Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle

[Dennis Leahy]

Article Title: Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle

By: by Don Fox, Clare Kuehn, Jeff Prager, Jim Viken and Dr. Ed Ward (with Dennis Cimino and Jim Fetzer)

Source: Veterans Today : http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10...he-911-puzzle/

Posted by from the VT article
There are a half-dozen or more theories about how the Twin Towers were destroyed, where, as The Vancouver Hearings have established, the “official account”–that the buildings collapsed, due to the intense heat of the jet-fuel based fires, which caused the steel to lose its strength and lead to a cascade of floors falling upon one another–is the least defensible and most effortlessly refuted of them all. Here I am going to summarize the evidence for each and explain why the most defensible and difficult to falsify are those that posit the use of sophisticated arrangements of micro and mini-nukes, which, of course, is not a technique that would have been available to Osama bin Laden and his hearty band of 19 Islamic fanatics, which the government has peddled to the public with a straight face and which has been supported by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). The NIST, alas, has been carrying the burden for the Bush/Cheney administration, which, together with its friends in the Mossad, appear to have been the principals responsible for 9/11.
The theories to be discussed include (h1) the collapse theory, (h2) the nanothermite theory, (h3) the DEW theory, and (h4), the nuke theory, which should be distinguished by its own subtheories, including (h4a) the 150kt subbasement theory (associated with Dimitri Khalezov) and the (h4b) mini and mico-nuke theory (associated with The Anonymous Physicist, Dr. William Deagle, Dr. Ed Ward, Jeff Prager and Don Fox, among others), which appears by far the most promising.

Excellent article honing down to the plausible and using the real evidence. (There is a tidbit in the article that I think needs to be highlighted, but I'll wait to see if anyone mentions it - to see if the info impacts you the same way as it did me.)

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

What I noticed was that the article did its best to ridicule "hypothesis (h3), the use of DEWs (Directed Energy Weapons)" -- Judy Wood's work.

I did not bother to read the rest of the article, after observing how it handled that hypothesis.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by Paul (here)
What I noticed was that the article did its best to ridicule "hypothesis (h3), the use of DEWs (Directed Energy Weapons)" -- Judy Wood's work.

I did not bother to read the rest of the article, after observing how it handled that hypothesis.

Hi Paul,

Why is that? Assume for a minute that she is indeed a disinfo agent, either a hired gun (I actually doubt that) or a disinfo agent by virtue of muddying the water with a theory that does not fit the elemental (USGS gathered and tested) dust evidence. Evidence she refuses to address, but retains the right to espouse a theory that does not fit the evidence. Why does she get to remain at the table after refusing to address the elemental assay? At what point after her refusal do you drop the kid gloves and admit that she doesn't address the evidence because it doesn't fit her theory?

I could make up a theory about an invisible dragon, summoned via occult ritual, that was used to bring down the towers. Can you prove me wrong? I could even say my dragon's power is alchemical, so any elements left in the dust that indicate nuclear events are really just dragon breath changing steel into uranium, thorium, and strotium. So there, I covered that base. Is my theory in contention? Do I get to stay at the table if I write a compelling book, and provide a website to establish my authority?

I see 360° debris exploded outwards from the center of the building, from the top down sequentially - just exactly what I would expect to see if there were multiple instances of bombs in the center of the building.

In a sci-fi movie, a DEW beam could be directed from any direction and yet inexplicably yield a non-directional reaction to the beam. Are we just going to concede this point to Judy Wood? Has Judy Wood postulated that the DE Weapons were arranged in a 360° array around the towers, which might somehow explain the 360° dispersal pattern of ejected material? There is no linearity to the explosions. They are circular and explode outward. I only had high school physics, but I think that a "directed" weapon coming from one direction would produce an ejection pathway in the opposite direction - like JFK's head going "back and to the left" after being hit from the front right.I would also expect to see some force exerting on the outside and pushing inward. If we are just going to say that Judy Wood gets to have a weapon that is directed from one location, but that does not push any material in, and when it causes the explosions to occur, the explosions occur in the center of the building and explode outward equally right back at the force vector of the weapon as every other trajectory... well, I believe to do that we have to skip past physics and get to magic.


It seems to me that Judy Wood was invited to explain how her (truly interesting, even amazing) idea of a DEW could fit with the additional evidence, as gathered and assayed by the USGS. Her theory simply could not stand up to the forensic evidence, she could not offer any explanation to further her ideas, then, (from my understanding) attacked other theories. I don't think we should be surprised that other researchers found this tactic less than useful.

Finally, this isn't some Japanese Zen ceremony where the good researchers have an obligation to allow the not-so-good researchers to save face. These aren't diplomats, they are researchers, quite human researchers who have given more than most of us will ever know to dedicate themselves to finding the truth. When one's theories get burned, egos are involved, and there may be some scorched Earth.

Judy Wood is responsible for coining the word "dustification", and (according to Clare Kuehn) provided some real insights that other investigators followed-up on. She can either take a bow for the good work that she did, be an honest scientist and admit that her theory cannot stand further scrutiny, and step aside graciously. Or, she can come back with an attack. If she does, and it is hollow (and still refuses to discuss and incorporate all the forensic evidence), she will not be remembered as helping to solve the "how" of 9/11 but rather for her ego.

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
Her theory simply could not stand up to the forensic evidence

I am aware of no evidence that she does not account for.

I am aware of substantial amounts of evidence, from Judy Wood's book, that others do not account for.

I doubt we will come to a meeting of minds here however.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
These aren't diplomats, they are researchers,

The snow job done on Judy Wood's work in the article you presented us in the opening post was not the expression of a fair minded researcher, but rather the ridicule of someone who has already made up their mind. By your defense of that, it seems that you have made up your mind too, as have I.

Apparently our minds did not end up in the same place.

[Referee]

I am also on board with Dr. Judy Wood and John Lear DEW's with inter-dimensional technology

[Dennis Leahy]

Aw, Paul, I don't wanna buy her book! It's true. Her "directed" weapon (directed means it has direction, a force vector) makes no sense to me at all because the videos clearly do not show any force coming from any direction - except from the center of the inside of the building. Tell me you believe there was a DEW in the center of the building, one about every 10 floors, and I would have to take another look at the theory. Do you have a specific piece of video footage that you think best illustrates the DEW?

Did she really cover the 2 important points I brought up? (1. She explains the USGS sample assay? plus, 2. explains how a force vector can result in 360° explosions that vector back toward the source and away from the source with the same apparent force in all 360° vectors)? That second one defies physics.

I will agree with the possibility that her theory is correct if all the evidence points to a DEW as the most likely or only possible explanation. I only say I have seen nothing so far that make me believe in her (at this point mythical, and invisible) DEW or my invisible dragon. Can you say that the the h4b hypothesis is not substantiated?

Referee, dammit, if you get inter-dimensional technology, I get my invisible dragon! :~)

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

"directed energy weapon" may be a misleading term ... it's not like the microwave weapons that the military has shown publicly, that can heat your skin on the surface and have you screaming in pain with no permanent damage. It's not a "ray gun". The affects won't look like the target got hit with a directed beam of energy coming from the emitter.

When viewing Hutchinson's videos replicating the affects on a very small scale, one cannot tell from looking at the warped and lifted target what direction the energy came from. The target just starts acting really weirdly. His videos don't show sufficient energy to "dustify" materials on a substantial and rapid scale however.

What I take from Judy Wood's evidence is that immense energy was projected onto lower Manhattan, more focused on several of the WTC buildings (not just the two towers), but with spill over elsewhere, included on toasted cars the better part of a mile away. In the main focus of the energy, the towers de-molecularized, disassociated at fine particular level, very rapidly.

Yes, it defies conventional physics.

I recommend Judy Wood's Where Did The Towers Go? book.

As to the USGS sample ... what did it show, and how reliable was the chain of custody of that evidence (keeping in mind that we both vigorously agree that portions of the United States government are not reliable parties to this investigation.)

===

P.S. -- And there may have been, most likely was, other destructive means used, such as other bombs, for more limited affects, fireworks, assured destruction of "high value targets", and general confusion. So seeing the specific affect of a more conventional weapon doesn't exclude the use of an esoteric energy weapon. Rather the use of esoteric energy weapons is demonstrated by a substantial body of evidence (see that book!) that have no other explanation.

[meat suit]

great discussion Dennis and Paul!

Dennis, not having investigated any of the 'theories' in great detail myself, what comes to mind immediately is:
an egg in a microwave situation.... theres no bomb going off in the egg either, yet it blows up in all directions...

[Ron Mauer Sr]

Looked like a combination of a high tech satellite weapon (dustification), thermite (bright spots on videos, photos of cut steel), and planted explosives (parts being forced away from the building, reports from firemen and custodian) to me.

I would be surprised if a explosive weapon powerful enough to cause dustification would leave buildings a few yards distant with little damage.

How would one explain the damage to cars, some blocks away, with the neutron bomb theory? It might be explained by instability of a satellite based weapon being ""sighted in" on the target.

Do I have this backwards or not? I thought neutron bombs are designed to kill people while leaving buildings intact?

I'll bet that almost everyone (no shills) here will agree that the total destruction was not caused by a passenger aircraft.

[araucaria]

Clearly not enough people have read Judy Wood's book here. There is a whole chapter on the toasted cars.
The controlled demolition hypothesis is thrown out almost from the start on the basis of the seismic readings and the preserved state of the 'bathtub' in the basement, which would have been smashed by falling debris, flooding the whole area.

She also covers things like all the 'jumpers': 'it was raining people' - but if people aren't going to read the book, I haven't got time to summarize it for them.

[Rex]

"...and admit that her theory cannot stand further scrutiny, and step aside graciously."

I just finished reading her book. If mini-neutron bombs can explain all the facts and observations she's made, so be it. Seems like a stretch to me.

[araucaria]

Posted by deadfoot (here)
"...and admit that her theory cannot stand further scrutiny, and step aside graciously."

I just finished reading her book. If mini-neutron bombs can explain all the facts and observations she's made, so be it. Seems like a stretch to me.

And then there would be no need to ignore/ridicule her. A nice clean job could be done simply be gently setting it all out.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by araucaria (here)
Clearly not enough people have read Judy Wood's book here. There is a whole chapter on the toasted cars.
The controlled demolition hypothesis is thrown out almost from the start on the basis of the seismic readings and the preserved state of the 'bathtub' in the basement, which would have been smashed by falling debris, flooding the whole area.

She also covers things like all the 'jumpers': 'it was raining people' - but if people aren't going to read the book, I haven't got time to summarize it for them.

The book, "Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11", is $45. I have listened to/watched all the 'free' videos featuring Judy Wood, so I'm not completely in the dark about her hypothesis. I have no money or ego invested in any one person or their theories. I want the truth, but I am not willing to buy a $45 book from an author that has not touched me with something compelling in all the interviews I have seen.

Not that the motivation of making money (or not) is declarative of who is correct (or not), but... forty five dollars? All of Jeff Prager's research was done without asking anyone for a dime.

There is a literary mechanism for plot alteration known as deus ex machina and that is exactly what Judy Wood's ideas sound like to me. She declares that a device exists that can account for every piece of evidence, with conviction (in fact, on her website, she states, "My own research is not speculation.") With no known variant of the weapon she is describing, she is free (like a video game producer) to imbue the weapon with exactly the powers necessary to do the job on 911. She points to John Hucheson's work (anti-gravity with verbal hints of free energy) as physical proof that her Directed Energy Weapon exists.

For the record, we do know that "directed" energy weapons are real. Sound energy can be used, microwave energy can be used - you know, a heat gun in my home shop uses invisible (infra-red?) energy, and I direct it at whatever I want to heat up. I'm sure there was info in the papers stolen from Tesla to create a directed energy weapon too. So, I'm not saying it is an impossibility - just a high implausibility, no physical evidence that such a device exists, no physical hint that is could even work from as far away as a satellite platform, no physical hint of such a machine or even of its location if Earth-based, and fails Occam's Razor test miserably. Why would I believe it?

Since Judy Wood's DEW device is speculative, she is able to work backwards from all of the evidence, and declare that this weapon has precisely the ability to do every aspect of this job, probably be satellite-based (conveniently, because no physical evidence of the machine itself it shows up in any crime scene footage), and not only match the physical evidence, but actually is so powerful and so quick to destabilize and disintegrate matter that it was able to take out about 10 floors per second. Her DEW created sequential, timed explosions - mimicking outrageously powerful "conventional" explosives fitting the profile of mini-nukes, and left behind elemental residue fitting the profile of mini-nukes. How can I possibly argue with that? It is, in fact, impossible to argue with a speculation-based weapon that is defined by reverse-engineering a crime scene.

Please don't be pissed off at me for questioning the discernment of going along with such a far-fetched story.

You cannot prove my invisible dragon theory is wrong. I am going to write a book and a screenplay: Invisible Dragon's Breath: Evidence of Ancient Archonic Dragon's Breath Technology on 9/11. If you do not buy my book, I will declare that your 911 research is incomplete and that you already have your mind closed to the truth. I am certain one of the Zionist film moguls in Hollywood will buy the screenplay and make a blockbuster movie from it (further exonerating the Zionist-directed Mossad from any role in 911)

Posted by rmauersr (here)
Looked like a combination of a high tech satellite weapon (dustification), thermite ...

I would be surprised if a explosive weapon powerful enough to cause dustification would leave buildings a few yards distant with little damage.

... I thought neutron bombs are designed to kill people while leaving buildings intact?...

The dust samples handled by Steven Jones, a nuclear expert who will not entertain the notion that a nuclear event should even be investigated or evidence tested for in the samples, provided samples of dust containing red chips found to be nanothermite. According to Jeff Prager, the dozens of samples collected by the USGS team (ostensibly looking for asbestos, who happened to have done a routine, full elemental analysis of the dust, and made numerous photomicrographs) found no red chips. No nanothermite residue. Hmmmmmmm...

Paul has spoken about layers of deception in the 911 events, and though that was a completely different context, it certainly does appear that "evidence" depends on who handled the "evidence." Chain-of-custody issues creating layers of deception.

As per the article, neutron bombs exploded high enough in the air will kill life forms (radiation sphere) and leave buildings. Not so if one gets up close and personal to the detonation sphere.

This may be my mind oversimplifying this aspect, but if you think of fireworks displays, there is a sphere of energy from the explosion. With trial and error, experience, and care, a pyrotechnics expert can pre-determine how big the sphere will be. Extrapolating from that: giant nuke, giant sphere; regular sized nuke, regular sized sphere; tiny nuke, tiny sphere. In each case, within that sphere, we have matter disintegration.

Is some of the "evidence" deliberate disinformation, and are some of the players deliberate disinformation specialists? I think so. This was the biggest, most important black-ops even in history (that I know of.) There are pre-planned false leads, rabbit holes that go nowhere, and due to the (deliberate) complexity and mystery, sincere people following their gut instincts go in multiple directions for answers. I'm not even sure if waterboarding Lucky Larry would yield the truth, as the truth is highly compartmentalized in a black-ops operation.

Cheers to all of those sincere souls that have fought for the truth and provided the best scientific, forensic research in their power. My dinner table is set for Jeff Prager, Jim Fetzer, and Dennis Cimino. Your guest list may be different.

I just linked to an article that may be of interest to others. I'm not going to argue this - in fact, I can't. Since I have no way to compare and contrast the evidence with any actual or known capabilities of Judy Wood's (I believe "mythical", but let's say "speculative) device, we enter an endless loop of opinion. I think I'll stay away from any more 911 discussions unless and until the citizens rise up and take control of the government. It really makes no difference (in terms of indictments, convictions, and sentences) what any of us or the researchers say or do. We currently have no power to go after the perpetrators anyway.

Over and out,

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
The book, "Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11", is $45. I have listened to/watched all the 'free' videos featuring Judy Wood, so I'm not completely in the dark about her hypothesis. I have no money or ego invested in any one person or their theories. I want the truth, but I am not willing to buy a $45 book from an author that has not touched me with something compelling in all the interviews I have seen.

A reasonable decision on your part.

I would just point out that the book is 540 large format pages with a great many color photographs and quality production. So the price is appropriate for the publication cost.

[araucaria]

Sorry Dennis, I'm not pissed off, but I fear I've pissed you off.

I understand your argument about the price of books etc. and agree. But as I said, I don't have the time to summarize it. Maybe someone else does.

Judy Woods definitely does not work back from a pet magic bullet theory, in fact she makes a great point of working forward, from the actual evidence: her conclusion is very much a conclusion.

I'd just like to add one other point for today of all days: Woods has a chapter on Hurricane Erin, a storm as big if not bigger than Katrina, which peaked on the morning of 9/11 just as it came closest to NYC, before veering off to the northeast. National Weather Service in Miami 9/11 5am EDT: "Erin remains a significant hurricane".

Strange that no one seems to have been warned about this at the time, especially compared with the media coverage of the last week.

http://www.prlog.org/10073301-new-st...n-9-11-01.html

[Calz]

I arrived at the same conclusion as Paul without popping for the book (although money was not the issue).

I watched her movie several times and poured over the images on her website prior to when she was able to publish. Actually I was shocked "they" allowed it to go to print.

I don't have the scientific mind that many here do ... but it really really made sense to me. As Paul suggests ... there was likely a number of things used to put it off and not simply directed energy.

IMHO (which can easily be dismissed as a mind-neutron bombed ... )

[araucaria]

A couple of quick questions:

1. What is this sample Judy Woods has not taken into account. Does it have proper traceability? I can imagine someone wanting to set her up with a fake sample.

2. In the case of mini nukes, who, when and how?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Calz (here)
I arrived at the same conclusion as Paul without popping for the book (although money was not the issue).

Actually I had come to those same conclusions myself, before purchasing her book, just as you had.

9/11 has been one of the topics of interest to me for some time, and I sometimes purchase books or website subscriptions both as a gesture of support, as well as to get further useful information.

[TargeT]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Calz (here)
I arrived at the same conclusion as Paul without popping for the book (although money was not the issue).

Actually I had come to those same conclusions myself, before purchasing her book, just as you had.

9/11 has been one of the topics of interest to me for some time, and I sometimes purchase books or website subscriptions both as a gesture of support, as well as to get further useful information.

one of the few "powers" we have left,.. voting with our dollars...

I am concious of what I spend money on, as it is indeed a "vote", I made sure and spent money on both the "atlas shrugged" movies just to support the story; don't forget the power you use every day!

[bram]

I must admit I haven't read the book(s), but without wanting to piss anybody off, what's the point of discussing 'how' it was done? The bigger issue by far is 'why' it was done, and with th.e changes to the stranglehold of power we have seen in the last 11 years this must be pretty clear to everyone