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

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by gooty64 (here)
I am more interested in the why and who of it than exactly the how.

Posted by gooty64 (here)
WTC 1&2 nuclear Destruction, visual evidence for your eyes to see.

I thought you just said you were more interested in the who/why than the how .

Posts discussing the who or why, with useful information or insightful observations can be ... useful or insightful.

But responding to posts discussing the how, with other posts complaining that the who or why is more interesting ... is not usually so useful or insightful. I do notice that such complaints frequently show up shortly after posts supporting Judy Wood's work, sometimes even from posters who apparently are not just interested in the who or why.

Summary:

1. I recommend Judy Wood's "Where Did the Towers Go?" as the best available book on how the WTC towers and other buildings were destroyed on 9/11.
2. The cover-up continues.

[Kristin]

Posted by meat suit (here)

Posted by Kristin (here)
The same oxidized iron "balls" and residuals have also been found in crop circles... did nano thermite also create them? LOL, I've listened to this video and it is actually a HUGE smear piece which states things that Judy Wood has never said. Fascinating. I wonder how thermite also creates no pile of rubble or seismic evidence... hmmm... I'm very unimpressed with the video. But it SOUNDS convincing, now doesn't it.

From the Heart,
Kristin

would that be 'manmade' or 'ET' made cropcircles?
how would that metal get into the field in the first place to be then melted there?

Good questions, unfortunately I haven't found the answers. It's one heck of a mystery. However, with Microwave/Tesla/Hutchinson technology, these things could have melted there and not burned the plants... it's one heck of a mystery.

From the Heart,
Kristin

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by gooty64 (here)

Posted by rmauersr (here)
The theories of how it was done are interesting. But it is far more important "why" it was done.

When enough people discover the "why" it was done, someone will think of a plan to fix many current problems.

Right on the money, rmauser.
Someone(s) blew those buildings WTC 1&2 to smithereens with some very advanced technology.
It seems like the conversations are getting mired down in the "unknown advanced technology" and whatever cocktail of "unknown advanced technology" that the TPTWTB used to obliterate the tall buildings on 911.

I am more interested in the why and who of it than exactly the how.

The "HOW" is going to tell us a lot about the "WHO" IMO.
From the Heart,
Kristin

[gooty64]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by gooty64 (here)
I am more interested in the why and who of it than exactly the how.

Posted by gooty64 (here)
WTC 1&2 nuclear Destruction, visual evidence for your eyes to see.

I thought you just said you were more interested in the who/why than the how .

Posts discussing the who or why, with useful information or insightful observations can be ... useful or insightful.

But responding to posts discussing the how, with other posts complaining that the who or why is more interesting ... is not usually so useful or insightful. I do notice that such complaints frequently show up shortly after posts supporting Judy Wood's work, sometimes even from posters who apparently are not just interested in the who or why.

Summary:

1. I recommend Judy Wood's "Where Did the Towers Go?" as the best available book on how the WTC towers and other buildings were destroyed on 9/11.
2. The cover-up continues.

The video tells me what I need to know about the how. Meaning fancy cocktail of advanced nuclear technology, this is obvious to me when I watch that short video I posted. So I thought I would share that video so that we can move the conversation beyond the how, -to the why and who.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by Paul (here)
...with other posts complaining that the who or why is more interesting ... is not usually so useful or insightful. I do notice that such complaints frequently show up shortly after posts supporting Judy Wood's work, sometimes even from posters who apparently are not just interested in the who or why.

Summary:

My complaint would be that a thread about mini-nukes gets overrun with Judy Wood Supporters and becomes "The Judy Wood Show."

I don't know why we can't have one thread about Judy Wood's ideas (which I guess she says are not "theories" on how it was done, just a list of anomalies that she believes can only be explained by DEW/Hutchinson effect), one thread about nanothermite, one thread about mini-nukes [that was what this one was supposed to be], and maybe one more about the magical invisible dragon theory.

I really feel like I got shouted down and was not able to have a discussion that revolved around mini-nukes. Maybe in that "other" thread, where Judy Wood's ideas are the topic of conversation, someone could paraphrase 5 of the most important things in the $45 book that I have decided not to buy. And maybe someone could PM me and let me know when it is safe to come back to this thread and discuss mini-nukes without having to wade through The Judy Wood Show.

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
My complaint would be that a thread about mini-nukes gets overrun with Judy Wood Supporters and becomes "The Judy Wood Show."

Good point .

[Hervé]

Posted by gooty64 (here)

Posted by rmauersr (here)
The theories of how it was done are interesting. But it is far more important "why" it was done.

When enough people discover the "why" it was done, someone will think of a plan to fix many current problems.

Right on the money, rmauser.
Someone(s) blew those buildings WTC 1&2 to smithereens with some very advanced technology.
It seems like the conversations are getting mired down in the "unknown advanced technology" and whatever cocktail of "unknown advanced technology" that the TPTWTB used to obliterate the tall buildings on 911.

I am more interested in the why and who of it than exactly the how.

I guess the two of you royally by-passed my post # 30 above...

All the other "reasons" are incidentals as in that saying " "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." whether it be the buildings insurance scam, short-selling airlines shares or make gold magically disappear along with the evidence for where $2.3 trillion of defense budget disappeared. All the while the only airplanes allow to fly were the ones whisking away the Bin Laden family and friends out of the country.

When I look at videos of these tower falling, I can't help but think of a volcanic eruption with a "nuée ardente" coming down the volcano flanks. I have only seen a volcano producing such an amount of "ash" or "volcanic dust" from... molten rocks.

The only difference with a volcanic eruption is that the "ash" column is gas-and-heat propelled high up in the atmosphere, hence the "propelling agent" wasn't directed upward but just came down to fill the streets.

When you compare the min-nuke bombing in Oklahoma city which left half the building standing with the NYC towers falling down... something is definitely different.

Accordingly, min-nukes, termite, etc, are all decoys to endlessly keep researcher going down labyrinth paths which don't have an exit and fighting each other.

A few more of my cents in the pot

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
the evidence for where $1.2 trillion of defense budget disappeared.

That was $2.3 trillion .

[gooty64]

Accordingly, min-nukes, termite, etc,

I had not considered the termite element to 9/11.
It is plausible that in 40 years time that termites may have weakened the structures enough that the jet fuel alone and the diligent work of a gazillion termites over 4 decades could have been enough to bring down the towers without any fancy cocktail of nuclear weaponry.

[Flash]

Posted by gooty64 (here)

Accordingly, min-nukes, termite, etc,

I had not considered the termite element to 9/11.
It is plausible that in 40 years time that termites may have weakened the structures enough that the jet fuel alone and the diligent work of a gazillion termites over 4 decades could have been enough to bring down the towers without any fancy cocktail of nuclear weaponry.

Gooty54, termites here does not refers to the bugs. And no, it would be impossible for the bug to destroy a steel and cement 80 something floors building.

Termites here refers to thermites which is a military grade explosive.

[gooty64]

Flosh, it's Gooty64! Thanks,
oh? thermites
thanks for setting me straight

[Dennis Leahy]

I think there should be a thread discussing ALL possibilities/plausibilities for the method(s) of the 9/11 building destruction (and murders of building occupants.) That is different from a thread discussing one specific theory. This thread was supposed to be about discussing the evidence of and nuances in the mini-neutron bombs theory of destruction of the #1 and #2 WTC towers.

An analogy: Imagine that you started a thread about hempcrete. Immediately, several members posted their opinion that dirt packed in used tires is better than hempcrete, and took over the thread. Maybe dirt packed in tires is better than hempcrete, but your thread was about exploring the nuances of hempcrete, not about a comparison of eco-ideas for building walls.

I don't think that boundary is too tight, and would invite and welcome a new, separate thread discussing a comparison of eco-ideas for building walls (as well as a thread discussing the nuances of dirt/tire wall construction.) At the same time, I would remind thread participants to allow each thread to have its intended scope.

This thread, titled Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle is about the theory that mini-neutron bombs were used on 9/11. I do realize that the article author himself brought up and dismissed Judy Woods ideas, and realize that would/will/did create an emotional response that fostered a desire to defend Judy Wood and her ideas. A new thread titled Mini-nukes versus DEW: the Evidence would have been an excellent way to respond.

This thread was also not really an invitation to switch from the HOW to the who or why aspects, regardless what each individual thinks is the most important question. Who and why are important aspects (and deserve their own thread.) The "why" seems pretty obvious to most serious researchers now, even if complex (PNAC imperialist thrust, removal of freedoms/rights from citizens, ushering in surveillance/intelligence state, destruction of evidence in Pentagon theft of $2.3 trillion, destruction of evidence of Enron and other SEC investigations held in Bldg 7, theft of gold from beneath towers, implementation of high-level fear factor for citizen manipulation, birth of phony but permanent 'war on terror'... did I miss any?) So yes, by all means, there should be other threads about who did 9/11 and why, but that was not what this thread was supposed to be about.

Dennis

[Flash]

Posted by gooty64 (here)
Flosh, it's Gooty64! Thanks,
oh? thermites
thanks for setting me straight

Sorry to have inadvertendly made you lose 10 points. This was a typo mistake (I type 100 words/minute + and 5 is beside 6) not from not knowing, however, I wonder what your name means or refers to.

OK, I am off topic, sorry OP.

[Kristin]

Hey Dennis, I do understand what you are feeling. I'm going by the title: "Re: Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle"

Now, I'm just trying to look at evidence. That being the case, I do not think that Mini-Neutron Bombs are a major piece of the 911 puzzle. It could fit but only if you take away evidence to support the idea. A big contemplation for me is what Neutron Bombs actually do compared to what actually happened. I can not just toss out the rest of the evidence to support one theory. I'm trying to look at ALL the evidence first. I find that to be the most logical way to look at any subject before a theory is formed and postulated upon.

If there is disagreement, that's OK. I can agree to disagree. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing the neutron bomb theory working with all the evidence to date. Thanks for your understanding. That being the case, well I feel we can talk about this without censoring the evidence.

From the Heart,
Kristin

[Dennis Leahy]

Hi Kristin,

That is a pretty harsh conclusion - "censoring the evidence." I hope you really don't feel that I want to censor the evidence. Please start a Juy Wood thread, or add to one. Show the evidence. Convince me. So far, I have been told to buy a $45 book that (evidently) points out, in images, correlations between Hutchison's work and some 9/11 physical tower evidence. I seriously want you to convince me that Judy is correct, but in either a thread about Judy Wood, or a thread about directed energy weapons used on 9/11, or a thread that is the overview "compare and contrast" ALL theories of HOW the buildings were taken out and dropped at near free-fall speed.

I will tell you this: I have already given a very specific piece of video evidence that no piece of twisted rubble of mixed composition is going to overcome: the tower explosions. Floor-by-floor, debris exploding outward in a 360° spray pattern, indicating a force vector coming from the middle of the building and aiming outward. This is NOT an egg in a microwave. There was no liquid to expand in the steel to make it explode.

There is also a big misconception that a neutron bomb only sends out neutrons as it explodes. It IS a type of nuclear bomb, and if you want to kill people and save structures, you blow them up high in the atmosphere, where the explosive energy and shock wave do not take out buildings, but where the radiating neutrons do reach the life forms. Put that same bomb in the middle of a skyscraper and you're not going to end up saving a building. From wiki:

Although neutron bombs are commonly believed to "leave the infrastructure intact", current designs have explosive yields in the kiloton range, the detonation of which would cause considerable destruction through blast and heat effects.

Do you know exactly what materials the military and black-ops boys have tested, instead of chromium or nickel, as the shell of a neutron bomb, and what the effects would be? What if they used neodymium or samarium cobalt to modify or direct magnetic field energy?

Do you know for sure what the residue from a close-proximity neutron bomb looks like? Is is possible/probable that it would scramble objects at the molecular level and end up with some of the same anomalies as Hutchison's observed anomalies?

Run a video of the towers being demolished. Run it full-screen and keep the mouse poised over the pause button. Stop and start rapidly. You'll see unmistakable explosions, exploding outwards, outwards from any and every camera angle. Occam's Razor says the force vectors observed are not from the exterior but are from the interior of the building and are unleashed floor-by-floor (or groups of floors) as a top-down, sequenced, controlled demolition. The few instances I have seen of solid objects being acted upon by outside energy didn't look anything like an internal explosion, and in each case (at least in slow motion) you can see the object getting wobbly before there is gross movement.

99% of US citizens, even those who know 9/11 was a false flag, are not going to buy a $45 book to explain the towers' destruction on 9/11, so if there really is compelling evidence (that you can paraphrase and not be sued by Judy Wood), please make a thread of it. I promise I will look at it, and I bet others will too.

Dennis

[Kristin]

LOL, no offense Dennis... really... however I will buy you the book for Christmas just PM me your address... then we'll talk.. OK?

From the Heart,
Kristin

PS... I already have a thread on this. Please feel free to join in.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ly-Recommended

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
Floor-by-floor, debris exploding outward in a 360° spray pattern, indicating a force vector coming from the middle of the building and aiming outward. This is NOT an egg in a microwave. There was no liquid to expand in the steel to make it explode.

There was not liquid to expand, like an egg.

There was concrete and steel to expand, when it was converted to very fine dust, very rapidly. Immense energy was required, rapidly. I've no doubt but that some unconventional source of energy was used.

Making big rocks into little rocks is hard work. Making them into talcum powder is much harder work. Doing it to a million tons of concrete and steel in 20 seconds (10+10) ... that's something special. A million tons of talcum powder takes up more space than a million tons of concrete and steel.

[Kristin]

Hey Dennis, my offer is genuine and from the heart. I sincerely hope that you consider accepting it.

From the Heart,
Kristin

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by Kristin (here)
LOL, no offense Dennis... really... however I will buy you the book for Christmas just PM me your address... then we'll talk.. OK?

From the Heart,
Kristin

PS... I already have a thread on this. Please feel free to join in.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ly-Recommended

Posted by Kristin (here)
Hey Dennis, my offer is genuine and from the heart. I sincerely hope that you consider accepting it.

From the Heart,
Kristin

Hi Kristin,

You're a sweetheart, but I am going to decline your generous offer. Whomever has any information that can help clear up ANY aspect of the 9/11 event owes it to every being on planet Earth to provide that information freely to everyone.

Does anyone here know Judy Wood? If so, ask her to publish her book, in PDF form, on the Internet and make it available to everyone for free.

Dennis

[Kristin]

Forget about Judy for a moment then... here's one for you to chew on.

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
By Brent Blanchard August 8, 2006 c-2006 www.implosionworld.com
PURPOSE
"The purpose of this analysis is to explore the possibility of explosives or similar supplemental catalysts causing or contributing to the collapse of World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 in New York on September 11, 2001 through examination of known facts as they relate to scientific principles of gravity, explosives, and structural failure. To our knowledge, this is the first analysis conducted by experts in the field of explosive demolition, as well as the first with observations and commentary from personnel directly responsible for the removal of debris from Ground Zero."

This one is free Dennis... and just a click away! To wet your appetite:

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

"This report is authored by Brent Blanchard, Senior Editor for Implosionworld.com and Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. (www.protecservices.com), Rancocas, New Jersey. Additional contributions and research assistance was provided by Protec employees Earl Gardner, Gary McGeever, Michael Golden and John Golden.
Protec is one of the world’s most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition, having performed engineering studies, structure analysis, vibration/air overpressure monitoring and photographic services on well over 1,000 structure blasting events in more than 30 countries. These include the current world record-holders for largest, tallest and most buildings demolished with explosives. Protec regularly documents the work of more than 20 explosives contractors who perform structure blasting as a primary source of revenue (including extensive experience with every American company) as well as dozens more who blast structures in a part-time capacity.
Beyond the above, Protec possesses several additional types of data and experience that place the firm in a unique position to analyze and comment on this event:

1. Protec was operating portable field seismographs at construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9/11, and these seismographs were recording ground vibration throughout the timeframe of events at Ground Zero. These measurements, when combined with more specific and detailed seismic data recorded by Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, help to provide an unfiltered, purely scientific view of each event.

2. In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pull-down of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring simultaneously throughout the site. Our teams took thousands of photographs and personally examined untold amounts of debris, including countless structural elements from WTC 1 and 2. While these photographs and video recordings were not originally intended to specifically prove or disprove evidence of explosive demolition, they do provide substantial visual evidence that relates directly to this analysis and place us in a position to speak first-hand of conditions on site rather than relying on outside testimony or hearsay.

3. Protec has been given access to thousands of personal photographs taken by laborers and site foremen employed by the demolition companies responsible for deconstructing the Ground Zero site. The companies include Tully Construction, D.H. Griffin Wrecking, Mazzocchi Wrecking, Yannuzzi Demolition, Gateway Demolition and Manafort Brothers. (Any other demolition company claiming to have worked on the Ground Zero site either worked under the supervision of one of these firms or is misrepresenting their participation.) In addition, Protec documented the only public discussion of the 9/11 clean-up attended by all of the demolition teams (National Demolition Association Convention, Orlando, Florida, 4/22/03). While the original intent of Protec’s two-hour video was to archive the unprecedented challenges faced by these teams, various questions and commentary from the speakers are relevant to this analysis.

4. Because building implosions are often promoted as live news events, Protec’s offices are equipped to record multiple television broadcasts at all times. Our company’s archived recordings of original news broadcasts from the morning of 9/11 begin well prior to the collapse of the first tower and continue uninterrupted beyond the collapse of WTC 7. These original unedited recordings have allowed us to compare and scrutinize the collapse of all three structures free from any
possibility of image tampering or modification. In addition, we have examined dozens of freelance and amateur video recordings incorporated into various documentary programs chronicling 9/11 and studied countless ground-based and aerial images captured by private, press and government-contracted photographers.
Protec and its employees have not been paid or hired by anyone to analyze this event, nor do we possess any political affiliations or contribute to any political party or individuals. We have undertaken this endeavor entirely at our own expense, with the singular goal of facilitating constructive dialog and providing a factual voice of reason to our friends and associates who were affected by the attack.

A final note: Before releasing this report, we reviewed every paragraph and tried to simplify the verbiage and technical vernacular as much as possible. Our thinking is the more people who understand this analysis, the more benefit it might provide. It is given that each of the points below could (and likely will) be extrapolated upon in far greater detail by others, however the intent here is to offer our comments as succinctly and cohesively as possible."

From the Heart,
Kristin

Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

Now if you can explain how steal "POOFS" into dust in mid air... I'm listening.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PlRhkn8LLeE

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rFP9lj32EvM

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by Kristin (here)
Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf


Now if you can explain how steal "POOFS" into dust in mid air... I'm listening.

{videos}

Hi Kristin,

I have seen that article before. It is astoundingly awful. Wall-to-wall misinformation/disinformation. Complete disassociation from physics and written in an air of snobby superiority/unassailable authority.

For some reason, it appears to be 'locked' and I cannot copy sections of it, as I usually can with a pdf file. Appears to me to be written by the same guy (or his ilk) that wrote for Popular Mechanics. Because buildings are normally exploded down from the bottom first, this could not be explosives? What audience is this written for, 6th graders?

I'm amazed you'd link that article.

As for the videos, and the steel going "poof", just exactly why should we believe an unknown "death ray" can do that, but a neutron bomb cannot? It appears to me that the invisible dragon breath or DEW or neutron bomb destroyed (dis-integrated) much of the steel, and nearly completely destroyed the steel we see in the videos, leaving a brittle/crystalline framework that then fell apart. You and I do not know whether a 4th or 5th generation neutron bomb could (and did) do exactly that. As to whether a theoretical DEW or a theoretical invisible dragon could do that, who knows...but why jump into theoretical devices when neutron bombs are known to exist, and the collected dust samples analyzed for elements has the signature of neutron bombs?

Plus, in spite of Paul's observation, the video footage, shown in slow motion, shows a force vector with a central building "epicenter" exploding outwards 360° - it is very easily explained by having bombs in the center of the building, not so easy to explain if a weapon (of ANY sort) is directed at the building from outside. Even an energy weapon that excites the molecular structure of substances and makes them explode would show some directionality - a force vector. Otherwise, you not only have a mystery weapon with an energy ray, you also have a weapon that perfectly mimics bombs force vectors. Would that square the improbability? Add the fact of mimicking neutron bomb elements in the dust, and that would at least take the improbability to yet another power factor. Occam left the building a long time ago.

Love ya, sister, I just don't like the info you're (sincerely) presenting. :~)

Dennis