a byproduct of the uranium enrichment process and the ultimate dirty weapon material. It’s almost twice as dense as lead, catches fire when launched and explodes on impact into microscopically fine particles, or “nano-particles,” which are easily inhaled or absorbed through the skin; it’s also radioactive, with a half-life of 4.468 billion years.

300 tons of DU in the first Gulf War
And we make bombs and bullets out of it `¹ it’s the ultimate penetrating weapon. We dropped at least 300 tons of it on Iraq during Gulf War I (the first time it was used in combat) and created Gulf War Syndrome.

1,700 tons in the second Gulf War
This time around, the estimated DU use on defenseless Iraq is 1,700 tons, far more of it in major population centers. Remember shock and awe? We were pounding Baghdad, in those triumphant early days, with low-grade nuclear weapons, raining down cancer, neurological disorders, birth defects and much, much more on the people we claimed to be liberating.

Altering the human genome forever
We weren’t spreading democracy, we were altering the human genome.

DU dust travels around the globe
“We used to think (DU) traveled up to a hundred miles,” Chris Busby told me. Busby, a chemical physicist and member of the British government’s radiation risk committee, as well as the founder of the European Committee of Radiation Risk, has monitored air quality in Great Britain. Based on these findings, “It looks like it goes quite around the planet,” he said.

A death sentence on the Middle East and Central Asia
While Bush mouths ironic whoppers — “We will be standing with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes for freedom and liberty are fulfilled,” he told the U.N. General Assembly a while back — his actions pass, in the words of former Livermore Labs scientist Leuren Moret, “a death sentence on the Middle East and Central Asia.”

Planet is becoming uninhabitable
A war crime of unprecedented dimension is unfolding as we avert our eyes. Perhaps it’s simply too big to see, or to grasp, so we lull ourselves into the half-belief that the powers that be know what they’re doing and it will all turn out for the best. Meanwhile, the contagion spreads, the children die, the planet becomes uninhabitable.

Clean-up crews feel the effects


9/11 clean-up teams file lawsuit

Workers that cleared the debris say they were not protected enough
Hundreds of workers who helped clean up after the 9/11 attacks on New York have filed a lawsuit alleging they were not protected against toxic chemicals.
They want compensation – said to be billions of dollars – from the World Trade Center’s leaseholder and four companies that helped remove debris.

The lawsuit also calls for the health of all those allegedly exposed to the toxins to be monitored for 20 years.

The defendants have yet to comment on the lawsuit, which was filed on Friday.

Rubble risk

A new report shows many who worked at the site of the attacks later suffered respiratory problems.

Afflictions such as asthma, sinusitis and shortness of breath were recorded amongst many of those involved in the clean-up, according to the report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Many others who worked at the site have said they suffered no adverse symptoms but are filing the lawsuit because they fear they could develop dangerous diseases in the future.

The lawsuit alleges many workers were not given equipment to protect them from toxins in the rubble while others were not taught how to use it properly, the Associated Press news agency reports.

Can ICAM Modulation Prevent Lung Injury From Ionizing Radiation?

Lisa A. Kachnic, Simon N. Powell

Affiliations of authors: L. A. Kachnic, Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA; S. N. Powell, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Correspondence to: Lisa A. Kachnic, M.D., Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston Medical Center, 88 East Newton St., EB 11, Boston, MA 02118 (e-mail:

Pulmonary fibrosis can develop as a consequence of a multitude of causes, including radiation therapy and chemotherapy, all of which have common physiologic and pathologic responses in the lung.

Exposure of normal lung tissue to irradiation has two well-recognized adverse effects: pneumonitis and fibrosis (1). Radiation pneumonitis occurs during the acute injury phase, typically within the first 6 months after treatment.


Lung damage in 9/11 workers


Clean-up workers feel effects of 9/11
By Sarah Dale
BBC News, New York

Nearly seven out of 10 Ground Zero workers have suffered lung problems during or after their work at the site, according to a study of health effects related to the 11 September 2001 attacks.


Depleted Uranium – DU
In the human lung tissue alpha-damaged cells typically appear in star like clusters as shown on one of the websites. The damaged (altered) cells are subsequently replicated. They typically spread throughout the body since they don’t belong to any specific function and multiply without control as no function controls them. If the DU gets into the blood stream and subsequently gets stuck in some of the most sensitive parts of the body, almost anything can thereby become effected. The end result is the development of a large array of biologic failures including diabetes, leukemia, lung cancers, teen age breast cancers, and stomach cancers in boys, and so on. Over 90 different diseases have so far been attributed to DU-radiation (both Alpha and Beta Radiation).


Alpha Rays from a Radioactive Particle in Lung Tissue

The black star shows the tracks made over a 48 hour period by alpha rays emitted from a radioactive particle of plutonium lodged in the lung tissue of an ape (the particle itself is invisible). In living lung tissue, if one of the cells adjacent to the particle is damaged in a certain way, it can become a cancer cell later on, spreading rapidly through the lung, causing almost certain death.

photo by Robert Del Tredici from his book entitled At Work In The Fields Of The Bomb (Harper and Row, 1987)


Flooding of the Bathtub

Enough water (millions of gallons) was released into the bathtub to remove most of the traces of radioactivity. Clean enough to eat dinner off it.


WTC Bathtub URL:


Quote from: rodin on January 09, 2007, 01:31:19 AM

@ all – could anyone comment on the fact that Steven Jones’ assertion that a Fusion weapon could not have been used because it would have left a swathe of radioisotopes (caused by fast neutrons splitting nuclei in target materials plus slowed down neutrons being captured by nuclei) whereas Wikipedia says a pure fusion bomb would not do this?

I think Jones says that a fusion weapon was not used because that would mean a fission trigger had to have been involved and according to him there was no significantly elevated levels of isotopes found in relation to the WTC.

In the article about the medical effects of nuclear radiation, it says that neutrons are released in a nuclear detonation (I presume they are talking about a nuclear detonation where fission is involved) but that their release is so brief that it is difficult to detect the presence of neutrons – it needs to be measured in a certain period, and with instruments that are sensitive to measuring neutrons.

Jones denies there were elevated levels of isotopes found – he ignores the elevated Sr levels for example, he also ignores the dilution factor of the Bathtub being flooded with millions of gallons of water, and how the whole WTC site and everything connected to it was washed free of dust (there were washing stations set up for this purpose).

Measuring the radiation level of the WTC sample with a Geiger counter some four(?) years later is not an accurate way to measure for radiation. Much of it would have decayed by that point and he is measuring just one sample. We don’t know the history of the sample either. And there are findings that contradict his findings: eighty radiation hotspots over NYC area including one over where the rubble from the WTC is stored (I know he says radium was found in high levels in the soil but this could be one of the causes of the radiation spike – he can’t just assume that it is radium solely). And from the high levels of isotopes found at the WTC site, even after massive washing down, there is a good reason to believe that these isotopes are the other causes of the radiation detected at the Fresh Kills landfill site on Staten Island.

I think Jones is an unreliable researcher; he skips over things that he shouldn’t be and too easily dismisses things that he shouldn’t. If he had investigated the nuclear theory at length and showed he had examined all the data carefully, then I wouldn’t call him that, but so far all he has come up with are those one-page statements (some even not that) he has made to people who raise the nuclear question and much of what he says is not correct – e.g. tritium levels were not elevated, according to him.

From previous post :

* The detonation of a nuclear weapon produces large amounts of ionizing radiation in two basic forms: electromagnetic (gamma) radiation, which travels at the speed of light and is highly penetrating, and particulate (alpha, beta, and neutron) radiation. Of the particulate radiations, only the neutron is highly penetrating, whereas the alpha and beta are not. All four types are present at the time of the detonation, but the gamma and neutron are by far the most important clinically. All but the neutron radiation are present in fallout and, in this instance, the gamma is the most important.

[My comments:It seems that neutrons and gamma rays do the most damage to a person’s body. There is no neutron radiation in fallout. In fallout, gamma radiation is the most important.]

* Ionizing radiation is emitted both at the time of the nuclear detonation and for a considerable time afterward. That which is emitted at the time of the detonation is termed “prompt radiation”, and is produced by the nuclear reactions of fission and fusion. The significant part of prompt radiation consists of a mixture of gamma and neutron radiation, most of which is emitted within a few seconds of the onset of the detonation.

[Ionizing radiation can be classified into prompt and residual radiation. Prompt radiation = gamma + neutron radiation. Most of it is emitted within a few seconds of the onset of detonation. Very brief burst of radiation. If neutron radiation is not measured for in this time period (seconds), it can be missed.]

* One minute has been established as a reasonable time parameter; after which there is no significant amount of prompt radiation, regardless of the type of weapon or circumstances of the detonation.

[After 60 seconds, prompt radiation disappears – presumably we can’t measure it after the 60 second period. And this is regardless of the type of weapon used.]

* Residual radiation is that which persists beyond the first minute after detonation. Its source is the variable amount of residual radioactive material produced by a nuclear detonation. A nuclear fission reaction transforms uranium or plutonium into a large number (about 150) of radioactive isotopes, termed fission products, which constitute by far the most important source of residual radiation. In addition, small amounts of unfissioned bomb material, and material in which neutron radiation has induced radioactivity, are present. All of these residually radioactive materials will be found in fallout.

[Residual radiation depends on what sort of weapon was used. There were fission products of uranium found – from the fission component of a thermonuclear bomb or some other source – depleted uranium?

This residual radiation WAS detected – elevated values of Sr and Ba for example. They were able to be detected once the dust cloud (fallout) descended to earth.]

* Fission products are the major radiation hazard in fallout, since a large number of them emit penetrating gamma radiation and, as a result, can be hazardous even at great distances. They have half lives varying from fractions of seconds to several years, but most have half lives in the range of days to weeks.


So it seems that residual radiation is the radiation that is able to be measured after a nuclear event. Residual radiation can be divided into three groups:

1) Fission products – radioisotopes of material used in the fissioning process
2) Unfissioned bomb material
3) Materials that have been made radioactive by neutrons striking them

These can all be found in fallout.

In a pure fusion explosion, you would find mostly number three and little or no 1 and 2.


There is an interesting link to a report about pure fusion weapons at the Wikipedia site on pure fusion:

Click to access 7_2Jones.pdf

This report says that radiation (neutron radiation) effects can be reduced by concrete barriers. The WTC buildings were surrounded by tall buildings with much concrete in them so perhaps these barriers reduced the neutron radiation effect from a fission-fusion bomb in 9/11:


The release of 1-10 GJ of fusion-energy would also produce roughly
3.5x 1020-21fa st neutrons. This many neutrons would deliver a lethal
radiation dose of 4.5 Grays (450 rads) in open space out to a radius of about
200-500 meters.33 This radius would be reduced to about 100-300 meters by
the presence of concrete walls (Figure 1).3


From that pdf site about pure fusion weapons:

It seems the lethal area for a 1-ton MTF (pure fusion) device would be the same as it would be for the equivalent-ton yield conventional weapon.


Weapon / Yield (metric tons HE) / lethal area (km2)

1-ton high explosive / 1.0 / 10^-3
MTF device (0.5-2.5 t)a / 1 / 1 0^3 (blast) 0.03-0.8 (neutrons)b
300 kg Sarin warhead on Scud / ~ / 0.22
Hiroshima-type bomb / 15,000 / 7c

o. Fusion yield (02-2.21) plus yield from high explosive (O3t) = 0.5-2.51.
b. 4.5 Gray dose.
c. The area given is that of a circle centered at ground zero for which, for uniform population density. the number of people surviving within would be equal to the number killed outside.

I don’t think a pure fusion weapon was used but I think the fission yield was made as low as possible in the fission-fusion bomb which I postulate was used in the WTC towers. If it was a pure fusion reaction, there probably wouldn’t be the same cancer profile that is being seen now (although there would still be radiation-induced cancers seen). There would be much less ionizing radiation present in a pure fusion reaction and therefore less radioactivity overall.


Pure fusion weapons offer the possibility of generating very small nuclear yields and the advantage of reduced collateral damage stemming from fallout because these weapons would not create the highly radioactive byproducts associated with fission-type weapons. These weapons would be lethal not only because of their explosive force, which could be large compared to bombs based on chemical explosives, but also because of the neutrons they generate. The neutrons may cause substantially more casualties than the explosive blast.


I was reading abut neutron bombs which are thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize the release of neutrons from the fusion bomb:


Technical overview

Neutron bombs, also called enhanced radiation bombs (ER weapons), are small thermonuclear weapons in which the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally not absorbed inside the weapon, but allowed to escape.

The opposite to these bombs are MRR weapons that use things like boron to absorb neutrons and minimize neutron radiation.


4.5.4 Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR or “Clean”) Designs

It has been pointed out elsewhere in this FAQ that ordinary fission-fusion- fission bombs (nominally 50% fission yield) are so dirty that they merit consideration as radiological weapons. Simply using a non-fissile tamper to reduce the fission yield to 5% or so helps considerably, but certainly does not result in an especially clean weapon by itself. If minimization of fallout and other sources of residual radiation is desired then considerably more effort needs to be put into design.

Minimum residual radiation designs are especially important for “peaceful nuclear explosions” (PNEs). If a nuclear explosive is to be useful for any civilian purpose, all sources of residual radiation must be reduced to the absolute lowest levels technologically possible. This means elimination neutron activation of bomb components, of materials outside the bomb, and reducing the fissile content to the smallest possible level. It may also be desirable to minimize the use of relatively hazardous materials like plutonium.

The problems of minimizing fissile yield and eliminating neutron activation are the most important. Clearly any MRR, even a small one, must be primarily a fusion device. The “clean” devices tested in the fifties and early sixties were primarily high yield strategic three-stage systems. For most uses (even military ones) these weapons are not suitable. Developing smaller yields with a low fissile content requires considerable design sophistication – small light primaries so that the low yields still produce useful radiation fluxes and high-burnup secondary designs to give a good fusion output.

Minimizing neutron activation form the abundant fusion neutrons is a serious problem since many materials inside and outside the bomb can produce hazardous activation products. The best way of avoiding this is too prevent the neutrons from getting far from the secondary. This requires using an efficient clean neutron absorber, i.e. boron-10. Ideally this should be incorporated directly into the fuel or as a lining of the fuel capsule to prevent activation of the tamper. Boron shielding of the bomb case, and the primary may be useful also.

It may be feasible to eliminate the fissile spark plug of a MRR secondary by using a centrally located deuterium-tritium spark plug similar to the way ICF capsules are ignited. Fusion bombs unavoidably produce tritium as a by- product, which can be a nuisance in PNEs.

Despite efforts to minimize radiation releases, PNEs have largely been discredited as a cost-saving civilian technology. Generally speaking, MRR devices still produce excessive radiation levels by civilian standards making their use impractical.

MRRs may have military utility as a tactical weapon, since residual contamination is slight. Such weapons are more costly and have lower performance of course.

This leads to another reason why PNEs have lost their attractiveness – there is no way to make a PNE device unsuitable for weapons use. “Peaceful” use of nuclear explosives inherently provides opportunity to develop weapons technology. As the saying goes, “the only difference between a PNE and a bomb is the tail fins”.



It is slightly more complicated than that…that equation assumes a lot of factors and numerous aspects are not considered:

1. Shape…highly critical…
2. Other compounds…again, highly critical…concrete is mixed with other substances in order to increase the PSI required to crush it…Other compounds allow it to flex a little, which also increases the energy required to pulverise it…
3. Materials absorbing the impact…such as plastic, wood, fibre glass, etc…
4. Ambient temperature
5. Concentration of force…not evenly distributed during a collapse…
6. Distance from applied force…note that we have 10 micron particles at 200m and 2 micron particles at 400m…
7. The fact that when a building pancakes, from the top to the bottom, the potential energy is arrested at each stage of the collapse, lowering the overall energy delivered as it arrives in a series of pulses…

This list is extensive, I could continue all day, the overall effect is that the energy required to pulverise the concrete rises sharply…especially to achieve smaller diameters…and the potential energy of the collapse decreases…

So, let’s now relate your figures, against the goodyear power plant:


The first year of operation of the Goodyear Lake small-scale hydro plant near Oneonta, NY is reported with monthly data for August 1980 through July 1981 on power generated, operating costs, income generated, and maintenance requirements.^Due to the dryest year in living memory in the area with an average flow of 60% of the mean flow for the past 20 years, the plant produced on 3,886,050 kWh versus an estimated 7,500,000 kWh.^Actual operating costs were $89,011 as compared with an estimate of $99,840.^(LCL)
30 microns = 1,272,792.206 KWH (around 2 months worth of power)
3 microns = 4,024,922.359 KWH (around 6-7 months worth of power)
0.3 microns = 12,727,922.06 KWH (around 20 months worth of power)

Now let me show you something, examine the energy requirements of the following:


Severe earthquake (Richter 8) 10^18 J
100-megaton H-bomb 10^17 J
Fission one ton of Uranium 10^17 J
D-D fusion energy possible from 1 gal. of water 10^11 J
Explosion of 1 kg of TNT 10^6 J…ICY/tables.html

The WTC buildings were designed to withstand up to around Richter 7 events, by disappating the energy, even during a collapse, this process would still function, albeit, with less efficiency.

Even with your figures, which do not reflect a real scenario, to achieve 0.3 micron particles we need to deliver over 20 months of power from the Goodyear power plant (operating at peak performance), in the time it takes for the WTC to collapse…

Can you demonstrate that such energies can be achieved, and then also account for the distance and elevation relationship, which is consistant with an expanding horizon of a detonation?


There is an interesting link to a report about pure fusion weapons at the Wikipedia site on pure fusion:

Click to access 7_2Jones.pdf

This report says that radiation (neutron radiation) effects can be reduced by concrete barriers. The WTC buildings were surrounded by tall buildings with much concrete in them so perhaps these barriers reduced the neutron radiation effect from a fission-fusion bomb in 9/11:


The release of 1-10 GJ of fusion-energy would also produce roughly
3.5x 1020-21fa st neutrons. This many neutrons would deliver a lethal
radiation dose of 4.5 Grays (450 rads) in open space out to a radius of about
200-500 meters.33 This radius would be reduced to about 100-300 meters by
the presence of concrete walls (Figure 1).3


The poster, MMC, from the physorg forum talks about the fallout here. He mentions the ‘clean’ bomb, a thermonuclear weapon in which 96% of the explosive power is derived from the fusion component, and 4% from the fission part. This is an article he quotes from:

Click to access 014_001_020.pdf


It has been stated that a 96 per cent clean bomb has already been produced;
the remaining 4 per cent of the explosive power is presumably
due to the fission core needed to trigger the
fusion reaction. In the future it might be possible to
develop a weapon in which the explosion is initiated
directly by a thermonuclear reaction. Even in such
weapons, a certain amount of radioactivity is always induced
by the neutrons from the thermonuclear reactions,
but this amount is relatively small. Should such
weapons be the only ones employed in a future war,
the radiological hazards would practically disappear.

Apparently with nuclear bombs in the kton range, there is not much of a fallout (no large-scale radiological contamination):


`Clean` Bombs
One of the arguments put forward in favor of clean
bombs is that they are `h~manitarian,in~ ~t he sense
that they bring clean, wholesome death to those
who happen to be in the combat area (which would
probably comprise the whole country), but not to those
outside it. War strategy is usually, however, not decided
by humanitarian arguments; this would certainly
not be so in a war in which the immediate survival of
the whole nation were at stake. In these circumstances
Joseph Rotblat, Executive Vice President of the
British Atomic Scientists` Association, is professor
of physics at the Medical College of St. Bartholomew`s
Hospital in London. He participated in the
Pugwash Conference in July 1957.
the weapons must be employed in such a way as to give
the greatest possible military advantage.
One can imagine several circumstances when clean
bombs would offer military advantage. One, for example,
is the case of an advancing army which may wish
to destroy enemy concentrations in a territory soon to
be occupied. In such a case, however, the bombs used
would be in the kiloton rather than in the megaton
range, and the question of large-scale radioactive contamination
would not have arisen even with fission

However the author doesn’t give precise figures in this section on what would constitute significant fallout or large-scale contamination (although the purpose of his article is not about fallout or radiological contamination specifically). Plus the WTC bombings were not done in a background of a war being fought and that is the context of the article.

MMC’s post:

As for fallout…here is a section on “clean bombs”…


But perhaps the greatest uncertainty arises from the recent development of the socalled `clean` bomb. A `clean` bomb is a nuclear weapon in which most of the explosive power is derived from thermonuclear reactions. It has been stated that a 96 per cent clean bomb has already been produced; the remaining 4 per cent of the explosive power is presumably due to the fission core needed to trigger the fusion reaction. In the future it might be possible to develop a weapon in which the explosion is initiated directly by a thermonuclear reaction.

…In such a case, however, the bombs used would be in the kiloton rather than in the megaton range, and the question of large-scale radioactive contamination would not have arisen even with fission bombs. Another case is the defensive use of large nuclear weapons; for example, the explosion of hydrogen bombs high in the air above one`s own territory for the purpose of destroying in flight enemy missiles whose trajectories have been determined.

…Whatever the actual construction of the hydrogen bomb may be, it appears that it requires a “tamper” or an inert material to contain the fusion substances long enough for the reaction to develop. In a clean bomb such a tamper would be made of a material which would not contribute to the explosive power. In a dirty bomb, however, the tamper is made of natural uranium; in this case a considerable increase in explosive power can be obtained, without any extra weight, due to the fission of the uranium produced by the neutrons released in the fusion reactions.

A larger explosive power means a greater range of destruction; thus, for the same weight of the missile, a fission bomb presents a much more effective military weapon. Even foregoing the advantages of the use of dirty bombs, resulting from driving the enemy population into shelters and underground retreats for many weeks after the explosion, and even with all the good will with which we credit our leaders, can they afford to give up the advantages of fission bombs without being sure that the enemy will do the same? It has been suggested such assurance might be obtained by giving the secret of making clean bombs to the enemy.

The above considerations, which indicate that in a future war fission bombs would be employed for strategic bombing, lead also to the conclusion that these
bombs would be exploded in such a way as to produce the maximum damage by heat and blast.

Click to access 014_001_020.pdf

If we replace the fission trigger, with a sonoluminessence trigger…(Note: This is a milestone in civilan research):


November 27, 2005

Laser Fusion Milestone Achieved

A major milestone was reached recently when scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California reported that they had demonstrated that laser pulses shot into a cavity can produce the conditions required to trigger nuclear fusion reactions. The finding was a crucial test of principle for Livermore’s National Ignition Facility (NIF), the $3.5 billion complex now under construction and expected to start full operations in 2009.

No fallout…or fallout in the range of background radiation…such as increased levels of tritium…

According to the second article quoted, fissionless fusion nuclear reactions were successfully performed for the first time in 2005, with laser, so I think we have to rule out a pure fusion bomb being used in the WTC attacks.

Other factors that go against a pure fusion bomb are:

– the presence of fission products at the WTC site (although they could have come 100% from any DU weapon that was used in the towers; or they could have come from both a DU weapon and a thermonuclear one – a DU weapon being used at the towers hasn’t been ruled out).

– the radiation spikes measured in the NYC area (five years after the fact) notably over the park on Staten Island where WTC rubble was stored (and also over the Israeli Embassy – this needs to be confirmed as Hal Turner seems to be the only one reporting this as far as I can tell, although he seems to be a conduit for news given to him by sources (including insiders) when they know the MSM wouldn’t report what they know or have picked up from elsewhere eg. Swedish international hit by a bottle in Israel). These radiation spikes are related to the fission products that would be formed after a fission reaction. Apparently in a pure fusion reaction, radiation that is detectable many years after the reaction took place would be negligible.

– the cancer profile: the bomb that was used was pretty clean but not as clean as a pure fusion bomb; the incidence of cancer and the types of cancer showing up over the past five years indicate there was significant radiation involved in the WTC attacks. The profile fits somewhere between what you would expect from a pure fusion bomb being deployed and what you would expect from a pure fission bomb – somewhere in the ‘middle’ – no alarming rates of people within a certain radius of the WTC buildings dying from radiation sickness within days or a few weeks (a pure fission bomb) but a significantly increased cancer rate among the first-responders all the same – high rate compared to normal plus unusual cancers plus many cancers appearing in relatively ‘young’ people – 30s, 40s.

You would still see an increase in cancers with a pure fusion weapon (as neutrons are released) but I think the cancer rate would be much less than what you would see with fission even if the fission component was small (~4%) and even if the bomb was a low-yield one – in the kton range.


Quote from: arden on January 11, 2007, 02:51:56 AM

Felipe David was burned severly in the basement. Were he, William Rodriguez or any of the 20 other people down there with them diagnosed with radiation exposure?

Radiation exposure is not easy to diagnose as a disorder per se. It is mainly picked up by anomalies in blood tests and there are many other causes of blood abnormalities like injuries. Trauma like burns and blunt injuries would have taken precedence in treatment and would have been the focus of attention. And the medicos wouldn’t have been looking for radiation poisoning as nobody suspected nukes were involved then. We don’t know David’s full history – how he is doing now – whether his recovery is slower than expected because of the radiation exposure. We don’t know what his future health will be like – will he develop cancer or other radiation-related illnesses. Plus his exposure to the radiation might have been short and from the nuclear testing in Goia we know that fractionation of the dose has got a protective effect. Plus this was not a typical megaton pure fission explosion that we are theorizing happened (not another Hiroshima) – it is more likely to have been a smallish low yield ~ 1 kiloton ‘clean’ thermonuclear weapon (4% fission and 96% fusion) used – the radiation from that is much less – see reports above.

[In fact I discussed the medical effects of radiation at some length earlier in the thread and covered most of the points raised there already. If people want to participate in the thread it would help if they read the thread properly instead of raising issues already discussed. It makes the thread less repeititive. That is, if they are serious about talking about nukes in the first place and aren’t just trolling.]

Rodriguez dived under a truck and that could have functioned like a bomb shelter for him plus I don’t think he spent much time at the WTC like others (first responders) did after the bomb went off – he was taken away for treatment. So fractionation of the dose comes into play here. The first responders probably spent more time in the area than he did and received a bigger total dose and their bodies were exposed to the radiation continuously so their cells had no time to recover/repair themselves so all those things might explain why he is alive today and many of the first responders are not. However his health is still precarious – he is disabled and cannot work – and we do not know what his future health will be like.



I see the resemblance

So do I. When the bomb you show is a nuclear bomb in the megaton range. And a fission bomb or one with a large fission component as well.


Thus, weapons in the megaton class and above are primarily incendiary weapons, able to start fires and do other thermal damage at distances well beyond the radius at which they can topple buildings or overturn armored vehicles.

This might not be the case for a thermonuclear weapon that has demolition of a structure as a goal – see the Plowshare program and PNEs (small yield – kiloton range – and relatively clean bombs – low fission component). Hypothetically these can be designed to function like conventional demolition ordnance devices except with more explosive effect. Note also that the weapon proposed to have been used was a directed weapon – the narrow destruction cone was shaped upwards – the reaction took place at the basement level – probably why we don’t see a fireball in that pic if there was a significant one that existed. What we are seeing in the picture is the result of the explosion – the disintegration of the top part of the tower.

Thermite bombs are incendiary bombs – don’t think the detonation that you are showing in the bottom picture was made by a thermite bomb. Thermite has two main uses – cutting metal and as an incendiary munition. If thermite was the main agent involved in bringing the towers down, it would have to have been used as an incendiary munition to produce this effect. Incendiary munition creates high temperatures in the target materials and starts fires in them and destroys them in this way. They also illuminate.


The purposes of incendiaries are to cause maximum fire damage on flammable materials and objects and to illuminate.

The towers were not destroyed by multiple (1000s) bombs exploding all over the building in simultaneous detonation and an incendiary reaction resulting, the towers exploded by being vaporized into fine dust in a matter of seconds – see the steel spire of the Southern tower vaporizing. (Although conventional weapons were probably employed as secondary devices.)

It should be noted that even though we don’t see fireballs in the picture of the towers collapsing at the top or in videos, people at the bottom of the building observed fireballs from their vantage point (since these are not observed in videos of the towers exploding we can assume these fireballs erupted at lower levels of buildings or they could have been fires that erupted from the thermal wave of the nuclear explosion). There were also flashes emanating from the building prior to the building exploding (see MMC’s post for videos of these flashes).


A thermite reaction


Here are some thermite videos. Some reactions may not show much of a flame (though many do) but there are certainly some white flashes of an incendiary explosion to be seen in all of them. Maybe “fireballs” was the wrong word to use when saying the picture looked incompatible with a major thermite explosion – perhaps should have said the picture doesn’t depict an incendiary type of reaction taking place.

Thermite videos:


If tens of thousands of these thermite bombs were used to disintegrate the towers (and not used only as a secondary device – to cut metal and explode metal), you would see a huge number of these incendiary effects – white flashes – at the time the buildings exploded.



Link about survivors who survived the towers’ fall:

This might be the stairwell B survivors you mean:


Pasquale Buzzelli, a structural engineer for the Port Authority, and Genelle Guzman, a secretary, were in offices on the 64th floor of the North Tower when the building was hit. Buzzelli and 15 co-workers thought they would be safer remaining in the building and stayed until the South Tower came down, which shook their office. Then smoke started to come in and they decided to evacuate via the B stairwell. The group spread out as they descended, with Buzzelli and Guzman ahead of the others. They had reached the lower floors when the Tower began to come down. Buzzelli and Guzman, who were together at the time, remember their location differently — he thinking the 22nd and she the 13th floor. Buzzelli was knocked unconscious for three hours, and awoke on a hill of rubble, looking at the sky. Suffering from a broken foot, cuts and a concussion, he was extracted by rescue workers and evacuated on a stretcher. 2 Guzman, who was just below the surface, was rescued more than 27 hours after the Tower fell. Her leg was crushed but she fully recovered within four months.



Fourteen people, mostly firefighters from Ladder Company 6 and Engine 39, survived in the B stairwell of the North Tower and crawled to safety. They are Firefighters Billy Butler, Tommy Falco, Jay Jonas, Michael Meldrum, Sal D’Agastino, and Matt Komorowski of Ladder 6; Firefighter Mickey Kross of Engine Company 16, Firefighters Jim McGlynn, Rob Bacon, Jeff Coniglio, and Jim Efthimiaddes of Engine 39; Porrt Authority Police Officer Dave Lim; Battalion Chief Rich Picciotto of the 11th Battalion; and civilian Josephine Harris.


OCt 10, 2006 6:37 AM EDT

Feds surveyed NYC for radiation, found tainted park, Embassy

WASHINGTON — Anti-terrorism officials conducted a helicopter survey of New York City’s radiation sources in preparation for a so-called “dirty bomb” attack – and discovered a Staten Island park with dangerously high levels of radium, a new report found.

Federal authorities found 80 unexpected “hot spots” around New York City, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

The GAO report released Thursday details a previously undisclosed aerial anti-terrorism program in New York City, one which may be extended to other cities worried about the possible release of radioactive material by terrorists.

The report does not identify which city park had the contaminated soil, but NYPD officials said it was in Gateway National Park in Staten Island. The site was closed, and New York has requested federal money to do a citywide aerial survey every year to update the information.

By creating a map of the city’s radiation sources, city officials hope to be able to respond more quickly in the event of a dirty bomb attack, know exactly which streets are contaminated and get civilians away.

New York is the first and only U.S. city to conduct a complete aerial radiological survey, having paid the U.S. Department of Energy $800,000 for the 2005 study.

The helicopters picked up sources of low-level radiation from expected places, like granite statues and medical isotopes at hospitals, but it also found dozens of other sources of unexpected radioactivity, the GAO report found.

“NYPD officials indicated that the survey was tremendously valuable because it identified more than 80 locations with radiological sources that required further investigation to determine their risk,” the report said.

At the Staten Island park, sensors detected large quantities of radium in the soil. Long-term exposure to radium increases the risk of developing lymphoma, bone cancer and leukemia.

National Park Service spokesman Brian Feeney said the area is a one-acre piece of the 570-acre Great Kills Park, which is part of the larger Gateway park.

Feeney said experts assured them after the August 2005 study that the area posed no public health risk, and said visitors do not go into that area anyway because of dense vegetation. He did not know if any warnings had been placed around the site.

The radiation apparently comes from “some piece of industrial equipment, pieces of old rusty metal. Whatever this equipment used to do, it picked up radioactivity,” he said.

“We keep people out of that area. It’s a non-accessible area of the park, no one can get in there,” said Feeney. “There’s no health hazard now, there was never a health hazard to the public.”

He said the agency has applied to the Department of Energy for funding to further survey the site.

Staten Island’s congressman, Rep. Vito Fossella, said the contamination was a surprise to him and residents near the park, and he demanded more information.

“It is essential for the government to act immediately to fully understand the extent of the contamination,” said Fossella, who was trying to arrange a meeting Friday with federal and city officials to discuss further testing and possible removal of the contaminated soil.

One alleged radiation hot spot on Manhattan’s east side has the potential for becoming a political hot spot: A strong radiation spike from the area of the Israeli Embassy. Officials would not comment on why they thought that particular area allegedly showed such a stunning peak in radiation.

The aerial survey is designed to help local officials react more quickly in the event of terrorists detonating a “dirty bomb” that releases radioactive material into the air. With the survey, police may be able to pinpoint the exact source of radiation by comparing new readings to their pre-existing “radiation map” of the area.

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said the department wanted a record of the city’s naturally occurring and other “radiological signatures” to compare with periodic readings it does to detect for dirty bombs or other nuclear devices.

“It gives us a baseline so we can pick up any anomalies,” he said.

New York City is the only major city to conduct a full-scale Aerial Background Radiation Survey to identify “hot spots,” though such work has been done in the nation’s capitol, according to the report.

The GAO found neither the Department of Energy nor the Department of Homeland Security believe they are required to conduct such radiation mapping, though the investigators said there were “significant benefits” to surveys in other urban areas.

Homeland Security officials agreed that they should study the cost and effectiveness of expanded radiation mapping in additional cities.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called the report further proof the federal government is not doing enough to help cities guard against terrorism.

The hot spot mapping initiative “should also be shared with cities across the country, not mothballed because the Homeland Security Department doesn’t want to put up the money,” Schumer said.

The GAO report also found the Department of Energy may need to beef up security at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada and Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland because those sites hold key national assets for responding to a radiological or nuclear attack.

Specialized quick-response teams and equipment are concentrated at those two sites, and a successful attack against either could leave one section of the country with limited capacity to respond to a subsequent strike with radioactive weapons, the GAO said.

The agency’s associate administrator, Michael C. Kane, was adamant the sites are safe.

“We categorically reject the contention that physical security at two of our facilities may not be sufficient for protecting against terrorist attacks,” Kane wrote.



Here is the part about WTC rubble being stored at Staten Island:



After 911, wrecking companies immediately entered the sites and carried out the rubbles to Staten Island for 3 months. During such period, nobody else could have been allowed to enter the site to investigate the reason of the collapses.


Objects from 9/11 rubble on show
Exhibits at 9/11 show in New York
Workers sifted nearly two million tonnes of rubble

An exhibition of artefacts found in the wreckage of the World Trade Center has opened in New York.

The show documents the work of those who sifted debris from the Twin Towers, which was taken to a landfill site.

It features more than 50 objects and 65 photographs, including a building beam and parts of the planes that hit the buildings on 11 September 2001.

Fresh Kills landfill site played a key part in the search for remains and criminal evidence after the attack.

Nearly two million tonnes of rubble were brought to the landfill in Staten Island after the destruction of the towers.

The work at Fresh Kills, several miles from Ground Zero and closed to the general public, is an important part of the 11 September story that most people do not know, exhibition organisers said.

More about the radiation hot spots (it looks like someone else has picked this up :P: )



Federal Security Survey Shows Fresh Kills Hot Spot Contaminated
Site of 911 Debris!

Friday – September 22, 2006

On Thursday exposure of a top-secret anti-terrorism program was made public. Federal officials flew helicopters over the entire city of New York making a complete radiological map of the entire city. Covering all boroughs from Staten Island to the outer reaches of the Bronx. This was all in the guise to help the NYPD prepare for a “dirty bomb” attack or other radiological disaster.

The Federal Department of Energy made this survey last year and found over 80 unexpected hot spots throughout the city and provided in a Report from the Government Accountability Office. The biggest problem so far is a huge hot spot in the Great Kills Park, a Federal Park on the South Shore of Staten Island and the spot where the 3 Trade Center Towers debris is thought to be.

New York city is the only one in the nation to get this complete survey. It is reported that the NYPD had requested this for a map of pre-existing “radiological signatures” that could be later used to detect dirty bombs or other movements of radiological materials.

“I am concerned by the findings of this report and the potential health impacts on nearby residents,” said Rep Vito Fossella (R-Staten Island). “We have only minimal information at this time … based on a brief description in the GAO report. It is important for the public to remain calm while we work quickly to learn more details. It is essential for the government to act immediately to fully understand the extent of the contamination.”

We would like to see release of the whole survey and know what the radioactives are. In particular the survey of the WTC 1, 2 and 7 as well as the finds at Fresh Kills, where the debris was taken for “examination”.

The governance has sealed off the area and is investigating which means that little truth will emerge without a battle by the public.

Coroborating Sources

New York AM Article coroborating story

Other Sources Article coroborating story

NY Sun Elevated Levels of Radium Found in Area of Fresh Kills

Another site discusses the hot spot issue:


Shoutwire Censors Report on Radioactive Hot Spots Related to 911 on

Posted by: 911eyewitness on Saturday, September 23, 2006 – 06:22 AM

In an unusual move of censorship Shoutwire today removed an article warning of radioactive hot spots in Fresh Kill, NY. The article by the new NYC TV Internet and Cable network exposed a recent survey that found radioactive hot spots throughout the 5 boroughs of New York City.

The unusual action of taking down a verifiable story by Shoutwire is suspect as the information of the toxic effects is still not known and therefore dangerous. If these hotspots show up on a helicopter scan then the body should feel more.

Read here:

The Original Story

There are of course the other questions of why these hot spots exist. The Fresh Kills landfill was used to sift and harbor the debris from the three towers demolished on September 11, 2001. As no actual murder investigation has yet been initiated the evidence is still important. That the evidence might contain radioactive isotopes is very important.

Instead of opening up the report and investigating, the governance has sealed the area from all public access and has made it now impossible to get the maps of hot spots and the reports on them. The same story as on September 11, 2001 when the government told the people the air was fine they are sealing off all information and feeding propaganda.

We applaud NYC TV in getting the story out and deplore the recent actions of Shoutwire to remove the popular link.

The Original Story

Note: Shoutwire has let the story ride now that the major media has picked it up. Perhaps they did not like getting that story first?


Seismic evidence for a nuclear explosion



Seismic wave of Magnitude 2.1 was recorded by Columbia University just prior to the collapse of both WTC towers. Its remarkable characteristic was extremely high spike that is peculiar to those caused by nuclear bomb explosion. It can be attributed to H. bomb, but not to Thermite or the gravitational collapse. (This seismic wave was also recorded at the first WTC bombing in 1993. A typical phenomenon at the time of hydrogen bomb test.)

Seismic data shows explosive peaks and 3D seismic fingerprint

Here is the seismic graph:


Shimozu says that such seismic patterns don’t occur with thermite type explosions.


Electrical and electronic failure: the Compton Effect

Evidence of the Compton Effect: power blackouts, and electric and electronic equipment failure that day.



Power blackout, telephone line failure, GSM cellular phone failure at Manhattan area was reported on and after 9-11. Firemen’s walky-talky did not work, therefore, Commander could not tell them to evacuate from WTC1 after South Tower was collapsed. Digital camera and video recorded strange afterglow. All these can be instantly attributed to the electro-magnetic pulse caused by H. bomb while nothing to do with Thermite. It’s a pity David Knecht died of lung cancer at the age of 35 who worked for two months to re-establish communications at businesses near Ground Zero. 9-11 perpetrators killed him.

How Jones responds to this point:


9. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton Effect.

S Jones: There are numerous causes for electrical outages; no need to require fusion devices for this; Occam’s razor.

But Occam Razor’s applies to a nuclear event as a cause of the outages when there are 22 good bits of OTHER evidence that show that a nuclear device was involved.

A nuclear event is more likely to produce a Compton Effect than say, an ordinary demolition using conventional (non-nuclear) explosives.


23. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC.

Jones: Interesting, if supported by empirical data. Actually, I recall several video cameras which continued to record video after the collapses `“ this, of course, provides evidence contrary to the fusion bomb hypothesis since such a bomb would indeed produce a devastating EM pulse.

Here Jones is being disingenuous: he cites knowledge of several video cameras that still operated during this time but he doesn’t specify what kind – fixed security cameras or portable battery powered ones?

Furthermore, his argument seems too simplistic: several video cameras being affected doesn’t mean no other electrical devices were affected by the power outage. Nor does this fact rule out a Compton Effect.

What happened that day:

“Power blackout, telephone line failure, GSM cellular phone failure at Manhattan area was reported on and after 9-11. Firemen’s walky-talky did not work, therefore, Commander could not tell them to evacuate from WTC1 after South Tower was collapsed. Digital camera and video recorded strange afterglow.”

But Steven Jones says the fact that several video cameras working during that time means that none of the above events are significant, and in all, don’t point to a Compton Effect. It seems as if he won’t accept the Compton Effect theory unless ALL electrical devices in that area had been affected. His standard of proof is very high, as if he is deliberately raising the bar for proof for any theory that doesn’t support the thermite one.

As we could see from the WTC7 detonation, it was an implosion. An implosion has very different characteristics to an explosion. An implosion is less likely to show up as a seismic spike, or raise enormous clouds of dust and debris and is a bottom-up fall, as if the building is suddenly shortening. Surely, he’s not thinking that’s what happened with the Twin Towers. Unless Reynolds and Wood misinterpreted his statements, his assumption that the collapses of WTC7 and WTC 1&2 are similar events is a very odd one for him to make. With the WTC7 collapse, you would less likely to have an EM pulse, power failures and other evidence of the Compton effect.

He makes an interesting admission: he says:

“Interesting, if supported by empirical data …. such a bomb would indeed produce a devastating EM pulse.”

In other words, he states that evidence of the Compton Effect would be good evidence of a nuke. But he won’t admit a Compton Effect occurred, despite all the evidence of power outages and cell phones not working (evidence of a devastating EM pulse) … because a few video cameras DID work …

The fact that Jones gives very short answers to these questions suggests that Jones has got his mind made up – nuclear is out. He doesn’t want to give proper attention to the 23 points that point to a nuclear bomb and dismisses them with one-liners that he shoots off glibly. His approach is one of already closing his mind off, and his answers are not entirely satisfactory and show flaws in logic. He seems condescending in his approach, and arrogant and curt. If he felt confident about his theory, he would be less likely to behave like that. He would spend the time explaining why he thought nukes had not been used in the attack to demonstrate that he had examined this theory carefully, and had only ruled it out when the evidence was overwhelmingly against it.

But he doesn’t do that, and then it seems he doesn’t even want nukes discussed. He probably doesn’t want any OTHER competing theory discussed. But if thermite was used to bring down WTC7, then no way were WTC 1&2 brought down with this method. Those detonations have completely different characteristics and this should be obvious to everyone.


A bomb with a very low yield

Here is an article about the B61-11, a bomb with a very low yield, as low as 0.3 ton. Not saying THIS was the bomb used in 911, but just to point out that the government has been researching low-yield nuclear bombs for some time. The B61-7, from which the B61-11 was made, was first put into service in 1985. And the original B61 came into being in 1968.


A bomb for all reasons

The B61-7, from which the B61-11 is made, has a selectable yield ranging from 0.3 to about 340 kilotons. It was first placed in service in 1985. (The original B61 entered the stockpile in 1968.)

According to Chuck Hansen, one of the nation’s leading independent authorities on the U.S. nuclear stockpile, the B61-7 can be fuzed for air or surface bursts, and it has “a hardened ground-penetrator nose” with a retarded contact-burst fuzing option. It can be dropped with or without a parachute.

William M. Arkin and Robert S. Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council (and authors of the Bulletin’s regular feature, the “NRDC Nuclear Notebook”) estimate that there are about 750 B61-7s in the active stockpile, along with about 600 B61-3s,-4s, and-10s.

In recent years, some military strategists have advocated deployment and possible use of very small tactical nuclear weapons against Third World adversaries, especially in earth-penetrating roles. Some of this advocacy–perhaps most of it–has come from the weapons labs. In the Fall 1991 issue of Strategic Review, for instance, Los Alamos strategists Thomas Dowler and Joseph Howard wrote:

“Would policymakers employ nuclear weapons to protect U.S. contingency forces if conventional weapons proved inadequate, or would the nature of our present nuclear arsenal ‘self-deter’ policymakers from using those weapons? . . . One possible answer to these questions might be the development of nuclear weapons of very low yields. . . . The existence of such weapons–weapons whose power is effective but not abhorrent–might very well serve to deter a tyrant who believes that American emphasis on proportionality would prevent the employment of the current U.S. arsenal against him.

“We doubt that any president would authorize the use of the nuclear weapons in our present arsenal against Third World nations. It is precisely this doubt that leads us to argue for the development of subkiloton weapons.”

And in July 1992, Los Alamos conducted a high-level briefing called “Potential Uses for Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons in the New World Order.” One theme of the briefing was that in future showdowns with Third World states, “we need options besides defeat or use of inappropriately large [nuclear] weapons.”

One option, suggested the briefing, was to develop and deploy “micronukes” with a yield of some 10 tons of high explosives; “mininukes” with a yield of 100 tons; and “tinynukes” with a yield of 1,000 tons.

An earth-penetrator with a yield of just 10 tons could, according to a Los Alamos viewgraph, “hold buried leadership and C3 at risk.” And it could do that while keeping “collateral damage very localized.”

“And in July 1992, Los Alamos conducted a high-level briefing called “Potential Uses for Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons in the New World Order.””

Interesting. Must get Lucidthots onto this – this is more of a red flag than the PNAC project for a new America in my view.

“An earth-penetrator with a yield of just 10 tons could, according to a Los Alamos viewgraph, “hold buried leadership and C3 at risk.” And it could do that while keeping “collateral damage very localized.””

If a micro-nuke (yield of 10 tons of explosives or less – the least amount that the antis say would have had to be used on that day per building) WAS used in 911, it would account for the fact that collateral damage was ‘very localized’ in that event.

“The DOD’s operational base recently received delivery of the first shipment of B61-11s. The B61-11 is now part of the stockpile, and that means the B53 can soon be retired. This is an accomplishment of which the entire laboratory can be proud. We have succeeded in meeting an ongoing military requirement while simultaneously enhancing the safety of the stockpile.”

Maybe all the spying the Jews have done on America paid off and they were able to steal micro-nuclear bomb technology from America and use it for their own purposes such as the 911 attack on America.


Collateral damage

From an Energy Department perspective, the B61-11 is a “modification” to the B61-7 gravity bomb. And yet, these modifications provide significant new military capability. This new capability is clearly at odds with commitments made by the United States in the context of the NPT and in the Comprehensive Test Ban (CTB) Treaty.

Consider, for example, a January 1996 statement made in Geneva by John Holum, director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, as he pushed for completion of the CTB:

“Even the open literature points to a broad array of new weapons developments. . . . Many would involve directed energy weapons–ways to focus the release of energy with greater precision than is now possible, to enable military effects well beyond those available now. Without nuclear testing the nuclear weapon states will not be able to pursue confidently such technologies as the nuclear-explosion-pumped X-ray laser, the so-called nuclear shotgun, enhanced electromagnetic pulse weapons, microwave weapons, and enhanced radiation weapons. . . . And the true zero [yield] test ban will also place out of reach new ‘mininuke’ and ‘micronuke’ concepts–technologies designed to use nuclear explosive yields in small amounts. . . .

“So let there be no mistake–the CTB will help impede the spread of nuclear weapons. But its great practical impact will also be for arms control–to end development of advanced new weapons and keep new military applications from emerging.”

The B61-11 may be a mere modification, a new shell for an older physics package. It may not be the kind of exotic new weapon that Holum listed. But it is a weapon with a new capability. Should the need arise, it will allow U.S. military forces–to borrow Holum’s words–to “focus the release of energy with greater precision.” In this case, against underground targets.

When all this is said, the B61-11 remains something of a mystery weapon. It offers a new capability at a time when there is no strategic requirement for such a capability, and it can be delivered by tactical aircraft at a time when–according to national policy–there is no tactical justification for it. Why was it developed and deployed now? That’s a question the Clinton administration needs to address.

It seems like the new weapon, B61-11, was developed and deployed as long ago as the time of Clinton’s administration. And if the US had problems testing it because of the CTB (nuclear testing ban treaty), Israel would have had no such problem testing it themselves, since they are not signees of the treaty. And if newer weapons had been developed, they wouldn’t have fallen under the CBT because the technology to make them is not new, just their capability is –”to focus the release of energy with greater precision”.


Israeli Embassy showed a STUNNING peak in radiation

Just want to emphasize the fact that a stunningly high radiation spike was found over the Israeli embassy location on an aerial survey of radiation.

See the report below.

And why does the spike show where the Israeli embassy is? Perhaps this is where the nuke was stored prior to its placement in the towers. The embassy is like a mini-foreign country in the US – it has its own sovereignty, and no US authority can just barge in and search for nukes even if they had detected radiation in the area. And it appears they didn’t test for it in New York prior to 9/11.


One alleged radiation hot spot on Manhattan’s east side has the potential for becoming a political hot spot: A strong radiation spike from the area of the Israeli Embassy. Officials would not comment on why they thought that particular area allegedly showed such a stunning peak in radiation.

Note this wasn’t just a radiation peak, it was a “stunning” peak in radiation, implying it was higher than the other radiation peaks that had been picked up.


The aerial survey is designed to help local officials react more quickly in the event of terrorists detonating a “dirty bomb” that releases radioactive material into the air. With the survey, police may be able to pinpoint the exact source of radiation by comparing new readings to their pre-existing “radiation map” of the area.

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said the department wanted a record of the city’s naturally occurring and other “radiological signatures” to compare with periodic readings it does to detect for dirty bombs or other nuclear devices.

“It gives us a baseline so we can pick up any anomalies,” he said.

A bit late now. Talk about shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.


The aerial survey is designed to help local officials react more quickly in the event of terrorists detonating a “dirty bomb” that releases radioactive material into the air. With the survey, police may be able to pinpoint the exact source of radiation by comparing new readings to their pre-existing “radiation map” of the area.

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said the department wanted a record of the city’s naturally occurring and other “radiological signatures” to compare with periodic readings it does to detect for dirty bombs or other nuclear devices.

“It gives us a baseline so we can pick up any anomalies,” he said.

The report also makes clear that there HAD been no radiation hot spot surveillanceas a routine measure in NY or any other area except for the Capitol prior to 911, and therefore transportation of nuclear material into the country and into NYC prior to 9/11 would have not been picked up by the radiation surveillance. More proof that “24” is complete fiction – valium for the masses. Israel could have smuggled in a score of such small tactical nukes into the nation, and nobody would have been any the wiser.


Tactical nukes and 9/11 – bunker busters

More about these B6-11 tactical nukes.

It seems like we already have them deployed and that they’re called ‘bunker-busters’. Guess this is what they used in the War on Afghanistan (and the War on Iraq most likely).

Thier low yield is significant, 300 tons of TNT – just what the recipe for blowing up a 110-storey skyscraper calls for.


Nuke ‘Em From On High

By Kennedy Grey
02:00 AM Oct, 08, 2001

Following the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was questioned on ABC television’s This Week program about the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons in the expected conflicts to come.

In practiced Pentagonese, Rumsfeld deftly avoided answering the question of whether the use of tactical nuclear weapons could be ruled out.

Though large “theater” thermonuclear devices — doomsday bombs — don’t fit the Bush administration’s war on terrorism, smaller tactical nukes do not seem out of the question in the current mindset of the Defense Department.

The most likely candidate is a tactical micro-nuke called the B61-11, an earth-penetrating nuclear device known as the “bunker buster.”

The B61-11 was designed to destroy underground military facilities such as command bunkers, ballistic missile silos and facilities for producing and storing weapons.

However, it could be used against the warren of tunnels and caves carved under the Afghan mountains that are often cited as a potential refuge for the U.S. government’s prime suspect, Osama bin Laden.

According to an article in the May 1997 edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: “The B61-11’s unique earth-penetrating characteristics and wide range of yields allow it to threaten otherwise indestructible targets from the air.

“The 1,200-pound B61-11 replaces the B53, a 8,900-pound, nine-megaton bomb that was developed as a ‘city buster’…”

The B53 was deliverable only by vulnerable B-52s; In contrast, the smaller and lighter B61-11 can be delivered by the stealthier B-2A bomber, or even by F-16 fighters.

The B61-11 is the most recent device added to the U.S. nuclear arsenal since 1989, according to the story.

It was developed and deployed secretly. The U.S. military sneaked it past test and development treaties, as well as public and congressional debate, by defining the B61-11 as an adaptation of a pre-treaty technology rather than a new development.

The B61-11 is designed to burrow through layers of concrete by way of a “shock-coupling effect.”

The design directs the force of the B61-11’s explosive energy downward, destroying everything buried beneath it to a depth of several hundred meters, according to a story in the March 2, 1997 issue of Defense News.

The B53, on the other hand, with a force equal to 9 million tons of TNT, penetrates the earth simply by creating a massive crater, rather than the more precise downward blow of the B61-11.

Depending on the yield of the bomb, the B61-11 can produce explosions ranging from 300 tons of TNT to more than 300,000 tons. This is significantly less than the B53, but still far larger than even the greatest conventional non-nuclear device in U.S. stockpiles. And it is several times more powerful than the atomic weapons dropped on Japan in 1945.

Studies by the Natural Resource Defense Council estimate that more than 150 B61-11s are currently in the U.S. arsenals, scattered among NATO aircraft carriers and planes on bases in Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Turkey, Belgium, Netherlands and Greece.

The B61-11 is designed to burrow through layers of concrete by way of a “shock-coupling effect.”

Well, there was certainly a lot of concrete in the WTC towers to be ‘burrowed through’.

It was developed and deployed secretly. The U.S. military sneaked it past test and development treaties, as well as public and congressional debate, by defining the B61-11 as an adaptation of a pre-treaty technology rather than a new development.

If Americans have this bomb, then most certainly the Israelis have it.

The B61-11 is designed to burrow through layers of concrete by way of a “shock-coupling effect.”

That could work – if you wanted to bring down some 110-storey towers.

The B61-11 was designed to destroy underground military facilities such as command bunkers, ballistic missile silos and facilities for producing and storing weapons.

Also can be presumably adapted to destroy free-standing structures, like skyscrapers.

“The 1,200-pound B61-11 replaces the B53, a 8,900-pound, nine-megaton bomb that was developed as a ‘city buster’…”

The bomb is only 1.2 ton in weight and therefore eliminates the need to transport some 10,000 pieces of 50 kg individual charges into each building that are the estimated requirement to destroy a single Twin Tower. I’m pretty sure conventional explosives were used (maybe even thermite) as we all saw the squibs shoot out, but I think a nuke was the main bomb.

Any debate inside the corridors of power about using tactical nukes will be heightened by the intelligence buzz surrounding bin Laden’s possible ownership of Russian nuclear “suitcase” bombs purchased from Chechen mafia.

Those weapons are said to be hidden in deep caves and fortified tunnels in remote regions of Afghanistan.

The Bin Laden angle they want to keep pushing. Not the Arabs you have to worry about, it’s the Israelis – see the radiation hot spot over the Israeli Embassy.

Studies by the Natural Resource Defense Council estimate that more than 150 B61-11s are currently in the U.S. arsenals, scattered among NATO aircraft carriers and planes on bases in Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Turkey, Belgium, Netherlands and Greece.

One-hundred and fifty scattered around the world.


Nanotechnology and Fourth-Generation Nuclear Weapons


From the Lab to the Battlefield? Nanotechnology and Fourth-Generation Nuclear Weapons

In a nutshell, the defining technical characteristic of fourth-generation nuclear weapons is the triggering – by some advanced technology such as a superlaser, magnetic compression, antimatter, etc. – of a relatively small thermonuclear explosion in which a deuterium-tritium mixture is burnt in a device whose weight and size are not much larger than a few kilograms and litres. Since the yield of these warheads could go from a fraction of a ton to many tens of tons of high-explosive equivalent, their delivery by precision-guided munitions or other means will dramatically increase the fire-power of those who possess them – without crossing the threshold of using kiloton-to-megaton nuclear weapons, and therefore without breaking the taboo against the first-use of weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, since these new weapons will use no (or very little) fissionable materials, they will produce virtually no radioactive fallout. Their proponents will define them as “clean” nuclear weapons – and possibly draw a parallel between their battlefield use and the consequences of the expenditure of depleted uranium ammunition.12

These weapons aren’t counted as WMD by the powers that be.

The yield of these bombs can go as low as a fraction of a ton.

These weapons ‘use no (or very little) fissionable materials, they will produce virtually no radioactive fallout. Their proponents will define them as “clean” nuclear weapons.’

If such weapons were used on WTC, that would account for the very low level of radioactivity detected. And low radioactivity would be desired by the perpetrators as this would reduce the chance of detection. If successful, that would mean suspiciously high numbers of people only turning up several years later with cancers related to radiation (what’s being observed now) and not people dropping off like flies from radiation poisoning in the immediate aftermath of the bombing.

Question: do they exist?

If they do, they would be the bomb probably favored by the people who did 9/11 as these bombs are only a few kilograms in size so they could be easily sneaked into the building.

But even if they don’t exist, the B61-11 could do the job, and it’s not much heavier – it just weighs a ton. That device could have easily been placed in the towers in the one day, using some excuse that they needed to bring in heavy equipment or furniture. Zim Shipping Company had its offices in the towers and the Urban Moving Systems were in the business of moving furniture around the place. But even if none of these companies had been involved, Silverstein could have arranged for their placement with a team of Mossad agents unrelated to Urban Moving Systems or Zim. Or the transport of the bomb could have been a group effort with all these parties involved.

How much radiation would a B61-11 release? That is the question.


Video – Intense heat and bright flashes indicate nuclear explosions

Watch this googlevideo produced by 911 Eyewitness (a very good site incidentally) that shows evidence of a nuclear detonation.

VIDEO: Nuclear glow Dailymotion


Thermite – was it used to blow up the planes?

I suspect explosives such as thermite were used in the attacks, but thermite was not used to blow up the towers (except as perhaps cutter charges). It’s possible thermite was used in blowing up the planes but not likely.

Evidence cited for thermite such as the photo of molten metal pouring out of the windows could have been caused by other things.

I believe a depleted uranium weapon was used in the plane attack on the towers. Depleted uranium can cause metal to melt.

It’s interesting to note that the picture of molten metal was taken BEFORE the tower blew up, not after the tower blew up.

Some people say thermite was involved because traces of “thermite” were found at Ground Zero. However, thermite is simply a compound of iron and metal oxides. Oxides of iron could have formed in the conditions of immensely high temperatures that developed during a nuclear attack.

Spherules of iron were found in the dust of the WTC debris.

Thermite explosives may have played a role in pulling down the towers, but they probably only played a minor role.

The evidence for plane explosions caused by ordnance

1) Relatively small size of the holes made in the Pentagon building and the two WTC towers compared to the size of the planes. The diameter of the fuselage is larger than the “entry holes” formed in the crash in each case.

2) Bright white flash with an orange edge of the fireballs observed as the planes exploded on impact with the towers. These look like fireballs created by ordnance.

3) Reports of explosions just as the planes crashed into the buildings.

4) Smell of cordite in the Pentagon when the explosion occurred

5) The government’s action of not releasing the videos of the Pentagon until forced to by legal action. This shows that there was evidence in the videos the government did not want the public to see. Furthermore, when the videos were released, it’s obvious some frames were removed. These frames that were cut out are the ones that would have appeared right before the moment of impact of the plane with the Pentagon building. The claim by some people that the government was trying to hide the fact a different plane from FL77 crashed into the Pentagon isn’t credible. There were too many witnesses of the plane crash, nearly all of whom said it was a passenger plane. In addition, the government identified the remains of most of the passengers on that flight.

There wouldn’t have been time to land and switch planes. The risk of detection would have been high in such a scheme.

6) In all three crashes, the planes “disappeared”. A very notable fact about the plane crash in Shanksville was the lack of plane debris recovered. A large-enough missile could have “evaporated” the planes on detonation.

7) Intact pillars of the WTC towers in the path of the planes’ fuselage show that the planes’ fuselage did not fully penetrate the towers. The hole in the center of the cut-out shape would have admitted a missile head easily.

8) In videos of FL175 crashing into the South Tower, a missile ordnance flash is observable. This flash is white in the center with an orange rim and resembles a missile flash seen in many videos. Someone has identified the flash as evidence of a “wire missile”. This flash was likely to be the flash of the ordnance that was detonated right before the plane struck the tower.

9) A smoke plume that resembled an ordnance smoke plume was seen above the Shanksville plane crash site. This was caught by Val McClatchey in the photo “End of Serenity”. A plane crash would have shown as a black plume of smoke.


“End of Serenity” the photo of the plume from FL93 crash snapped by Val McClatchey


In the middle is the ordnance smoke plume after an explosion of a missile or bomb and on the right is the smoke plume of a plane crash.


It is too much of a coincidence that all two plane crashes that were caught on video at a close enough distance (Pentagon and WTC2) showed huge fireballs right before or at the moment of impact). The other coincidence is that both crashes resulted in holes in the buildings that were unexpectedly compared to the diameter of the fuselages. In addition, in the Pentagon and Pennsylvania plane crashes, the planes appeared to break up into very small pieces. The sizes of the plane debris in the WTC attacks were not able to be completely identified as the WTC buildings crashed down and disintegrated, and much of the plane crash evidence was destroyed. However, in one report, a plane engine was found.

In addition, many of the people in the four crashes seemed to “evaporate”. In the case of WTC and Pennsylvania attacks, only small bone fragments were found. Intact bodies were not recovered.

The motive for the obliteration of the planes was to destroy the evidence on the planes that implicated the real hijackers as much as possible.

If the real terrorists were Arab patsies, there would have been no determined effort by the perpetrators to hide the evidence of their deed.

On the other hand, if the hijackings had been faked to make them look as if they had been done by Arab suicide hijackers, there would have been every incentive to destroy as much of the planes and the evidence within them, including the bodies of the passengers.

Reasons for suspecting attempted concealment of evidence:

1) Lack of bodies – if the bodies were obliterated by bomb explosions, autopsies would fail to reveal the use of any anesthetic agents used to incapacitate the passengers. It was not so important to destroy the remains of the “hijackers” on the planes. Body parts of the “hijackers”, who had been murdered beforehand, could have been smuggled onto the plane and the ‘hijackers’ identified by DNA or other means to “prove” that suicide Arab hijackers performed the hijackings.

2) Lack of debris of the plane in the Shanksville crash. It would have been important for the perpetrators to conceal evidence of items smuggled onto the planes or stowed on the planes prior to departure such as knives, aerosol canisters, aerosol delivery systems, guns, respirators, and any other important evidence that would reveal how the false flag attacks were executed. Alternatively, these items could have been jettisoned from the planes while they were in flight over some rural area; however, this would not have been a good idea as a stray hiker could have picked up any jettisoned items, leading to the discovery of the real hijackers’ identity.

3) Degree of destruction of the planes. The perpetrators would have wanted to conceal evidence that the planes had been electronically flown. The flight control systems that had been installed on the planes prior to departure, such as FANS and FMCS systems, had to be destroyed to hide evidence the planes had been flown electronically in the last legs of their flights after the pilots had been incapacitated or killed.

The perpetrators would have wanted to remove evidence that the planes had been structurally modified to house bombs, missiles, and other equipment that was involved in housing the bombs and missiles and fire them.




Note the three fireballs in this picture IMG:


White flash of fireball in Pentagon crash. Flash of an ordnance explosion. The white color indicates high temperature of the explosion.


White flash of fireball in this picture. Very high heat.

Pillars still standing in the plane’s path


Note that as predicted, the steel cladding of the building did indeed act like ‘net’ for the towers. That is why you can see that the facade is not as damaged as you would expect had a whole plane gone into the building. The wings and body left an imprint but they could not fully penetrate the building. So where is the rest of the plane? Did it bounce off the building and fall as a wreckage onto the ground below?

Small sizes of the holes in the buildings


“No airplane debris was visible in the gash and no verified debris was knocked to the ground below the impact wall”. See the pillars just inside the walls.




Video capture of the “wire missile” in the WTC crash


White flash in the center. Flash of ordnance detonation?


(Note that in the two pictures, the molten metal seems to have shifted from one window to another – Wood and Reynolds)

Figure 10(b): Jones` edited version of the photo ignores the NIST alert that “the intensity levels have been adjusted.” He has also used spliced videotapes without identifying they were tampered with.

Figure 10(c): The alleged flow appears in a different window.


(Jones says the cars were destroyed by debris dropping down on them, but to me they look like cars destroyed by the pressure and heat wave from a nuke explosion; no other type of ordnance has such power to create such a devastating effect so widely)

These cars were in a car park that were some distance away from the WTC site.





Car park (in orange) where dust settled from the WTC events


Car park was full of dust. It was about 100 meters from the WTC Twin Towers.

The dust covering the cars sitting in this car park prove that the cars on fire caught fire before the dust settled, that is at the time of the collapse of the towers. Thermal energy from the nuclear explosion affected these cars that were sitting within the radius of the thermal blast, and caught fire. After this, dust settled on the cars.

This indicates that the cars in the pictures above were “toasted” in situ in the parking lot.

Collateral damage from the blast – Did falling debris from the WTC do this as Jones claims?




VIDEO: WTC1explosions Dailymotion

View video here:


WTC1 Explosions + WTC2 Fireball

At 9:03, an NBC TV video camera was zoomed in on WTC 1 (the North tower) from the NorthEast, showing smoke coming from the two most damaged faces, from the assault 17 minutes earlier.

Suddenly, about 6.5 seconds into this clip, towards the left of the frame, by the SE corner, a row of windows are simultaneously pierced by violent puffs of dark smoke. But at the same instant, evidence of explosion(s?) can be seen towards the right of the frame, by the NW corner of the tower, more than 250 feet away .. ”


Thermite could not have caused this level of destruction in such a short time period. In many pictures of the explosions of the WTC, the characteristic incendiary flash and flame of thermite explosions are lacking.

This man could be covered in the dust of atomized humans. Is thermite powerful enough to do that? No. Only nuclear energy atomizes near all matter in its path.

I doubt thermite did this:


or this:


or this:


Huge voluminous dust clouds only seen in events like volcanoes or nuclear explosions

Compare with a volcanic explosion:




A high-energy (nuclear?) explosion (note no fireball):

A conventional ordnance type explosion (note fireball):

But thermite could have done this.

*Thermite is not directly related to nukes in the towers subject, but since thermite is often touted by many to be the explosive used to bring the twin towers down, I am discussing thermite here.

Volcanoes are nature’s nuclear explosions

Quote from 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens – Wikipedia

On May 18, 1980, a major volcanic eruption occurred at Mount St. Helens … A total of 174 shocks of magnitude 2.6 or greater were recorded during those two days. …. This is equivalent to 1,600 times the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Quote from Mount St Helens – New World Encyclopedia

In all, St. Helens released energy equivalent to 350 megatons of TNT; or 27,000 Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[12] This was seven times more than Tsar Bomba, the strongest atomic bomb ever built and tested, which ejected more than 0.67 cubic miles (2.8 cubic km) of material. The removal of the north side of the mountain reduced St. Helens’ height by about 1,300 feet (400 m) and left a crater one to two miles (1.6 to 3.2 km) wide and 0.5 mile (800 m) deep.


Phreatic eruption at the summit of Mount St. Helens, Washington.

The same phenomena observed in volcanoes – explosion, pyroclastic flows, molten lava, ash clouds, mushroom clouds, dustification and blast – were all present in the WTC attacks.