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

[Kristin]

While watching this video, ask yourself the question... why are some cars burning before the buildings have even collapsed? I do not think it was due to mini nukes. Yet, how is this possible?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1Z_ny5GxkZM

Why is the floor polisher in frame 3:40 starting to smoke?

[Kristin]

Dennis I can copy and paste the article for you in full if you like... But we can all see it just by clicking on the link. I disagree with your thoughts on it though. Perhaps this is a clear case of having to disagree and agreeing to do so. These guys are the experts, I think their opinion holds a lot of wieght. However, I am open to viewing your evidence that you suggest here:

Dennis - "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?"

Please do send me the evidence so that I can see the analysis and check out this data. It sounds very interesting.

I am curious as to where the data was collected, by whom, what process was used for analysis and what are the comparable elements in other test results used as standards. Also... can other elements create the same results without having mini nukes present? thanks!

From the Heart,
Kristin

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by Kristin (here)
While watching this video, ask yourself the question... why are some cars burning before the buildings have even collapsed? I do not think it was due to mini nukes. Yet, how is this possible?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1Z_ny5GxkZM

Why is the floor polisher in frame 3:40 starting to smoke?

I don't know. I don't think mini-nukes were the only things used. Jeff Prager seems to think there is no evidence for thermitic compounds in the dust collected and analyzed for elements by the USGS. But the evidence (testimony of first responders of "molten steel, running in channels, like a foundry", and the video evidence showing the same) make me believe that some nanothermite was used (probably to cut strategic columns, so they could keep the size of the blast from each mini-nuke relatively tiny.)

We see fire in cars. Also, at 4:09 to 4:19, we see a small fire. Is this the result of hot or flaming debris coming down from the tops of the buildings, and lighting paper? If so, couldn't the paper have also been burning very near some car gas tanks?

We see a small explosion, starting around 6:29 which I don't think was nanothermite, mini-nuke, or a DEW.

If the explosions that went off in the sub-basement areas before the plane/no plane apparent impact would have been either nuclear or DEW, I would expect all the humans close by to be dead. William Rodriguez is not.

I see several types of bombs and cutter charges being used.

Dennis

[Kristin]

I think that fire is the cause for the window blowing out... There is a fire on the floors in that area of the building. I've seen lots of explosions on windows during fire to release pressure.

Here is an interesting point:there is a lot of testimony from the firemen that their air tanks were blowing up. Is it not possible that the explosive sounds heard could have been something else besides a bomb? If air tanks were blowing up, which is unusual enough (very odd) then what else may be under pressure that could blow up? Water tanks are on every floor... that's a thought.

Cars are not that easy to set on fire. You need to really work at it to get one going. In a lot of the 911 photos, it appears that cars of certain makes have the same damage. It is as though the materials that the cars are made out of is the decisive factor in if they were damaged, or if they were damaged at all. This is interesting and does kind of make the idea of random paper flying about catching things on fire seem like an odd idea. i will say that there was A LOT of paper, but I can't seem to find ANY pictures of paper on fire. Can you?

Find any links yet to the Mini nuke evidence?

From the Heart,
Kristin

[Kristin]

I'm curious as well as to how the Mini Nukes could have achieved free fall speed in the building... you are saying and correct me if I'm wrong, that mini nukes dustify and that they left radiation? I know that people can come down with cancer from inhaling concrete dust as well. What are the supportive types of cancer that are caused by mini nukes? How long does the radiation last, when is it safe to live in the area? You should be able to test the radiation levels right now, where is all the evidence to support this?

[Ron Mauer Sr]

I'd like to see more information about why and who did it.

The usual suspects?

How it was done only serves as distraction from the most important issues.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by rmauersr (here)
I'd like to see more information about why and who did it.

The usual suspects?

How it was done only serves as distraction from the most important issues.

Hi Ron,

Yes, that is EXTREMELY important. We may never know, the why, unless there is a confession, but the imperialist thrust into the Middle East and North Africa (PNAC plan), and the beginning of the most brilliant scam ever perpetrated (the phony - and permanent - "war on terror"), and massively accelerated loss of rights/freedoms seem obvious. Some pieces of the "who" are available (people like Lucky Larry Siverstein's $6 billion payoff) and the Bush Clan rising back to power, we should have a list of names (should have had before Bin Ladin's name was ever mentioned) that profited in stock transactions (short selling), and the specific names of Odeon (sp?) employee that gave the pager alert to his buddies, and the specific names of the "dancing Israeli's"/Mossad agents... that should be at least a list of who knew in advance, and the follow-up would get to "who" told them in advance... and "who" told them...

But, those are tough questions (and really deserve a thread of their own.)

I don't think "how" is a distraction at all, and my reasoning is that at least 1/2 of US citizens think it was 19 Islamic extremists, and do NOT believe it was an event that had to have been pre-planned and the buildings rigged far in advance of the event. That serves as an extremely important wake up call. Too many in the US are still snoring.

Dennis

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Kristin (here)
I think that fire is the cause for the window blowing out... There is a fire on the floors in that area of the building. I've seen lots of explosions on windows during fire to release pressure.

Here is an interesting point:there is a lot of testimony from the firemen that their air tanks were blowing up. Is it not possible that the explosive sounds heard could have been something else besides a bomb? If air tanks were blowing up, which is unusual enough (very odd) then what else may be under pressure that could blow up? Water tanks are on every floor... that's a thought.

Cars are not that easy to set on fire. You need to really work at it to get one going. In a lot of the 911 photos, it appears that cars of certain makes have the same damage. It is as though the materials that the cars are made out of is the decisive factor in if they were damaged, or if they were damaged at all. This is interesting and does kind of make the idea of random paper flying about catching things on fire seem like an odd idea. i will say that there was A LOT of paper, but I can't seem to find ANY pictures of paper on fire. Can you?

Find any links yet to the Mini nuke evidence?

From the Heart,
Kristin

Posted by Kristin (here)
I'm curious as well as to how the Mini Nukes could have achieved free fall speed in the building... you are saying and correct me if I'm wrong, that mini nukes dustify and that they left radiation? I know that people can come down with cancer from inhaling concrete dust as well. What are the supportive types of cancer that are caused by mini nukes? How long does the radiation last, when is it safe to live in the area? You should be able to test the radiation levels right now, where is all the evidence to support this?

Hi Kristin,

Did you ever read the Jeff Prager e-books on this?

Dennis

[Referee]

Posted by rmauersr (here)
I'd like to see more information about why and who did it.

The usual suspects?

How it was done only serves as distraction from the most important issues.

Have you seen this video yet? It goes into detail about the reasons for the attack.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Xu8sZqQTQWY

[Kristin]

The issue that I have with your friend's research is that it relies on heat. I agree with a lot of what he does say though, but not the mini nukes. His theory depends on that it must have been hot in order for there to be vaporized soil and glass measured from the rooftops some 30 days after. That type of assumed heat required is what leads him to to believe that it must be nuclear. But it isn't.

Water is not boiling. People are not frying on site like turkeys. The hydraulic equipment is functioning perfectly as it is lifting seemingly MOLTON metals from the ground. This is NOT POSSIBLE.

The lifting equipment would break down, melt, blow up, and discontinue to function if such heat was there. The people would not be able to work there. The steam would have been a massive cloud (remember that the basin was submerged in water) hanging over Manhattan for months. The water would have been boiling hot. It was not.

However, so what we have here is a cold fire and not a hot one. How is that possible? Well, plasma flames but is cool... that may be something to look into. I think we need to look at things that burn cool, not to assume that what burns is always hot.

Evidence of particles of glass and soil still lingering in the air are signs of a reaction still happening, yes. But that may not be a hot one. I need proof that it was as hot as they say it was... so far I have not come across that proof.

Also, the dust itself is indeed cancerous without having to go through a nuclear reaction to be so. It is already toxic. People where not burned by the dust, covered in it, but not burned. Thousands of people were covered in it. The trees were perfect. There was tons of paper everywhere... none of it was ruined. Why?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
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.

I agree that some of the material is "exploding" (moving damn fast) outward. I see that too in both the video and still images, as well as some of the after affects, such as steel girders smashed really hard into adjacent buildings.

If I stated some observation to the contrary in the last few years, then I'm being inconsistent or I wrote confusion (both have doubtlessly happened at times, and will happen again, as I don't plan on dying anytime soon.)

I would suppose (guessing here) that an egg could explode in an ordinary microwave oven, even as the shell remained cool, calm and collected, right up to the instant that the pressure from the rapid conversion of the egg's interior from liquid to gas pushed the shell outward explosively. This might be so if the microwaves didn't happen to affect the shell much, even as they generated much thermal energy in the interior, and if the heating of the egg yolk was fast enough that there was not sufficient time for much thermal energy to conduct from the egg yolk to the egg shell.

Now if so, the above egg analogy is a rather poor one for me to use, because the WTC towers didn't have some -different- (eggshell like) exterior material. Imagine instead that one could somehow (Jedi mind trick?) hold that egg-shaped interior of such an egg in your microwave without the normal shell containing it, and then turned on the microwave. The egg would perhaps still explode ... with material moving outward rapidly as if a bomb went off inside it.

The point of the previous paragraph is that I can't tell where the energy was initially created, nor by what means it was delivered, simply by knowing that the resulting explosions occurred deep in the towers. I can only tell where the energy was converted to explosively rapid movement of matter. In this case, a substantial portion of that conversion surely took place, as you observe, deep inside the towers.

[KiwiElf]

"When you eliminate the impossible,.."

I'm sure you all know the rest of it... The problem is, (with many conspiracy theories - only one cause is often presented as THE cause) - do we really know what's impossible?

Any combination of conventional explosives, high-tech relatively unknown explosives - "ie, secret stuff" , mini-nukes, Tesla derived-weaponry, holograms & hidden (cloaked) "other vehicles" could still be involved to varying degrees.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
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.

So may I conclude from this that you do not allow any "sold for money" books in your house that have vital information that should be, but is not, freely provided to every human (at least those with a pdf reader)?

If so, I must commend you on your purity of action, word and deed. I am reminded of Richard Stallman's principled rejection of closed source software.

(I'm teasing a bit ... forgive me.)

A fair bit of Judy Wood's material is available on her website http://drjudywood.com/, though not all of it and not as well presented or organized.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

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

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.

So far as I can recall, I had not previously seen that article, "A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint", by Brent Blanchard (of Protec).

Reading it just now, I found it to be a professionally written position paper written to demonstrate that the destruction of the WTC buildings was not a conventional controlled demolition (that much I actually agree with, though not quite from the same perspective.)

However it seemed so deeply embedded in the web of lies surrounding 9/11 that I would not cite it even if it seemed to support some particular position I was taking. I have no confidence that anything written in that paper is truthful, though where convenient, the paper is adept at marshaling bits of the truth when they support the paper's conclusions.

I too am surprised Kristin linked that article .

(And yes, I too found that it was Digital Rights Management (DRM) protected against ordinary copying and pasting out of its text.)

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Kristin (here)
While watching this video, ask yourself the question... why are some cars burning before the buildings have even collapsed? I do not think it was due to mini nukes. Yet, how is this possible?

I just saw 2 or 3 cars burning, in and amongst cars in ordinary condition. The cars that were burning seemed to be close to the ground beneath the towers, if I recall my landmarks from that area correctly. Perhaps some falling debris from the initial "airplane" collisions (or simulated explosions thereof) hit those cars in some way to cause a gas tank or gas line leak?

The smoke from the floor polisher at 3:40 was minimal enough that I could not conclude much of anything from it.

[Kristin]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

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

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.

So far as I can recall, I had not previously seen that article, "A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint", by Brent Blanchard (of Protec).

Reading it just now, I found it to be a professionally written position paper written to demonstrate that the destruction of the WTC buildings was not a conventional controlled demolition (that much I actually agree with, though not quite from the same perspective.)

However it seemed so deeply embedded in the web of lies surrounding 9/11 that I would not cite it even if it seemed to support some particular position I was taking. I have no confidence that anything written in that paper is truthful, though where convenient, the paper is adept at marshaling bits of the truth when they support the paper's conclusions.

I too am surprised Kristin linked that article .

(And yes, I too found that it was Digital Rights Management (DRM) protected against ordinary copying and pasting out of its text.)

I agree that it has elements of truth and elements swayed by perspective... so far most of the reports have had both. But I do not think that the article was written as a dis info piece. The lack of seismic activity during the collapse is also backed up in other works as well. One of the things that I find interesting about the building is that it was constructed with an outer shell as the support with the inner construction as extra support. So in some ways Paul, it really is like the egg that you described earlier...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=__gUjUv1vvw

From the Heart,
Kristin

[Dennis Leahy]

Discrete. Localized. Remember those two words as you watch (in full screen, if possible) slow motion video of the South Tower being "disassembled."

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

Only in ultra-sow-motion can you appreciate that what we see near the face of the building are individual, (discrete), explosions - each in a localized area. Look at about 2:30 to about 2:50. The explosions are localized.

Ya know, to be blunt, this is a good case for some sort of "conventional" explosives being detonated behind the face. The explosions are so localized and so discrete, it appears not to be coming from the center of the building (which would have made whole floor/floors appear to go at once.)

We know that something unconventional took all the concrete and a large percentage of the steel and disintegrated it into particles measured in microns (and sub-microns.) The unconventional had to have come from the central core, because the central core is, to a great degree, missing from the rubble. Like the smoke and mirrors (and trap doors) of the magician, it appears that charges (MANY charges) are disassembling the structure behind the face [the magician's trap door], and then the dust cloud [magician's smoke] from that hides [as does a magician's mirror] the immensely powerful yet somewhat constrained mini-nuke charges going off at the central core that made dense solids into particles.

From the evidence, I'd say the mini-nuke charges are directional (mostly out, in a 2-dimensional 360° fan like the spokes of a bicycle wheel, some energy going up, and very little to none going down.) Thus, chunks of the face loosened by the conventional charges and already falling below the floor being disintegrated with neutrons are spared from the "dustification" - (and we do see chunks of the face did make it to the ground.)

By not allowing the energy to go down (or maybe a better way to say it is that the mini-nukes were "shaped charges", directing energy to go mostly outward radially - not spherically - would also account for the lack of much seismic activity. We mustn't get caught in the trap of comparing the seismic data of a conventional nuclear bomb, exploding spherically (3D), shockwave going down, with mini-neutron bombs designed to explode radially (2D), constrained shockwave going out.

By the way, the central core was 4 inch thick steel at the base, and tapered up from there (If I remember correctly, it was 1/2" thick near the top, but maybe that should be 1/4" thick. The "thinnest" steel - if you can call any of it thin - would have been above the "jet crash sites". So, when we are watching the middle third of the tower being disintegrated, we are probably watching at least 1 inch thick steel blasted to particles.) These were immensely strong columns tied together with more steel - a matrix or lattice. There is nothing "egg-like" about this.

Neutrons do massive damage flying through dense objects, and can pass through low density objects. This is consistent with all the concrete (and much of the steel) pulverized and the paper floating down.

And do not discount the explosions that happened PRIOR to the towers coming down, and explosions (including cutter charges near the base) that were probably going off hidden by the smoke and mirrors of the "collapse." ALL eyes and cameras were pointed on the kinetic "collapse", just as the magician knew it would, allowing larger explosions to take place near the base. These may have shot out at cars like a flame thrower as the rubble came down from above and compressed and directed the heat out through doorways and empty windows. No need for dragon's breath or DEW to light cars on fire.

Dennis

[gooty64]

I see what your saying, Ron. Thank you. Focusing on the exactly how is not making headway after 11 years.

Posted by rmauersr (here)
I'd like to see more information about why and who did it.

The usual suspects?

How it was done only serves as distraction from the most important issues.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
Only in ultra-slow-motion can you appreciate that what we see near the face of the building are individual, (discrete), explosions - each in a localized area. Look at about 2:30 to about 2:50. The explosions are localized.

Nice video.

I was intrigued by comparing two frames at say 0:02 and 0:37 (any of the 20 or 30 frames in each of those two intervals will do.)

Use the top of the church spire between the towers as a reference. Look at WTC 2 (the one on the left, that will fail first). The floors (near floor 80) of the claimed impact of AA Flight 175 are about even with the church top.

Between 0:02 and 0:37, the building above those impact floors is practically removed from existence as an identifiable structure, while the building below that floor seems to be still structurally present (though smoking massively from those blasts you note.) At 0:37, glance over at WTC 1, still standing, to remind oneself just how much building (WTC above floor 80) has gone, in what was in real life I suppose just 2 or 3 seconds.

Poof. One god awful poof. Thirty floors of monster building poofified in perhaps 3 seconds, mostly hidden by the smoke works around floor 80. The heavier portions of that smoke then proceed to fall with gravitational acceleration, hiding whatever did the big poof on the lower 80 floors, at free fall speed, in the next 6 or 7 seconds.

I nominate "poofified" as a new word for WTC research, following in the tradition of Judy Wood's "dustified".

With the main destruction hidden behind by both the smoke and whatever remained of the outer walls, we do not really have a good visual record of the dominant poofication method used. As you note, the explosions you see near floor 80, near the start of this sequence, may bear about as much significance to the dominant mechanism of poofication used as the flicker of the magicians kerchief bears to the real mechanism of his magic act.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by gooty64 (here)
I see what your saying, Ron. Thank you. Focusing on the exactly how is not making headway after 11 years.

And pray tell what has?

Actually, it made some "progress". I was a die hard raghead hating, Bush loving, Limbaugh idol 11 years ago. So that's one person who moved off the dime, in part by asking how.

If you read Joseph P. Farrell much, you will notice that he considers the technology and physics to be a major element in understanding our human condition, history and potential.

[gripreaper]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by gooty64 (here)
I see what your saying, Ron. Thank you. Focusing on the exactly how is not making headway after 11 years.

And pray tell what has?

Actually, it made some "progress". I was a die hard raghead hating, Bush loving, Limbaugh idol 11 years ago. So that's one person who moved off the dime, in part by asking how.

I second this. 9-11 being proposed as an "inside job" by a colleague of mine, started me down the rabbit hole and re-catalyzed my "current" awakening. I say current because I was a hard core hippie against the corporatocracy back in my twenties, but that was really just to get laid. Now, my research is to uncover the truth and understand how to use energy to manifest the new paradigm.

If we keep asking the questions as to how, then maybe the who will emerge eventually. The "who" is the largest, most defended, and well kept secret on the planet.