Russia and VT point the Finger for 9/11: Did the Israelies plant nukes in the towers? Nuke cancer in victims.

[araucaria]

Posted by Paul (here)
<b>

...

</b>We are still being played here. There is a hidden hand
<b>

...
===

Perhaps it is not just a coincidence that both the CIA and the Jesuits are known, internally to their members, as "the company". Perhaps it is of great historical significance that Pope Francis is the first Jesuit ever to sit on Saint Peter’s throne at the Vatican. Perhaps it is not an accident that the Vatican is now leading the public discussion, by high officials, of how the Church, and humanity, might engage alien life forms of high intelligence. Some lower level or now retired officials of major national governments are mentioning this, but only at the Vatican is the top man speaking openly of such, now (Pope Francis would welcome Martians to the church (May 13, 2014, RT.COM).)

</b>

Paul, your hidden hand with its vicelike grip would suggest that the situation is just as hopeless as before. The presence of evidence that is not explainable in terms of the theory, albeit as a smokescreen, does not just sow confusion and terror: it is going to make any case unsustainable before a court of law. The only way of dealing with these criminals would then be lynch law, supposing them to be even remotely approachable. I personally am not too happy with that.

The ‘hidden hand’ notion is also a blanket term that needs to be broken down, especially when taken to a level where all parties would be ultimately working for the same side. Just as Al Qaeda is an invented criminal syndicate that could build up a reputation by claiming responsibility for the misdeeds of any and every lone nutcase, ‘the Jesuits’ I would call the religious wing of Al Qaeda. This is the type of thinking that gives conspiracy theory a bad name (I am not referring to you personally, Paul): saying ‘it all fits in’ when ‘it is all grist to the mill’ would be a more appropriate assessment. The facts of 911 do not all fit in, so whatever doesn’t is attributed to the hidden hand – in French we say ‘on ne prête qu’aux riches’, meaning things are always ascribed to those with previous.

These leads to viewing everything in monolithic terms. One pope/president/royal is like all the others, otherwise he would not be pope/president/royal. Whereas, it seems to me, the power struggle is on every level. If you take Niall Kilkenny’s page at http://www.reformation.org/jesuit-papal-assassins.html it is a caricature, with no more than a few quotes from sources who do not see eye to eye (Malachi Martin and Avro Manhattan), in reverse chronological order, where assassination attempts are mixed in with actual assassinations, and one pope is called Ronald Reagan; and the bottom line is that Jesuits like killing popes, with the exception of ‘good’ Pope John XXIII.

Take this section:

Here is another quote from Jesuit author Malachi Martin:

"On the basis of Paul VI's critical dossier, and with the help of a very experienced old Jesuit, Father Paolo Dezza, who had been Confessor to Pope Paul VI and now was John Paul I's confessor, the Pope composed a hard-hitting speech of warning. He planned to deliver it to the international assembly of Jesuit leaders and Father General Arrupe at another of their General Congregations to be held in Rome on September 30, 1978.
One of the striking features of his speech was John Paul I's repeated reference to doctrinal deviations on the part of Jesuits. "Let it not happen that the teachings and publications of Jesuits contain anything to cause confusion among the faithful." Doctrinal deviation was for him the most ominous symptom of Jesuit failure.
Veiled beneath the polished veneer of its graceful romanita, that speech contained a clear threat: the Society would return to its proper and assigned role, or the Pope would be forced to take action.
What action? From John Paul's memoranda and notes, it is clear that, unless a speedy reform of the Order proved feasible, he had in mind the effective liquidation of the Society of Jesus as it is today—perhaps to be reconstituted later in a more manageable form. John Paul I had received the petitions of many Jesuits, pleading with him to do just that.
The Pope never delivered that speech of warning. On the morning of September 29, after thirty-three days on the Throne of Peter, and one day before he was to address the Society's General Congregation, John Paul I was found dead in bed." (Martin, The Jesuits, p. 44).

The sentence I would pick out from this is ‘John Paul I had received the petitions of many Jesuits, pleading with him to do just that.’ In other words, Martin, himself a Jesuit, is saying that Jesuitism, or at least its most influential section, ain’t what it used to be and that Ignatius of Loyola's vision has strayed on account of various worldly influences (e.g. Marxism, New Age). In that case, it made no sense for Marxists to kill a pope who on his last day of life said, ‘It is the inalienable right of no man to accumulate wealth beyond his needs while other men starve to death because they have nothing’.

I call this caricature because, on the basis of the flimsiest evidence, there is one simple mantra: ‘the Jesuits did it!’ and to maintain this position the author inadvertently admits that Jesuitism per se is not responsible, but merely therefore a cover used by certain individuals, who need to be named. There are plenty of named names in the 400 pages of Lucien Gregoire’s Murder in the Vatican: The CIA and the Bolshevik Pontiff, which quotes a wealth of evidence to join many dots relating to upwards of thirty killings or attempted killings, showing the scale of the power struggle going on, and how, for example, ‘the same constituency of cardinals elected a liberal in one election and just a few weeks later elected a conservative’ (in 1978, Gregoire, p.367). No hidden hand here. Some of these popes were fighting against their visionary predecessors, like John XXIII, who denounced the ‘Fatima cult’ of Pius XII, ‘making up stories to lead the world into a third world war [1955] (…) He told a reporter, “…If we are to have a true church, it must be built on truth, not one built on myth”’ (Gregoire, p.10).

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by araucaria (here)

[ Snippets quoted ]

• Paul, your hidden hand with its vicelike grip would suggest that the situation is just as hopeless as before.
• The presence of evidence that is not explainable in terms of the theory, albeit as a smokescreen, does not just sow confusion and terror:
• it is going to make any case unsustainable before a court of law.
• The only way of dealing with these criminals would then be lynch law
• ‘the Jesuits’ I would call the religious wing of Al Qaeda. This is the type of thinking that gives conspiracy theory a bad name
• These leads to viewing everything in monolithic terms.
• One pope/president/royal is like all the others, otherwise he would not be pope/president/royal.
• Whereas, it seems to me, the power struggle is on every level.
• If you take Niall Kilkenny’s page at http://www.reformation.org/jesuit-papal-assassins.html it is a caricature
• I call this caricature because, on the basis of the flimsiest evidence, there is one simple mantra: ‘the Jesuits did it!’

The light and dark swirl eternally. Awareness is an essential basis for guiding our efforts in support of either, depending on how that awareness is used. Do not dismiss awareness on account of there being no apparent hope of perfected victory of either light or dark. Perfection is hopeless, at least in this life. More likely, the swirl is the only constant, at every level, and perfected victory of half of the swirl over the other half a false god.

The responsibility to gain awareness and to use that awareness for good is never removed from our shoulders. The hopelessness of perfection is no excuse.

The presence of evidence unexplainable by a theory does not render that theory useless. It is the nature of theories to be incomplete. It's simply absurd to proclaim that such incompleteness categorically sows "confusion and terror"

This is not a court of law, and I doubt that whatever present day courts would accept as evidence or argument would provide us much insight.

Calling Jesuits (founded in 1540) the religious wing of Al Quaeda (founded circa 1989) does indeed give conspiracy theory a bad name ... I am at loss as to why you would do that <grin>.

Monolithic and polylithic explanations also swirl eternally. Both are forever imperfect, but both can provide useful insight (and dangerous delusion, often in the same explanation.)

I have not read Niall Kilkenny, so I will not comment on the quality of his work.

I make no claim to present even one-tenth of one-percent of suitable evidence. I only suggest, in a few words, a common theme that the humble reader might find useful in their own search for evidence and awareness. Whether they will find this common theme to be flimsy or useful is for them to determine.

===

P.S. -- I would encourage the reader to return to the quote at the bottom of my previous post, from the letter that John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, in 1816.

[GuyFox]

"Blame the Jesuits!" / Ignore the Israelis

Hmm?
Has Karen Hudes somehow grabbed control of this thread?
I was raised as a Catholic, and even spent a year at a catholic school run by the Christian Brothers of Ireland. I saw some odd things, but I did not immediately lose my religion. I kept it intact for several more years.

In history, we have plenty of plots by the Jesuits, and they may, or may not, be an "invisible hand" pulling some strings on the Zio-bankers. But I do not think it is very easy to fight a foe you cannot see. I think it is more fruitful to focus on evil and evil-doers whose acts are all too apparent.

But in doing that, we must be careful not to simply blame all people of the Jewish religion - I know too many fine people of that background to consider going there. Many (even most) are also victims of Zionist plotting.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by GuyFox (here)
"Blame the Jesuits!" / Ignore the Israelis

No - blame the Jesuits - and certain Israelis, Mossad, CIA, Silverstein, the Bushes, Zelikow, Cheney, Tenet, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Zakheim, and so forth and so on.

[GuyFox]

Okay.
I can see those ON YOUR LIST, better than I can see some unnamed Jesuits.
But if you have evidence, I am open to it.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by GuyFox (here)
Okay.
I can see those ON YOUR LIST, better than I can see some unnamed Jesuits.
But if you have evidence, I am open to it.

Yes - the Jesuits are (in my present view) a hidden hand .

[Rocky_Shorz]

someone has reached in and shut off my wifi adapter twice now since this thread began, just to let me know they are watching...

where is the pants down moon smiley...

[Nine]

A very interesting post over on What Really Happened...

A hit piece on Gordon Duffs latest articles on 9/11....

Its just my personal opinion but after 9/11 the American psy- war started in Ernest and the Internets purpose is to provide the cover for those attacks....I mean endless speculation upon the matter....

I believe every thing including the kitchen sink was thrown at us on that day and I personally believe that nuclear weapons were used that day and thinking about occums razzor......I mean really a DEW?

Such tech exists I believe but the problem even if it were used on 9/11 is that no court will even allow it in evidence so what I believe VT is up to is building a case for a future time of possible prosecutions and of course I wish them God speed....

And to what really happened's site they posted this:

http://www.bollyn.com/#article_14718

And an article debunking Duff's report by Chris Bollyn....

He got an interview on CNN a few years ago They ignore Gordon Duff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB6nDk_FEBs

The internet is both curse and blessing....

I have a bicycle race in the morning...

Bless you all....


Nine

[GuyFox]

Thanks for the Link to that video:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bB6nDk_FEBs

I have posted this there:

"Surprised?
That must be CNN's "official policy".
How can they be surprised? If you ask the question: Who benefits?
It leads straight to the Zionists, who have even admitted 9/11 was "Good for Israel."
Who does this newsreader think are the Real enemies of the country?
If Mossad was behind 9/11, wouldn't that make them a more dangerous enemy than those were are constantly told are enemies."

Paula Zahn now looks incredibly naive in the role she played in this silly broadcast from 2007.
I am disgusted that the MSM gives the Zionists in the broadcast a protected platform for their propaganda, and doesn't make any attempt to provide a genuine balance. The whole purpose of it seems to be to discredit Christopher Bollyn's views. (They love labelling people they disagree with as "anti-semitic" - When you hear that word you should immediately respond "that's a codeword for anyone who is critical of Jewish supremacy".)

Here's Bollyn being allowed to present his own views with less interference in a 2012 conversation with Jeff Rense:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1MAXr7rHpLo

Thanks for bringing Bollyn's negative reaction to Gordon Duff's piece into this discussion.
EXCERPT
"The Duff article, which was edited by Jim W. Dean, is so full of errors that it cannot be taken seriously, except perhaps as evidence of his role as a agent of disinformation about 9-11. With this in mind, I wrote to Mr. Duff on May 23 to ask him why he had published this piece..."
It is worth reading the rest.
- See more at: http://www.bollyn.com/#article_14718

Gordon Duff says, in part:
"You have to admit that i have taken on more "risk" and been more confrontive than all combined. I do this, to an extent, because I am not entirely without some protecting and backing.

If you really think I can be "gotten to," you have not been paying attention. you are attacking my analysis through a bizarre personal accusation not only without foundation but almost irrational.

do this: prove me wrong. show me a nanothermite factory. get me people who have handled tons of it. show me how it was applied and used."

[araucaria]

Posted by Nine (here)
I believe every thing including the kitchen sink was thrown at us on that day and I personally believe that nuclear weapons were used that day and thinking about occums razzor......I mean really a DEW?

Such tech exists I believe but the problem even if it were used on 9/11 is that no court will even allow it in evidence so what I believe VT is up to is building a case for a future time of possible prosecutions and of course I wish them God speed....

Yes, we need due process in this matter. A foreign leader’s sayso is not good enough. Anything Putin may allege – well he would say that, wouldn’t he? He’s a Nazi after all (Charles Windsor). We are talking about criminal proceedings, not politics. And this means sifting with all the evidence, and being able to deal with all the counter-evidence that comes back at you from the defense. Certainly not everything will be explainable, but arrival at a verdict involves looking at all the detail, including what, how, who and why in that order. This is the painstaking forensic approach correctly adopted by Judy Wood:

The order of crime solving is to determine
1) WHAT happened, then
2) HOW it happened (e.g. by what weapon), then
3) WHO did it. And only then can we address
4) WHY they did it (i.e. motive).

Let us remember what is required to convict someone of a crime. You cannot convict someone of a crime based on belief. You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don’t even know what crime to charge them with. If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you’d better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it. (Where Did the Towers Go?, p. xxxi)

This is the logical order of prosecution, not necessarily the chronological order of investigation. More progress has been made over the years on 3) and 4), and what we are seeing now is progress being made establishing 1) and 2). Starting with 3) has its disadvantages, whether it be the (deliberately) mistaken incrimination of Bin Laden or the correct finger-pointing at ‘we all know who they are’. Going back to 1) What happened? has to include both the failure to open an investigation and treat the crime scene as such, and the media circus that took place instead. But most of all, a proper independent investigation has to be carried out which would also include what remaining physical evidence is available, things such as duly documented dust samples.

The How? is also crucial because the availability of the weapon to the suspect up to and including fingerprints on the gun establishes the link between the culprit and the crime. You can have too much of a good thing such as when a ‘suicide’ has multiple fatal head wounds. Alternatively it can become too difficult to prove when you allege a secret weapons program using methods beyond the state-of-the-art arsenal. This difficulty is now being avoided. On the other hand, the possible effective use of this kind of weaponry complicates the situation inasmuch as the prosecution may not need it or may want to ignore it, but the defense can very well call upon this evidence (while of course believably disclaiming the possession of any such technology), which would then be presented as ‘overkill’, just like the suicide’s impossible gun wounds.

This is not how I see the hidden hand intervening. The hidden hand concept also comprises a force for good acting in ways unknown through persons unknown, and this is probably one of the best opportunities they are going to get to do whatever it takes to get this done. I have written elsewhere about how the fall of the Iron Curtain just came about through no particular action by no particular person when all the politicians momentarily stepped back. That is the sort of ‘event’ I see happening here.

[GuyFox]

Interesting comment, Araucaria.

But what do we do, when the people whose JOB it is to solve the crime, have a vested interest in making an official story stick, because the Truth might be dangerous to a powerful elite?

Those working on the case, as independent investigators do not have full access to the information (much has been hidden or destroyed.) Nor do they have unlimited resources to conduct an investigation.

I think Chris Bollyn has done a magnificent job (over 10 years) of piecing the story together, and his conclusion is the same as Duff has pointed to: Mossad did it.

The differences they have is on HOW?
In the article referenced above, he points out certain important details that Gordon Duff appears to have wrong. So maybe GD's How is not fully convincing. I will need to read CB's book before I can say that his explanation of HOW is more convincing.

[Rocky_Shorz]

I was checking out Neutron bomb explosions...




link
"There are only two events known to cause ground-hugging pyroclastic flows (pictured above).

A volcanic eruption

A thermo nuclear detonation"







"All of these cars have unexplainable similar damage: Paint gone, instant rusting, and all of their door handles and engine blocks are missing!" - link

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by GuyFox (here)
The differences they have is on HOW?
In the article referenced above, he points out certain important details that Gordon Duff appears to have wrong. So maybe GD's How is not fully convincing. I will need to read CB's book before I can say that his explanation of HOW is more convincing.

The "errors" that I notice Chris Bollyn point out:

• Gordon Duff is a disinformation agent -- Bollyn opens with a vicious ad hominem attack on Duff, which immediately causes me to doubt Bollyn's intentions.
• The WTC core steel was box beams, not I beams -- minor detail, perhaps just a simple translation error from the Russian.
• The radio tower did not dustify -- As best as I can tell, Bollyn is correct. I suspect that there is confusion between the radio tower that mostly survived the destruction and the "spire" (a core column beam) that did dustify:

  

• Nano-thermite versus nukes versus exotic energy weapons -- the most important aspect of the "How" discussion.

I observe that both Bollyn and Duff are accusing Israeli/Mossad/Zionist agents of playing a key role in 9/11, so neither one of them is protecting that faction. Good .

But the highly energetic "debate" (more often resembling slander) over the issue of thermite versus nukes versus exotic energy weapons gives me a big clue that someone is protecting something.

Let me explore that in more detail, after first stating, for the record, my impressions of whom I trust more or less.

Presently, the one I trust the least in this (outside of government officials and main stream media, of course) is Professor Steven E. Jones, the one best known for saying that thermite destroyed the towers. I find Judy Wood's critique of Jones, in this video, to be compelling and damning. My personal "gut sense" reaction to Jones is negative and untrusting. I have seen nothing of substance to counteract Wood's critique or my gut sense.

Regarding Judy Wood, I trust her eyes, her integrity, her research skills, and her ability to anaylze visual evidence. I don't consider her to be an expert on exotic energy technology or weaponized nuclear bomb technology, nor on the "politics" of who did 9/11.

By his own admission (see here) Gordon Duff and his Veterans Today website present a lot of "interesting" stuff, some good and some disinfo.

Of late, I have tended to trust the anti-American leaks coming from Putin and those working for him, even though I know that Putin is a cold-blooded KGB agent who could gut me as quick as a bear he shot (quicker, as my hide is thinner). Apparently, Putin has assumed the task of assaulting the credibility of the Anglo-American empire ... a target rich environment if ever there was one. He has little or no prior credibility with his audience for this assault, so he can ill afford to make a significant mistake, nor are circumstances likely to force him into such a mistake.

Now, back to the thermite question.

T. Mark Hightower and Jim Fetzer (Fetzer is a member of Avalon, albeit seldom active here) have (in my view) debunked the thermite hypothesis quite thoroughly in this article: Nanothermite: If It Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit!. The key details are that thermitic materials are not high explosives (too slow) and they are not sufficiently energy dense (too weak.) Whatever it was that dustified the towers produced massive amounts of energy, very fast, and at high velocity.

[Too slow] Thermetic materials generate lots of heat, quickly, sufficient to cut through steel beams easily. But they don't explode outward at speeds in excess of the speed of sound in steel, which is necessary to convert the steel into dust almost instantly. High explosives (hypersonic emissions) are needed to rapidly disassociate the molecular bonds in solid material. The WTC tower steel was not, for the most part, in those initial seconds, melted. It was pulverized into fine dust.

[Too weak] As noted in the Hightower and Fetzer article above, the tonnage of thermetic material required to produce that much energy would have been too large to hide. Niels Harrit is reported in that article to have calculated that 143,000 metric tons of thermitic material that would have been placed in each tower.

Thermites are orders of magnitude too slow (not exploding with hypersonic speeds needed to de-molecularize steel) and too weak (too many tons needed). Here's another good article making this point: The Bogus Science (BS) Of 'Explosive SuperThermite' Versus The Facts Of A 'Deflagration Compound', By Ed Ward, MD

The following bizarre thought experiment might help convey a sense of the energy requirements in a "more personal" way:

Imagine that I locked you in a jail cell, with ample food and water, and a sledge hammer, a large steel plate, some ear muffs, and an ordinary brick. I promise to set you free once you have converted that brick to talcum powder fiine dust. You are going to be one tired being a few days later, when you finally leave your cell. That's a lot of work, breaking down each molecular bond.

Something of very high energy production was required, that's obvious. A million tons of concrete and steel were converted to fine dust in 20 seconds total elapsed time (10 seconds per tower.)

The primary means of dustifying the towers was not thermite. I am as convinced as that as I am that it was not jet fuel fires on the 80th floor softening and weaking a million tons of concrete and steel below (remember, heat rises) the fire to the point of total, sudden, catastrophic failure.

===

So the thermite is part of a coverup, and neither this latest Russian intelligence report posted by Duff nor Chris Bollyn are covering for Israeli/Mossad/Zionist agents ... quite the contrary.

The two things I can see here that might be worthy of such a coverup are either (1) the possession by someone of weaponized exotic energy technology, or (2) the possession of, and use of, American nukes by Israel.

[GuyFox]

Thanks, Paul.
Interesting speculation.
Something more than "pet theories" is at stake here, methinks

[gripreaper]

Its possible that there was a combination of all of the above. Some internal charges set at intervals to produce squalls, which can be seen in the photo's, some thermite to cut some beams to start the inertia and to help it along, both as a cover for the importance that an exotic energy weapon, powerful enough to dustify a steel and concrete building in less than 10 seconds, needs to remain a secret from the general population.

Although some of us have an idea what technology now exists on this planet, because we have witnessed some of it's effects, really do not know the extent of the power of what's available to the 1%. We speculate that they have interstellar zero gravity craft, directed energy weaponry capable of vaporizing anything in an instant, and free energy technology which would render the oil and electric control grids obsolete. That's a lot of power in the hands of a few psychopaths, don't ya think?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by gripreaper (here)
Its possible that ...

Absolutely, it's possible.

I am as certain as I can be that multiple mechanisms were used, some for show and some for their telling effect.

And yes, most of us, myself certainly included, have little idea of the technology possible using exotic physics, or of the exotic physical effects caused even by "ordinary" atomic bombs. Even the effects that can be caused by "ordinary" tornadoes mystify us.

[Rocky_Shorz]

this is just a small part of the article on mini nukes...

"It has long been suspected HIGHLY REFINED – EXTREMELY PURE Pu-239 has been used in all the micro nuke blasts – very little long term radiation in a highly selectable output range. This is the first official ‘confirmation’ of its use in Micro Nukes. Amazing how the ‘terrorists’ nukes have gotten smaller than the ‘official acknowledgement’ of any Micro Nuke the US possesses. (Note: As far as my limited expertise on ‘basic physics’, the new pure fusion nukes (more appropriately ‘weapon’ since the energy release can be extremely focused and extremely varied in the type of energy released) use, lithium 7 (sometimes noted as ‘anti-matter), uncooled and augmented ‘cold fusion’, anti-matter (released via Lithium 7), via ‘virtual photons’ affecting ‘Coulomb’s Law) While there is some heat in the new fusion bombs, they tend to ‘disintegrate’ rather than the old school ‘vaporization’.

Radiation in the first hour after an explosion is about 90 percent, with it going down to about 1 percent of the original level after two days. Radiation only drops to trace levels after 300 hours. (Again, this is the first official HOURLY breakdown of ‘radiation’ after a Micro Nuke Explosion.)

Treatment

If detection and decontamination occurs soon after exposure, about 95 percent of external radioactive material can be removed by taking off the victim’s clothing and shoes and washing with water. Further decontamination may require the use of bleaches or other mild abrasives. (Again, noted in Ivy Flats, but never officially documented by US Government.)

The above are the Selected Highlights of ‘Suitcase Nukes’ located at this link:

Full Article Here: Don’t worry about taking the link, the Department of Homeland Stasi has deleted all accurate information and the radiation activity quotes noted above http://www.nationalterroralert.com/suitcasenuke/

1. This is a kiloton KT (1,000 tons) bomb, not a megaton MT (1 Million tons) bomb, and it’s not even 2% of a kilo (18 tons).

2. “In November 1972, the following sentence was declassified: “The fact of existence of weapons with tailored outputs, e.g., enhanced x-ray, neutron or gamma-ray output, that we are hardening our weapons to enhanced weapon outputs and that high-Z materials are used in hardening nuclear weapons against high-energy x-rays.” Note – the date is the declassification date, not the development date.

How small can a nuclear reaction be? Through hydrodynamic experiments for triggering fusion, extremely lows yield nuclear explosions have been generated on the magnitude of “several Pounds of TNT.” As noted above, in 1961 .018 kt was unveiled in 1961. In 1956, the Tamalpais with a yield of 0.072 kt was declassified.

This program produced (partial list) the following information for a regular 0.01 kt yields, air ignition: Fireball max light radius = 25.4 meters, Max time light pulse width = 0.011 seconds, Max fireball airburst radius = 10.6 meters, Time of max temperature = 0.0032 seconds, Area of rad. exposure = 0.12 sq. miles; Blastwave Effects: Overpressure = 5 lb/sq. inch (160 mph) radius = 0.09 km, 1 lb/sq. inch radius = 0.26 km; Underground ignition: Crater diameter = 56 feet with a Richter magnitude of 3.52. Thermal radiation damage range is significantly reduced by clouds, smoke or other obscuring materials. Surface detonations are known to decrease thermal radiation by half. A neutron bomb produces much less blast and thermal energy than a fission bomb of the same yield by expending its energy by the increase in the production of neutrons. Even the older neutron bombs produce very little long term fallout, but made considerable induced radiation in ground detonations. The half life of induced radiation is very short and is measured in days rather than years.

3. Don’t believe me, check out the governments admitted need for a nuke that will allow them to use their enemies ‘fortresses’ against them… the Neutron Bomb. Part of the big benefit was 3 to 5 days = CLEAR. However, stable isotopes formed by neutron activation will be there for centuries.

4. See the Ivy Flats video (also in the article) where they show the needed ‘decontamination’ for running around the ground zero site in jeeps and patrols. A good dusting with a broom was all that was required per official government statements. HOWEVER, some were just ate up with radiation, they had to be hosed down with SURPRISE…. WATER. See Testing the First Micro Nuke http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2013/0...st-micro-nuke/

5. Tritium is Radiation and is the only form of radiation that was semi adequately tested for – provided one only wanted data on WTC6.

Samuel Cohen Quotes on the Old Style Neutron Bomb – Thanks to Cohen in ‘F!ck You Mr. President’ we no longer need the quoted information that has been sanitized by the Department of Homeland Stasi.

【Pure Fusion Warheads The small tactical battlefield neutron bomb is the closest kin to a pure-fusion device.

The principle difference is that in a pure-fusion device, the plutonium fission component is entirely eliminated.

The pure-fusion device relies on the same deuterium-tritium mixture to create its burst of high-energy neutrons, but is designed to accomplish this “burn” without the use of any fissionable material. Thus, while still packing a neutron wallop, its explosive yield – the part that does the most physical damage – is much smaller because it lacks the fission component.

What little explosive yield remains can be as little as one hundredth the size of the small tactical battlefield neutron bomb.】

●DEVELOPMENT OF NEW LOW-YIELD NUCLEAR WEAPONS
by Sam Cohen and Joe Douglass　　March 9, 2003
http://www.financialsense.com/editor...2003/0309.html

【To understand the reasons behind this concern, consider the small sizes into which very respectable yields can be packaged.

Warheads whose weight lies in the 30 to 150 pound range can “have yields as low as 50 tons (high explosive equivalent) to tens of kilotons, several times the size of the first nuclear weapons that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The most available warheads and easiest to manage would be in the 100 ton to 1 or 2 kiloton range.

Insofar as size is concerned, an implosion nuclear warhead could be as small as a soccer ball and weigh less than 50 pounds. 】

Just some nuke facts from Mr. Neutron Bomb… Cohen retitled the book in its final printing, “F!CK YOU, Mr. President!”

Re: Shame http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/0...-shame-is.html

Cohen points out that the neutron bomb doesn’t have the collateral damage of fallout, blast and heat effects that occurred in Hiroshima, but enhanced neutron flash radiation: `in about a thousandth of a second it will seriously irradiate enemy soldiers (in tanks, self-propelled artillery vehicles, armored personnel carriers, in field bunkers, and most other places where they may be) out to a distance of about half to three-quarters of a mile for a warhead yield of a kiloton… Roughly half will die, most rather quickly from shock to the central nervous system. … What doesn’t it do? Well, for start-offs, when the war is over the civilian areas — villages, towns, cities — will be in just about the shape they were in before it started. There will be no lingering radioactivity [residual doses from neutron induced activity in soil are insignificant compared to the flash dose of neutrons, and it decays quickly as in Hiroshima] prevent occupation of these areas; in fact, they can be reentered almost immediately." link

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Paul (here)
The "errors" that I notice Chris Bollyn point out:

...

T. Mark Hightower and Jim Fetzer (Fetzer is a member of Avalon, albeit seldom active here) have (in my view) debunked the thermite hypothesis quite thoroughly in this article: Nanothermite: If It Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit!.

...

Thermites are orders of magnitude too slow (not exploding with hypersonic speeds needed to de-molecularize steel) and too weak (too many tons needed).

...

Jim Fetzer, an inactive member here, is quite active over on Veterans Today (Gordon Duff's site).

Jim Fetzer has responded, much along the lines of my response, with substantial more detail, to Chris Bollyn's slamming of Duff's publishing of the Russian intelligence report that Israeli nukes destroyed the WTC towers on 9/11.

You can find Fetzer's response at Christopher Bollyn, “thermite sniffer”, attacks Gordon Duff as “9/11 disinfo agent”.

[Rocky_Shorz]

We have a new member named Jerry that shared an excellent video on 9/11 tying together all the pieces, except the mini nukes...

Posted by jerry (here)
Anyone who still may have doubts this video is a must watch!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=RAAztWC5sT8

[Rocky_Shorz]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Paul (here)
The "errors" that I notice Chris Bollyn point out:

...

T. Mark Hightower and Jim Fetzer (Fetzer is a member of Avalon, albeit seldom active here) have (in my view) debunked the thermite hypothesis quite thoroughly in this article: Nanothermite: If It Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit!.

...

Thermites are orders of magnitude too slow (not exploding with hypersonic speeds needed to de-molecularize steel) and too weak (too many tons needed).

...

Jim Fetzer, an inactive member here, is quite active over on Veterans Today (Gordon Duff's site).

Jim Fetzer has responded, much along the lines of my response, with substantial more detail, to Chris Bollyn's slamming of Duff's publishing of the Russian intelligence report that Israeli nukes destroyed the WTC towers on 9/11.

You can find Fetzer's response at Christopher Bollyn, “thermite sniffer”, attacks Gordon Duff as “9/11 disinfo agent”.

he actually wasn't debunking the use of nukes...

"Gordon was reporting what sources, Russian, in particular, have informed him. He describes both the use of one nuke per building but also, as an alternative, the use of two or more. My collaborative research suggests a sophisticated arrangement of mini-nukes"

the antennae wasn't vaporized?