911 Dust by Jeff Prager – Final Version

[ThePythonicCow]

Jeff Prager has a new article on Veterans Today. It is a well written essay, in his own words, with references, presenting a persuasive case that "nuclear weapons, 4th generation or even more advanced weapon" (not "nanothermite or other incendiaries") were required to destroy the World Trade Center buildings in the manner done on 9/11/2001.

Jeff reaches these conclusions in his essay:



Nano thermite is an incendiary. Explosives are classified as having velocities exceeding 3000mps. The incendiary nanothermite allegedly found by Dr. Stephen Jones is incapable of turning any component of the steel structured Twin Towers or the cement to micron sized particles or what is commonly referred to in scientific circles as ‘very fine particles’, as we all saw on 911 and as Dr. Thomas Cahill outlines.
Nanothermite is incapable of maintaining underground, oxygen starved fires at the temperatures required to ‘boil soil and glass’ as Dr. Thomas Cahill stated.
The chain of possession of the dust samples allegedly found at Ground Zero and controlled by Dr. Jones is highly suspect, unverifiable and unscientific. The chain of possession of the dust samples procured by the USGS on September 16th and 17th, 2001 at Ground Zero, NYC, is known and secure. The chain of possession followed standard scientific procedure as outlined in USGS Report #01-0429.[6] Nano thermite and energetic compound residue was not found in the USGS dust samples.
The perpetrators of 911 spent far more time developing strategies to deal with public opinion after the event than they did on the event itself. Public opinion after the fact needed to be carefully managed and that management process was a critical component of the event.
Dr. Stephen Jones spent a significant portion of his career at the Department Of Energy which is the government agency that is responsible for all nuclear research in the United States. He worked specifically with Muon Catalyzed Fusion, Cold Fusion, Deuterium, Lithium Deuteride and other elements of the cold fusion process. Dr. Jones is a knowledgeable and respected physicist.
Dr. Stephen Jones refuses to discuss the issues raised in this essay and maintains adamantly that 911 had no nuclear component whatsoever.
Dr. Christopher Busby states that the dust samples from 911 indicate a cold fusion process using deuterium which is precisely the science and elements Dr. Jones studied at the Department of Energy.
I just as adamantly disagree with Dr. Stephen Jones. That 911 was a nuclear event is certain and anyone attempting to maintain that it was not is part of the cover-up being foisted upon the American people.
Exposure to nuclear radiation is the most odious and repulsive event a human being can experience. That secret is being kept by those in the media spotlight in the 911 movement, to include Dr. Stephen Jones.
You can read the entire essay at: 911 Dust by Jeff Prager – Final Version (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/21/911-dust-by-jeff-prager-final-version/)

P.S. -- Be sure to look at the images in references 10, 11 and 12 of his article (images are linked in the list of references near the end of the article.)

[danceblackcatdance]

good article :) i'm down with the more advance weapon theory... it would be nice to know for sure one day...

[write4change]

Americans have now long been trained that the truthiness is good enough. In the 50 years since JFK, we still do not "know". I was 19 then and I knew then I had not been told the truth. I have not trusted the government since.

[ghostrider]

molecular dis-association weapon. Bush and Blair are responsible. The CIA knew about it, the question to ask is who benifits having muslims killed off ?? New military bases around muslim areas ?? I S R A E L . Now the way was clear to pass laws against the American people taking their freedom away and the government listening to every word spoken and every word written and they pick and choose what you can say. bye bye free speech. A new war with a never ending idea that the boogy man ( terrorist ) could hide in any country , all they have to say is your harboring a know terroist and the military will invade your country , kill your people , destroy your history all in the name of freedom and security from the terroist. I pray their next move back fires in their face and the whole lot of them are caught with their hand in the cookie jar. The penalty for politicians manipulating events for the cause of war should be public hanging and everyone is required to attend. I wrote this knowing the CIA types will read it for the buzz words that the NSA and the like look for. Allah, nuclear, blah blah. My tax dollars taken from me to pay them to spy on me and give huge donations to foreign countries that riot and burn the flag , the NSA, CIA have no moral core, no humanity. If they did they would refuse to spy on their own people whom they draw a paycheck from. you dirty little rat #astards. Billy Meier told of the WC falling and Bush and Blair was behind it . thanks pataah. the plejaren can read the thoughts of anyone on earth anytime. put that in your piece pipe mr. men in black. checkmate. 9-11 still frost me, those bloody wankers.

[markpierre]

I took a pinch of the dust from a parked car near ground zero on day 2. It had a weird fibrous consistency, and I thought it odd that it had no spectrum of color to it considering what it should have been made of. Just a greyish off-white.
I didn't notice any finer dust anywhere, but this fibrous stuff was everywhere, blown into any crevice that would hold it.
It never occurred to me it might be radioactive. Ha. Maybe that's the source of my superpowers.

[Dennis Leahy]

"Dr. Christopher Busby is a world renowned nuclear physicist specializing in nuclear demolition."

There can't be many people on the planet that have that distinction. I wonder if we should believe him, or some cock-sure know-it-all debunker that will surely rise up and "refute" Dr. Busby's words.

Why anyone would lean toward Judy Woods hypothesis is beyond my understanding: a weapon we don't know exists, that uses directed energy yet creates explosions that expand outward from the buildings' interiors, and that leave the atomic signatures and cause radioactive cancers of nuclear bombs. Occam's Electric Shaver.

Makes me wonder if Gage (who is an architect with no nuclear physics background, and has done a great job of assembling a group of highly credible architects and engineers to leave no doubt that the building could not possibly have "fallen" but were detonated down) has gotten sucked into the vortex of disinformation of Stephen Jones.

Dennis

[mountain_jim]

I came to post this article immediately after reading.

Glad to see others here at Avalon are making VT a required daily destination for our information gathering, as I am.

[Hawkwind]

To the best of my knowledge, the theory presented by Dr. Jones was that nano-thermite (thermate actually) had been used as cutter charges on the central structural support columns. The evidence he presented for this case was persuasive (at least to me), although evidence can certainly be falsified. As far as I know, Dr. Jones never claimed that thermite was responsible for all aspects of the towers destruction. Dr. Judy Wood made a pretty good case for the most likely cause of the extreme degree of pulverization of the buildings' concrete being a space based particle weapon. There is no reason that these two theories, and or the use of mini-nuclear devices are mutually exclusive. All three of these scenarios are still in agreement on the key points of the event- the official version of the story is complete rubbish, and elements of the US government must have been complicit in the execution and cover-up of the actual causes.

[ThePythonicCow]

As far as I know, Dr. Jones never claimed that thermite was responsible for all aspects of the towers destruction.
My recollection of the general drift of Dr. Jones work is that he claims to show that thermetic materials account for the primary means of destruction, that he dismisses and ridicules use of nuclear or directed energy mechanisms, and that his work serves as a limited hangout of sorts, distracting those who begin to doubt the official story from the real mechanisms.

Your point that no one (hopefully) claims that any particular mechanism was the only mechanism used is a good point.

But there is a great gap between Jones on the one hand, and Wood or Prager on the other hand.

[ThePythonicCow]

Why anyone would lean toward Judy Woods hypothesis is beyond my understanding: a weapon we don't know exists, that uses directed energy yet creates explosions that expand outward from the buildings' interiors, and that leave the atomic signatures and cause radioactive cancers of nuclear bombs. Occam's Electric Shaver.
I doubt that I know enough of either advanced nuclear bombs or advanced directed energy weapons to decisively state it was one or the other, or even that that is a distinction with a difference.

[bearcow]

i think you guys are getting lost in the minutia.

It's not the how, but the why that needs to be understood

[ThePythonicCow]

i think you guys are getting lost in the minutia.

It's not the how, but the why that needs to be understood

The who, the why, these too need to be understood, yes.

But I would not suggest that the how can be ignored. It's a multiple layered puzzle, so one must take one's clues where one can find them, and avoid getting derailed by errors and confusion wherever possible.

[Hawkwind]

My recollection of the general drift of Dr. Jones work is that he claims to show that thermetic materials account for the primary means of destruction, that he dismisses and ridicules use of nuclear or directed energy mechanisms, and that his work serves as a limited hangout of sorts, distracting those who begin to doubt the official story from the real mechanisms.

Your point that no one (hopefully) claims that any particular mechanism was the only mechanism used is a good point.

But there is a great gap between Jones on the one hand, and Wood or Prager on the other hand.

I'm inclined to agree that Dr. Jones did become a bit of a pied piper for the 9-11 truth movement, and taking control of opposition movements through such means does tend to be a common tactic of the cabal. Another common tactic, however, is to "muddy the waters" by presenting multiple conflicting theories, planting false evidence, destroying real evidence, etc. As with JFK, it's nearly impossible at this point to untangle with any degree of certainty what really did happen and who all parties involved were. It's by no means, however, difficult to prove beyond any doubt that the official version is a lie and identify the key individuals who must have been involved in the planning, execution and cover-up of the events.

[ThePythonicCow]

Why anyone would lean toward Judy Woods hypothesis is beyond my understanding: a weapon we don't know exists, that uses directed energy yet creates explosions that expand outward from the buildings' interiors, and that leave the atomic signatures and cause radioactive cancers of nuclear bombs. Occam's Electric Shaver.

I doubt that I know enough of either advanced nuclear bombs or advanced directed energy weapons to decisively state it was one or the other, or even that that is a distinction with a difference.
However I should say this. A careful look at the evidence that Judy Wood has gathered, as can be seen in her book Where Did The Towers Go? ( http://amzn.com/0615412564) and on her website drjudywood.com (http://www.drjudywood.com/) convinces me that the towers were not taken down predominantly just by explosive force, no matter how powerful.

She has accumulated substantial and compelling evidence that some sort of black ops physics (scalar physics, torsion physics, directed energy, Hutchison effects, Tesla affects, ...) was involved in a major way.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

The physics of 9/11 is complicated with many competing ideas.
The proponents of these ideas MUST be open to criticism and debate of their ideas weather it be Stephen Jones, Judy Wood, Jeff Prager or whoever.
Without that there will be no progress.
Richard Gage is relucent to talk about the ROOSD theory of collapse, Stephen Jones is reluctant to release his TEM results and Judy wood keeps filing unfair copyright claims on youtube videos that show errors in her ideas.
These people should just respond to the criticisms instead of ignoring them or trying to pretend they don't exist.
Debate is healthy. I think these people become so invested with the years of work they have put in that its too hard for them to admit they may be wrong.
IMO there are various problems with ALL the ideas regarding the collapses.
What I would really love is for all these people to be shut in a room so that they can sort their differences and unite.
An alternative to this is the Intel side and how these attacks could have been allowed to happen.
Where as its hard to pin point a final theory on the physics, it seems slightly easier to pinpoint key individuals who allowed this to happen. This area should also be explored. After all, someone needs to be brought to justice for this.
Anyway, that's my view of it all. :)
Crazy world we live in!

[ThePythonicCow]

Richard Gage is relucent to talk about the ROOSD theory of collapse
ROOSD: Runaway Open Office Space Destructions, as described in an earlier post: The state of the 9/11 truth movement (Post #1) (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?26351-The-state-of-the-9-11-truth-movement&p=272065&viewfull=1#post272065)

[Dennis Leahy]

... how these attacks could have been allowed to happen.

... key individuals who allowed this to happen.
These phrases, in context with 9/11, offer the possibility that a group of pissed off Saudi Arabians planned the Grand Event, and executed it.

They planned to take out the part of the Pentagon where the work was being done to try to find the missing 2.3 Trillion dollars.

They planned to remove almost of the gold from under the WTC buildings.

They planned to take out Building 7, where all the damning paperwork was for the Enron scandal that would have shown [____________] <--illegal activities and ties to major politicians, maybe even presidents?

They planned to - as carefully as possible - obliterate WTC buildings 1,2, 6, and 7 without causing too much damage to surrounding buildings.

They planned to not only crash jets into buildings, or use sophisticated video trickery and network feeds and maybe even a hologram, but also to explode in sequence, some sort of explosives or energy weapon or both, causing the towers to "look" (to the casual observer and the dumbed-down American public) as if they had fallen due to airplane crashes.

They planned to somehow get all of those secret "war games" exercises going on the morning of 9/11.

They planned to completely baffle NORAD for an hour and a half and send the only fighters screaming out over the Atlantic Ocean.

They planned to inject, within hours, the meme of bin Laden/alQaeda responsibility into the mainscream news.

They planned to allow the Israeli Mossad agents that had been rounded up to be set free.

They planned the destruction of the crime scene evidence.

They planned the world's most massive cover-up.

Sorry, the "allowed to happen" meme has been utterly and completely blown out of the water, and thus my challenge to those words.

"Allowed" allows the people involved in the first-degree planning and the cold-blooded execution a bit of wiggle room from the entire guilt, the entire onus, and the entire sentence (when and if they are ever convicted.)

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

"Allowed" allows the people involved in the first-degree planning and the cold-blooded execution a bit of wiggle room from the entire guilt, the entire onus, and the entire sentence (when and if they are ever convicted.)
I'll gladly offer Cheney, et. al. whatever wiggle room they can find in a hangman's noose :), after a proper trial and conviction, of course.

It's probably best, Dennis, that we don't work too hard to seek agreement between our view(s) and the view of EYES WIDE OPEN on this topic.

Last time I tried that, sometime last year, it didn't work out too well. Best to just agree to disagree, I suspect.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

I agree with both Dennis and Paul. Perhaps a better phrase would have been "those that made this happen made sure those beneath them could do nothing to prevent the attacks". In that sense, the attacks were allowed to happen. Hope that clarifies things.

Richard Blee is a name worth looking into.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

"Allowed" allows the people involved in the first-degree planning and the cold-blooded execution a bit of wiggle room from the entire guilt, the entire onus, and the entire sentence (when and if they are ever convicted.)
I'll gladly offer Cheney, et. al. whatever wiggle room they can find in a hangman's noose :), after a proper trial and conviction, of course.

It's probably best, Dennis, that we don't work too hard to seek agreement between our view(s) and the view of EYES WIDE OPEN on this topic.

Last time I tried that, sometime last year, it didn't work out too well. Best to just agree to disagree, I suspect.


:LOL: We do indeed disagree on aspects of 9/11, I was just trying to find common ground in my previous 2 posts.
Those that supposedly "lead" the movement as well as me and you and the rest of us should not stop dialogue on the whole topic of 9/11 just because some points are not agreed upon.
I am reaching out with an olive branch here and attempting to put our past disagreements behind us. I hope we can ALL move on and each of us allow the other a second chance with this topic. :) Maybe we should all be locked in a room too!

Thanks for linking to the ROOSD post by the way. :)

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Regarding the original topic of this thread, maybe I am being dense (its been known!) but the towers fell from the top down.
Would a Nuke under the towers not make them collapse bottom up? Thanks in advance.

[ThePythonicCow]

Would a Nuke under the towers not make them collapse bottom up? Thanks in advance.
I doubt it was either a simple, big, nuke, nor a single massive "death ray from space". Whatever it was, the destructive energies were more controlled, focused and sequenced.

[iceni tribe]

Regarding the original topic of this thread, maybe I am being dense (its been known!) but the towers fell from the top down.
Would a Nuke under the towers not make them collapse bottom up? Thanks in advance.

EYES WIDE SHUT

Yes of coarse , but a device placed in say the 100th floor and then every ten floors down with a fuse say, one second longer than the last should do the trick , don't you think .?

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Steven Jones responds to new 9/11 mini-nukes paper by Jeff Prager:


In general, I would say there are two ways to find out whether the “official story of 9/11” is true and complete, or not: 1) by looking at hard evidence and doing experiments to test hypotheses based on that evidence; and 2) analyzing historical and eye-witness testimony.

In my talks, I have emphasized method 1, using the scientific method. But I also emphasize method 2, pointing (for example) to the whistle-blower testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta regarding the lack of air defenses that day. And the important evidence regarding the purchase of put options on American and United Airlines during the week prior to 9/11/2001. There are many examples of both types of evidence that point to the conclusion that the official story of 9/11 is misleading and false.

Regarding the possibility that mini-nukes were used in the WTC Towers to bring them down, I wrote a paper in 2006 which was peer-reviewed and then published in January 2007. I sincerely wish more people would read the peer-reviewed papers I and colleagues have published, as a way of sorting out that which is based on hard evidence and that which is not. Here is the mini-nukes paper:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-th...

One week ago, an essay promoting the mini-nukes-destroyed-the-Towers idea was presented in “Veterans Today” by Jeff Prager. It is full of errors, but (sigh) I will provide responses.

Prager repeatedly misspells my name as “Stephen Jones”, suggesting that he has not read my paper on the subject of mini-nukes – indeed, NONE of my published papers is given in his reference list! Not one.

Prager offers nine numbered points in conclusion, which I respond to here point-by-point:

Prager: "My conclusions and assertions are as follows:
"1. Nano thermite is an incendiary. Explosives are classified as having velocities exceeding 3000mps. The incendiary nanothermite allegedly found by Dr. Stephen [sic] Jones is incapable of turning any component of the steel structured Twin Towers or the cement to micron sized particles or what is commonly referred to in scientific circles as ‘very fine particles’, as we all saw on 911 and as Dr. Thomas Cahill outlines."

Jones: First, as I emphasized in my mini-nukes paper, the dust particles in greatest abundance were “unregulated supercoarse” – and not micron-sized:
"A previously published study of the WTC dust noted: “The environmental science community has been slow to understand that the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-μm-diam) particles, not the fine (<2.5-μm-diam) or coarse (2.5–10-μm- diam) particles that are typically measured.” http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag/40/i22/html/111506feat ure_lioy.html ] "Their supportive data are shown in the table below: {see my mini-nukes paper}
"It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble."

Jones: With regard to nano-thermite, I have repeated noted that NT could have been used to ignite more conventional explosives such as HMX rather than necessarily being used alone; I again cite (as I have for years) the published note by Los Alamos National Laboratories regarding their “super-thermite matches” and how these could be used for “triggering explosives.” www.lanl.gov/orgs/tt/pdf/techs/thermite_matches.pdf

Prager: "2. Nanothermite is incapable of maintaining underground, oxygen starved fires at the temperatures required to ‘boil soil and glass’ as Dr. Thomas Cahill stated. "

Jones: Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT) – not explained in the official story! We have indeed considered this “mystery” – see (for example) our paper published here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

Prager: "3. The chain of possession of the dust samples allegedly found at Ground Zero and controlled by Dr. Jones is highly suspect, unverifiable and unscientific. The chain of possession of the dust samples procured by the USGS on September 16th and 17th, 2001 at Ground Zero, NYC, is known and secure. The chain of possession followed standard scientific procedure as outlined in USGS Report #01-0429.[6] Nano thermite and energetic compound residue was not found in the USGS dust samples."

Jones: Actually, the chain of custody of our samples is given in some detail in our published, peer-reviewed paper here: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000000...
Furthermore, the USGS samples held residues which were indeed indicative of energetic compounds as obtained by FOIA action by myself and James Gourley; which we discuss in this paper:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

Prager: "4. The perpetrators of 911 spent far more time developing strategies to deal with public opinion after the event than they did on the event itself. Public opinion after the fact needed to be carefully managed and that management process was a critical component of the event. "

Jones: I have long maintained that an impeachment or criminal trial would be needed to identify the perpetrators for certain; there is considerable evidence pointing to individuals who should be subpoenaed to testify.

Prager: "5. Dr. Stephen [sic] Jones spent a significant portion of his career at the Department Of Energy which is the government agency that is responsible for all nuclear research in the United States. He worked specifically with Muon Catalyzed Fusion, Cold Fusion, Deuterium, Lithium Deuteride and other elements of the cold fusion process. Dr. Jones is a knowledgeable and respected physicist."

Jones: OK – but did you know that after early retirement I also continue in alternative energy studies, including what some would call “cold fusion” studies?

Prager: "6. Dr. Stephen [sic] Jones refuses to discuss the issues raised in this essay and maintains adamantly that 911 had no nuclear component whatsoever."

Jones: Baloney, Mr. Prager -- if you're reading this, you can see that I'm publicly discussing this notion. Obviously I'm not refusing “ to discuss the issues raised in this essay" as you allege. Why will you not carefully read my published papers and respond to them?

Prager: "7. Dr. Christopher Busby states that the dust samples from 911 indicate a cold fusion process using deuterium which is precisely the science and elements Dr. Jones studied at the Department of Energy. "

Jones: Nonsense, Mr. Prager – please read my peer-reviewed cold fusion paper published in Nature:
S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr, D.L. Decker, G.L. Jensen, J.M. Thorne, and S.F. Taylor & J. Rafelski, "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter," Nature 338: 737-740 (April 1989).

Prager: "8. I just as adamantly disagree with Dr. Stephen [sic] Jones. That 911 was a nuclear event is certain and anyone attempting to maintain that it was not is part of the cover-up being foisted upon the American people."

Jones: No, Mr. Prager -- ponder my rebuttal here and reply to earlier published papers.

Prager: "9. Exposure to nuclear radiation is the most odious and repulsive event a human being can experience. That secret is being kept by those in the media spotlight in the 911 movement, to include Dr. Stephen [sic] Jones."

Jones: What nonsense, Mr. Prager. I'm not keeping secret that radiation poisoning is “odious and repulsive”; indeed, I address the radiation poisoning issue in my paper (the first cited above).

We note that Mr. Prager does NOT address several points in my mini-nukes paper, including the issue of how the mini-nuke fire-ball could have been stopped without melting through and destroying the “bath-tubs” under each Tower.

I conclude with my final statement from my mini-nukes paper published over fiver years ago:

"Endless discussions are not fruitful, whereas measurements and experiments often are. Furthermore, when 911 researchers go before the media or investigative bodies, we had better have the best- tested facts and theories available and everything else in categories such as “highly speculative” or better, “dismissed by the data.”"

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-30/mini-nukes-wtc-one-more-time


What a mess this all is.

[East Sun]

i think you guys are getting lost in the minutia.

It's not the how, but the why that needs to be understood
\
And especially, the who.

In the future people will look back to this time, if they have progresses at all, and wonder about how gullible and conditioned we were. That's if we win against "them."