Mystery Solved: The WTC Was Nuked on 9/11 By Don Fox, Ed Ward MD and Jeff Prager

Mystery Solved: The WTC Was Nuked on 9/11

Posted on April 20, 2013

By Don Fox, Ed Ward MD and Jeff Prager

The debate has raged for more than a decade about what caused the Twin Towers to “collapse” in approximately 10 seconds each — 9 seconds for the South Tower, 11 for the North. A large and growing percentage of the public has 

become skeptical of the conclusion of the government’s official NCSTAR 1 report, according to which, “NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to 9/11.”

Skepticism of NIST’s conclusions is well founded. There is eyewitness testimony as well as abundant video and audio evidence of explosions at the WTC on 9/11. There is also seismic data that demonstrates that high powered explosives were used to demolish the Twin Towers. The gross observable video evidence — if you are willing to believe your own eyes — shows that the Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down and the inside out.

We believe that only mini-nukes — which were probably neutron bombs — planted in the center columns of the buildings, detonated from top to bottom and configured to explode upward, can explain what is observed. If they were used to blow apart one ten-floor cube per second, for example, then, since the North Tower stood at 110 floors, that would have taken 11 seconds, while, since the top three cubes of the South Tower tilted over and were blown as one, in that case, it would have taken only 9, which coincides with NIST’s own times.

This is a controversial contention. Judy Wood, Ph.D., has proclaimed that a Tesla-inspired directed energy weapon (DEW) was responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings and has vehemently denied nuclear bombs were used. Steve Jones, Ph.D., and his followers promote the theory that an incendiary (nanothermite) was the cause of the destruction of the WTC buildings, while they also deny that nukes were used. So these seemingly opposed camps agree on one thing: nukes were not used on 9/11!

The nanothermite hypothesis has been discredited on multiple occasions in articles by T. Mark Hightower and Jim Fetzer, including “Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 community?”, “Is ’9/11 truth’ based upon a false theory?”, and “Nanothermite: If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”. Since it is a principle (law) of materials science that an explosive can destroy a material only if it has a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material, where the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s and in steel 6,100 m/s, while the highest detonation velocity that has been attributed to nanothermite is 895 m/s, it should be obvious: You can’t get there from there!

The DEW hypothesis turns out to be difficult to test, since Judy Wood defines DEWs as sources of energy that are greater than conventional and can be directed, which even encompasses micro and mini nukes within its scope. As earlier articles have explained, including “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II” and “Mini Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle”, there are multiple grounds for preferring the mini or micro nuke hypothesis over the DEW alternative, which emerge with particular clarity from a study of the dust samples collected by the US Geological Survey. It is ironic that, while the “thermite sniffers” also focus on dust samples, they seem to have missed what we have to learn from them.

Indeed, the nuclear component of the decimation of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 6 and 7 is the darkest and most closely guarded secret of 9/11. With so many folks claiming different theories it is difficult for average people to know what to believe. Fortunately, we have scientific proof of what happened at Ground Zero. The dust and water samples reveal the true story of what happened on 9/11. This article thus provides more of the scientific evidence–especially from the USGS dust samples–that settles the debate in favor of the demolition of the WTC buildings as having been a nuclear event.

DEBRIS EJECTED OVER 600 FEET

The explosives that demolished the Twin Towers were so powerful that North Tower debris was ejected up at a 45° angle and out over 600 feet into the Winter Garden. This feat alone puts an end to the notion that the buildings were “dustified” where they stood or that an incendiary like nanothermite was the responsible for the destruction of two 500,000 ton 110 story skyscrapers or that the buildings collapsed due to fire.

Debris ejected up at a 45° angle

Which lands in the Winter Garden over 600 feet away

Engineers estimate that 1/3 of the buildings were completely vaporized. And as Judy Wood likes to point out no toilets were found in the rubble. 90% of the debris from the Twin Towers destruction landed outside the building’s footprints. What type of explosives could cause this sort of damage? The only thing known to man that can explain this is nuclear bombs.

PROOF OF FUSION:

The Department of Energy (DOE) collected water samples from the basement of Building 6 eleven days after 9/11 that showed tritium levels 55 times greater than background. How does this prove fusion?

Let’s start with defining tritium: Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen containing one proton and two neutrons. Tritium is radioactive with a half-life of 12.32 years. Also Known As: hydrogen-3, 3H (Helmenstine)

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission provides us some excellent background information on hydrogen:

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, comprising approximately 90% of the luminous universe by weight. Ordinary hydrogen (1H) accounts for greater than 99.985% of all naturally-occurring hydrogen, whereas deuterium (2H) comprises approximately 0.015%. By comparison, tritium (3H) represents only approximately 10^-16 percent of hydrogen naturally occurring. Tritium is a rare but natural isotope of hydrogen (H), and is the only natural hydrogen isotope that is radioactive. The tritium atom is sometimes designated T to distinguish it from the common lighter isotope. Notwithstanding the difference in mass, tritium can be found in the same chemical forms as hydrogen. The most important forms, from the perspective of atmospheric behavior of tritium, are tritiated hydrogen gas (HT) and tritiated water (HTO). These tritiated forms behave chemically like hydrogen gas (H2) and water (H2O).

Natural Sources

Tritium is generated by both natural and artificial processes. Tritium is naturally produced primarily through the interaction of cosmic radiation protons and neutrons with gases (including nitrogen, oxygen and argon) in the upper atmosphere.

Anthropogenic Sources

In addition to its natural sources, tritium also has a number of anthropogenic sources which account for the dominant proportion of the global tritium inventory. Anthropogenic tritium sources include fallout from nuclear weapons testing, nuclear reactors, future fusion reactors, fuel reprocessing plants, heavy water production facilities and commercial production for medical diagnostics, radiopharmaceuticals, luminous paints, sign illumination, self-luminous aircraft, airport runway lights, luminous dials, gauges and wrist watches, and others.

Commercial uses of tritium account for only a small fraction of the tritium used worldwide. Instead, the primary use of tritium has been to boost the yield of both fission and thermonuclear (or fusion) weapons, increasing the efficiency with which the nuclear explosive materials are used.

Thermonuclear Detonation during Nuclear Weapons Testing

Nuclear tests have been conducted in the atmosphere since 1945, producing tritium in amounts that greatly exceed the global natural activity, particularly during 1954 to 1958 and 1961 to 1962 when a number of large-yield test series were undertaken. The tritium activity arising from atmospheric nuclear tests can be estimated from the fission and fusion yields of the weapons tests or from environmental measurements. For example, the tritium activity produced per unit yield is dependent upon the attributes of the device, as well as on the characteristics of the detonation site, and tritium generation from fusion reactions is much higher than from fission. The tritium that is produced by a nuclear explosion is almost completely converted to tritiated water (HTO), which then mixes with environmental water. (“Investigation of the,” 2009)

What about WTC-6?

We have established that tritium is a rare hydrogen isotope, the vast majority of the tritium that is produced is used in nuclear weapons and that the tritium produced by a thermonuclear explosion is converted into tritiated water (HTO). Tritiated water WAS found in the basement of Building 6 at concentrations 55 times background levels. Here is Ed Ward’s breakdown of the DOE’s water sample data:

1. Trace definition as it applies to quantity: Occurring in extremely small amounts or in quantities less than a standard limit (In the case of tritium, this standard level would be 20 TUs – the high of quoted standard background levels.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trace

2. The stated values of tritium from the DOE report “Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center”. “A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164±0.074 (2ó) nCi/L (164 pCi/L +/- 74 pCi/L – takes 1,000 trillionths to = 1 billionth) of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L ( 3,530.0 pCi/L +/- 170 pCi/L and 2,830 pCi/L +/- 150 pCi/L), respectively. https://e-reportsext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf Pico to Nano converter – http://www.unitconversion.org/prefixes/picos-to-nanos-conversion.html Nano to Pico converter – http://www.unit-conversion.info/metric.html

3. 1 TU = 3.231 pCi/L (trillionths per liter) or 0.003231 nCi/L (billionths per liter) – http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html – (My original TU calculations came out to 3.19 pCi/L, but I will gladly accept these referenced minimally higher values. http://www.clayandiron.com/news.jhtml?method=view&news.id=1022 )

4. In 2001 normal background levels of Tritium are supposedly around 20 TUs (prior to nuclear testing in the 60′s, normal background tritium water levels were 5 to 10 TUs – http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html ). However, groundwater studies show a significantly less water concentration: Groundwater age estimation using tritium only provides semi-quantitative, “ball park” values: · <0.8 TU indicates sub modern water (prior to 1950s) · 0.8 to 4 TU indicates a mix of sub modern and modern water · 5 to 15 TU indicates modern water (< 5 to 10 years) · 15 to 30 TU indicates some bomb tritium http://www.grac.org/agedatinggroundwater.pdf But, instead of “5 to 15 TU” (which would make the increase in background levels even higher), I will use 20 TUs as the 2001 environmental level to give all possible credibility to the lie of “Traces”.

5. Let’s calculate the proven referenced facts. Tritium level confirmed in the DOE report of traces of tritium = 3,530 pCi/L (+/- 170 pCi/L, but we will use the mean of 3,530 pCi/L). 3,530

pCi/L (the referenced lab value) divided by the background level of 20TUs (20 X 3.231 p (1 TU = 3.21 pCi/L) = 64.62 pCi/L as the high normal background/standard level. 3,530 divided by 64.62 pCi/L = 54.63 TIMES THE NORMAL BACKGROUND LEVEL. 3,530 pCi/L divided by 3.231 pCi/L (1 TU) = 1,092.54 TUs

6. This is my ‘fave’ because lies tend to eat their young. Muon physicist Steven Jones calls 1,000 TUs “The graphs below show that hydrogen-bomb testing boosted tritium levels in rain by several orders of magnitude. (“Tritium in precipitation,”) (Jones, 2006) Yet, calls the EXACT SAME LEVELS quoted in nCi/L as “Traces” and “These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure” (Jones, 2006). Interesting isn’t it.

7. Thomas M. Semkowa, Ronald S. Hafnerc, Pravin P. Parekha, Gordon J. Wozniakd, Douglas K. Hainesa, Liaquat Husaina, Robert L. Rabune. Philip G. Williams and Steven Jones have all called over 1,000 TUs of Tritium, “Traces”. Even at the height of nuclear bomb testing 98% – after thousands of Megatons of nuclear testing – of the rainwater tests were 2,000 TUs or less. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf

8. It is also important to note that the tritium present was diluted by at least some portion of 1 million liters of water accounting for BILLIONS of TUs.

An important point that Jones glosses over is the dilution of water in the basement of WTC 6. If not for copious amounts of water sprayed on the WTC site undoubtedly the concentration of tritium would have been higher than the measured 55 times normal background levels.

Ed Ward’s Breakdown of the WTC Rain and Fire Hose Water, 4 Million Gallons of Dilution: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/136

WTC 6 = 1 acre (approx.)

WTC site = 16 acres. Rain = 4 million liters. 4/16 = 1/4 of a million liters deposits in WTC 6 in its 40 ft. (depth) by 120 ft. (diameter) crater.

WTC 6 was hot – see thermal images 2nd article on WTC Nukes.

Firemen = 12 million liters. Firemen would mostly be spraying the hot areas.

There are about 5 acres that gradually increase to maybe a total of 6 to 7 acres, but let’s be generous and say they sprayed 8 acres (this will lower the total amount of Tritium Units estimate).

8/16 = 1/2 of 12 million liters = 6 million liters spread over 8 acres = 3/4 of a million liters per acre.

Rain plus Firemen = 1 million liters in WTC 6 in the 40 ft (depth) by 120 ft (diameter) crater.

1 liter of the pooled water = 1,106 TUs X 1 million liters of water = 1.1066 BILLION TUs JUST IN WTC 6 (no other places were checked.)

This completely ignores 104 Million Liters (30 Million Gallons) pumped out of the bathtub and the drain water of 51 TUs. 120 million liters X 51 = 6.120 BILLION TUs.

This completely ignores the amount of Tritium in gas form that escapes into the atmosphere and gets massive dispersal.

Just what happened to Building 6? HOW did all of that tritium get in the basement in the first place?

Plume of smoke seen rising from the area where WTC6 stood:

Photo shows WTC6 damaged BEFORE the North Tower “collapsed.”

Another Bill Biggert photo shows WTC6 blackened BEFORE South Tower debris hits it:

Overhead photo:

Reminiscent of the OKC Murrah Building:

Chuck Boldwyn slide shows possible placement of mini/micro neutron bombs:

Another Chuck Boldwyn slide shows the damage done by upwardly directed shaped mini/micro neutron nukes:

Infrared photo that shows the huge crater in WTC 6:

To sum this up: we see a plume of smoke rising from Building 6, photos that show the building was blackened and bombed out before ANY debris from the Twin Towers hit it, a massive crater in the middle of the building and the DOE found massive quantities of tritium in the basement eleven days after 9/11. Only a thermonuclear explosion explains all of this, which strongly suggests that WTC-6 was nuked. And there is more proof.

PROOF OF FISSION:

The US Geological Survey collected samples of dust and airfall debris from more than 35 localities within a 1-km radius of the World Trade Center site on the evenings of September 17 and 18, 2001. The USGS was primarily looking for asbestos in the dust but they found a host of elements that when analyzed properly proves that nuclear fission took place at Ground Zero.

A quick glance at the chemistry table and immediately the presence of the elements such as cesium, uranium, thorium, barium, strontium, yttrium, rubidium, molybdenum, lanthanum, cerium, chromium and zinc raise suspicions. But deeper analysis shows that these elements correlate with each other according to relationships expected in a nuclear fission event.

Jeff Prager has done extensive work with the USGS dust samples and we’ll use some of the slides from his Vancouver Power Point presentation to help us analyze the USGS data:

Barium and Strontium

People might argue that strontium and barium could be found in building debris and they would be correct however strontium and barium could never, under any circumstances, be found as building debris constituents in a demolition in these quantities.

The levels never fall below 400 ppm for Barium and they never drop below 700 ppm for Strontium and they reach over 3000 ppm for both of them at WTC01-16, Broadway and John Streets. Why?

Barium and Strontium are rare Trace elements with limited industrial uses. The enormous peak in Barium and Strontium concentration at WTC01-16 is readily apparent in the chart at right. The concentration of the two elements reaches 3130 ppm for Strontium and 3670 ppm for Barium or over 0.3% by weight of the dust. This means that 0.37% of the sample was Barium and 0.31% of the sample was Strontium by weight at that location, WTC01-16, Broadway and John Streets. The Mean concentration for Barium including the very low girder coating samples is 533 ppm and for Strontium it’s 727 ppm. These are not Trace amounts. They are highly dangerous and extremely toxic amounts. They are also critical components of nuclear fission and the decay process.

Here we’re plotting the concentration of Barium at each location against the Strontium concentration. The correlation between the concentrations of the two elements, Barium and Strontium is extremely high.

The Coefficient of Correlation between the concentration of Barium and Strontium at the outdoor and indoor sampling locations is 0.99 to 2 decimal places (0.9897 to 4 decimal places). So we have a Correlation Coefficient between the concentration of Barium and the concentration of Strontium of 0.9897, or near perfect. The maximum Correlation Coefficient that is mathematically possible is 1.0 and this would mean we have a perfect match between the two factors we’re examining and the data points would lie on a straight line with no variation between them. To obtain a Correlation Coefficient of 0.9897 with this number of measurements (14) around Lower Manhattan is very, very significant indeed. What this means is that we can say that there’s a 99% correlation in the variation in the concentration between these two elements. They vary in lockstep; they vary together. When one element varies so does the other. We can state with absolute mathematical certainty that any change in the concentration of one of these elements, either the Barium or Strontium, is matched by the same change in the concentration of the other. Whatever process gave rise to the presence of either the Barium or the Strontium must have also produced the other as well. Fission is the only process that explains this.

Thorium and Uranium

Next we come to the detection of measurable quantities of Thorium and Uranium in the dust from the World Trade Center, elements which only exist in radioactive form. The graph below plots the concentration of Thorium and Uranium detected at each sampling location. Again, the last two locations, WTC01-08 and WTC01-09, are for the two girder coating samples. The Uranium concentration follows the same pattern as Thorium, although the graph scale does not show this markedly. Uranium follows the dip at WTC01-03 and WTC01-16 but the highest concentration of Uranium also matches Thorium in the second girder coating, WTC01-09, at 7.57ppm. 7.57 greatly exceeds normal Trace element levels. This equals 93 Becquerels per kilogram. Normal background radiation is approximately 12Bq/kg to 40Bq/kg with 40Bq/kg the highest level we would expect to see. This girder contains more than twice the expected level of uranium. The second girder contained 30.7 ppm of Thorium, 6 times as high as the lowest level of that element detected. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place. As we said earlier, Thorium is formed from Uranium be alpha decay. An alpha particle is the same as a Helium nucleus, so this means we have one of the favored fission pathways: Uranium fissioning into a Noble Gas and the balancing elements, in this case Helium and Thorium.

The graph of Thorium versus Lithium including the Girder Coatings has exactly the same form as the graph showing Thorium versus Uranium, also including the Girder Coatings. Without the two Girder Coatings the correlation of Thorium to Lithium in the dust is completely linear. We therefore have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium, has indeed taken place. It is out of the question that all of these correlations which are the signature of a nuclear explosion could have occurred by chance. This is impossible. The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum is enough to raise eyebrows in themselves, let alone in quantities of 50 ppm to well over 100 ppm. When the quantities then vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission, it is beyond ALL doubt that the variations in concentration are due to that same common process of nuclear fission. When we also find Barium and Strontium present, in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400 ppm to over 3000 ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships, the implications are of the utmost seriousness. Fission occurred in NYC on 911.

The graph (below) shows that (apart from the very high peak in Sodium levels for one of the indoor dust samples) the Sodium and Potassium concentrations both display this now characteristic peak at location WTC01-16, the corner of Broadway and John Street. Sodium has the same peak as Zinc at WTC01-22, the corner of Warren and West, and like Zinc, falls to a minimum in the girder coatings – far below the concentrations found in the dust. Potassium is very similar except its concentration was not a peak at WTC01-02, Water and New York Streets, but somewhat lower than the next location, WTC01-03, State and Pearl Streets. There are clear correlations and relationships here which show that the Potassium and Sodium concentrations did not arise at random. They are products of radioactive decay. Remember that Strontium is produced by a fission pathway that proceeds through the Noble Gas Krypton and then the Alkali Metal Rubidium. Similarly, Barium is produced through Xenon and the Alkali Metal Cesium. We know that Uranium fission favors these pathways through the Noble Gases. Just as radioactive isotopes of Krypton and Xenon decay by beta particle emission to produce Rubidium and Cesium, radioactive isotopes of Neon and Argon also decay by beta emission to produce Sodium and Potassium. We would indeed expect to find anomalous levels of these elements present – what was found is again consistent with the occurrence of nuclear fission.

We know beyond doubt that the only process that can cause Barium and Strontium to be present in related or correlated quantities and any process that can also cause Barium and Strontium to have such strong relational concentrations across different samples, is nuclear fission. We know that if nuclear fission had occurred that Barium and Strontium would be present and a strong statistical correlation between the quantities of each would be found, and we have that, in spades. What else do we have? Quite a lot.

About 400 ppm of Barium and Strontium were measured in two samples of insulation girder coatings (WTC01-08 and 01-09). The concentration of Strontium actually falls somewhat below that of Barium in the second girder sample, WTC01-09, as at WTC01-16, whereas in every other sample the level of Strontium discovered was higher than Barium. Given the elevated levels of Barium daughter products found in the second girder and even the highest level of Uranium found (7.57ppm just West of and behind Tower One) this shows that active fission was still ongoing in the second girder coating, in the very same way as at WTC01-16 and therefore more Barium was found then Strontium. In other samples where the rate of fission had slowed down to give way to decay, the concentrations of Barium and Strontium reverse, due to the different half-lives. Barium isotopes have a shorter half-life then Strontium isotopes so they decay more quickly and after a period of time when no new Barium or Strontium has been deposited, Strontium will exceed Barium. The fact that more Barium then Strontium was still found at WTC01-16 and WTC01-09 shows that the overall nuclear processes taking place were somewhat favoring Barium over Strontium and hence Zinc as well. The tighter cluster of Barium (400-500 ppm) and Strontium (700-800 ppm) concentrations across widely separated sampling locations in Lower Manhattan is cast iron proof that Nuclear Fission occurred. We know that Barium and Strontium are the characteristic signature of fission; they are formed by two of the most common Uranium fission pathways. The fact that their concentrations are so tightly coupled means that their source was at the very epicenter of the event which created the dust cloud that enveloped Manhattan. This was not a localized preexisting chemical source which would only have contaminated a few closely spaced samples and left the remaining samples untouched. The very high concentrations of Barium and Strontium at location WTC01-16 shows that active nuclear fission was still ongoing at that spot; the dust was still “hot” and new Barium and new Strontium were being actively generated, actively created by transmutation from their parent nuclei.

The presence of Thorium and Uranium correlated to each other by a clear mathematical power relationship – and to the other radionuclide daughter products such as sodium, potassium, zinc, lithium, strontium and barium – leaves nothing more to be said. This type of data has probably never been available to the public before and it’s an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device. September 11th, 2001, was the first nuclear event within a major United States city that we have incontrovertible proof for and this is without question the most closely held secret surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001.

Anyone seriously interested in 911 truth will naturally be compelled to fully and thoroughly investigate the serious implications raised by this report personally, and I strongly encourage this. The material is complex yet if I can understand it anyone can.

No one promised us that the answers to 911 would come easily.

There’s more compelling and incontrovertible evidence I’d like to cover now. We’ll discuss the elements:

Lanthanum

Vanadium

Yttrium

Chromium

Nickel

Copper

Lead

Zinc

In this graph Zinc has been divided by a factor of 10 to avoid losing all the detail in the scaling if the ‘Y’ axis instead went up to 3000 ppm. The variation in Lead is matched by the variation in Zinc almost perfectly across all sampling locations, including the Indoor and Girder Coating samples.

The concentration of Copper follows that of Zinc with one distinct exception at WTC01-15, Trinity and Cortlandt Streets, just several hundred feet East of Building Four. There seem to be two Copper-Zinc relationships. If some of the Zinc was being formed by beta decay of Copper, then the high Copper at WTC01-15 could reduce Zinc, since formation of Zinc by that decay pathway would be retarded by material being held up at the Copper stage, before decaying on to Zinc. Therefore this graph does confirm that some of the Zinc was indeed being formed by beta decay of Copper.

This would at least be a very small mercy for the civilian population exposed in this event since the Zinc isotopes formed from Copper are stable, i.e. they are not radioactive.

The copper found in the Ground Zero dust is indicative of nuclear fission. If we plot the concentration of Copper against Zinc and Nickel, we obtain the graphs pictured here. The concentration of Nickel was almost the same everywhere, except for the peak of 88 ppm matched by the Copper peak of 450 ppm.

The Copper – Zinc relationship is very interesting, showing in fact two distinct relationships again depending on isotopic composition. There are two radioactive isotopes of Copper (Cu 64 and Cu 67) with short half-lives of 12.7 hours and 2.58 days respectively which decay into Zinc isotopes. The other two isotopes (Cu 60 and Cu 61) decay the other way by positron emission into Nickel and in fact Cu 64 goes both ways, into both Nickel and Zinc. This would explain why there strongly appear to be two Copper – Zinc relationships.

The decay of radioactive Copper by beta particle emission into Zinc would have been another source for the extraordinarily high concentrations of Zinc found in the World Trade Center Dust.

Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of Barium, situated between Barium and Cerium. The concentration of Barium versus Lanthanum is plotted in the graph below.

This graph is almost identical in form to the relationship between Barium and Cerium. A similar inverse exponential (cubic) relationship is clearly visible. In this case, Lanthanum is approximately equal to 5 times the cube root of Barium.

Lanthanum has a much shorter half-life then Cerium; most of its isotopes have a half-life of only a few hours whereas beta decay by Cerium is measured in half-life periods of a month to 10 months. Cerium’s beta decay going back to Lanthanum occurs more quickly but Lanthanum’s beta decay going back to Barium occurs in a similar time-scale to that – a few hours, so we are left with the net effect of Lanthanum’s beta decay being much quicker than that of Cerium, so the concentration of Cerium remaining was higher than that of Lanthanum.

Yttrium is also a very rare element and should not be present in dust from a collapsed office building. Yttrium is the next decay element after Strontium. If we plot concentration of Strontium against Yttrium, we see what happens in the graph below. Strontium 90 has a much longer half-life (28.78 years) than most Barium isotopes so we would not expect to see as high a concentration of Strontium’s daughter products as those that are produced from Barium. This is in fact what we see – the concentration of Cerium (next daughter product to Barium) is higher than Yttrium, the next daughter product to Strontium.

The presence of Chromium is also a telltale signature of a nuclear detonation. Its concentration is shown plotted against Zinc and Vanadium in the graphs below.

There is a strong correlation between the Zinc and the Chromium concentration. The Coefficient of Correlation is high, 0.89.

There is also an indication of strong correlation between Chromium and Vanadium within 6 points of lying on an almost perfect exponential curve, with one outlier, WTC01-03, the corner of State and Pearl Streets, of 42.5 ppm where the Vanadium concentration reached its highest level.

Looking at the data for Zinc we see that the Zinc concentration for WTC01-02, Water Street at the intersection of New York, is 2990 ppm and this immediately stands out. In fact, for the outdoor samples, Zinc is the most common Trace element at all sampling locations, with generally between 1000 ppm and 2000 ppm except for this spike of nearly 3000 ppm at WTC01-02.

This equates to an enormous concentration of Zinc. 0.1% to 0.2% of Zinc in the dust overall and at WTC01-02, 0.299% of the dust was Zinc. This exceeds the concentration of the supposed “non-Trace” element Manganese and Phosphorous and almost equals the elevated Titanium concentration of 0.39% at that same location.

What process produced the zinc?

If we include the data for WTC01-16, the Correlation Coefficient between the Zinc and Barium concentration is 0.007 to 3 decimal places, from which we can conclude that there is absolutely no correlation at all. But if we exclude that one sampling location, where Barium and Strontium concentrations peaked, the correlation coefficient between Zinc and Barium is 0.96 to two decimal places and between Zinc and Strontium, 0.66 to two decimal places. So what happened?

This shows that the Zinc and Barium concentrations are closely related and if we exclude what must have been an extraordinary event at WTC01-16 as an outlier, the correlation is very good. The Product Moment Correlation Coefficient is 0.96. The concentration of Zinc is now 3 times the concentration of Barium but the correlation between Zinc and Strontium is not so clear, showing that the relationship must be more indirect. This is to be expected since Barium and Strontium are produced by different nuclear fission pathways.

In spent nuclear fuel, Strontium is found as Strontium Oxide (SrO) – the Strontium produced by the nuclear fission explosion under the Twin Towers will certainly have been oxidized to SrO by the heat. SrO is extremely soluble in water, so some of the Strontium concentration results obtained may have been distorted by the rain water which fell on New York a few days after the towers were destroyed.

There is a very strong linear relationship between Barium and Zinc found at the World Trade Center. This may indicate that a closely related nuclear sub-process gave rise to them, which produced 3 times as much Zinc as Barium by weight. If so, that would be a very unusual nuclear event.

There is a lesser known nuclear process that accounts for this, which would be indicative of very high energies indeed. This process is known as Ternary Fission.

What is ternary fission? From Wikipedia: Ternary Fission is a comparatively rare (0.2 to 0.4% of events) type of nuclear fission in which three charged products are produced rather than two. As in other nuclear fission processes, other uncharged particles such as multiple neutrons and gamma rays are produced in ternary fission.

Ternary fission may happen during neutron-induced fission or in spontaneous fission (the type of radioactive decay). About 25% more ternary fission happens in spontaneous fission compared to the same fissioning system formed after thermal neutron capture, illustrating that these processes remain physically slightly different, even after the absorption of the neutron, possibly because of the extra energy present in the nuclear reaction system of thermal neutron-induced fission.

True Ternary Fission: A very rare type of ternary fission process is sometimes called “true ternary fission.” It produces three nearly equal-sized charged fragments (Z ~ 30) but only happens in about 1 in 100 million fission events. In this type of fission, the product nuclei split the fission energy in three nearly equal parts and have kinetic energies of ~ 60 MeV (Wikipedia contributors, 2013)

Mini-Neutron Bombs

We have evidence of nuclear fission and fusion taking place at Ground Zero. Fission triggered fusion bombs fit the evidence. These bombs had limited but powerful blast effects, a burst of neutron radiation as well as EMP effects. Mini-neutron bombs appear to be what was used.

What is a neutron bomb? A neutron bomb, also called an enhanced radiation bomb, is a type of thermonuclear weapon. An enhanced radiation bomb is any weapon which uses fusion to enhance the production of radiation beyond that which is normal for an atomic device. In a neutron bomb, the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape using X-ray mirrors and an atomically inert shell casing, such as chromium or nickel. The energy yield for a neutron bomb may be as little as half that of a conventional device, though radiation output is only slightly less. Although considered to be ‘small’ bombs, a neutron bomb still has a yield in the tens or hundreds of kilotons range. Neutron bombs are expensive to make and maintain because they require considerable amounts of tritium, which has a relatively short half-life (12.32 years). Manufacture of the weapons requires that a constant supply of tritium of be available. Neutron bombs have a relatively short shelf-life. (Helmenstine)

Per Sam Cohen “In a broad sense, the neutron bomb is an explosive version of the sun; that is, the relevant energy it emits comes from thermonuclear, or fusion, reactions involving the very lightest elements. To be specific, its fuel consists of the two heavier nuclei of hydrogen, named deuterium and tritium. By means of a fission trigger, a mixture of these two nuclei is compressed and heated, as happens in a hydrogen bomb, to cause nuclear reactions whose principle output is in the form of very high energy neutrons. Also produced will be blast and heat, but so predominant are the neutron effects against human beings, who are a hundred to a thousand times more vulnerable to radiation than blast and heat, that by bursting the weapon high enough off the ground the only significant effects at the surface will come from radiation. In so doing, the blast and heat effects will not be strong enough to cause significant damage to most structures. Hence, a bomb which, accurately but misleadingly, has been described as a weapon that kills people but spares buildings.” (Cohen, 2006)

Neutron Radiation and EMP Effects at Ground Zero

Neutron radiation and EMP appears to be responsible for the “toasted cars” found near Ground Zero. What is neutron radiation? From the Shots Across the Bow Blog: To understand neutron radiation, imagine a pool table set for the start of a game. 15 balls are in the middle of the table, with the cue ball set for the break. The cue ball is a free neutron. When the neutron hits the nucleus, one of three things might happen. First, if the cue ball doesn’t have enough energy, or hits at the wrong angle, it caroms off, barely disturbing the pack of balls. Second, if the ball has too much energy, it slams through the pack, breaking it up. This is fission, and results in fission products, more free neutrons, and energy. Third, if the ball has just the right amount of energy, it just makes it to the pack and joins in, becoming another neutron in the nucleus. Here is where our analogy breaks down, because many times, when a nucleus gets another neutron, it becomes unstable, and begins to decay, emitting alphas, betas, or gammas. This is called activation, and is one of the trickier problems with neutron irradiation and the physical properties of the irradiated matter can be quite different from the original. (“A nuclear power,”)

A large quantity of high energy neutrons bombarding an object will cause the atoms in the material to move i.e. heat up. This is why so few bodies were found at Ground Zero – most of the people that were near the Towers were vaporized either by the blast and heat effects of the bombs or the neutron radiation that was released.

The “Toasted” Cars

Ted Twietmeyer has a post on Rense’s website that goes a long way towards explaining the toasted cars found near Ground Zero. Twietmeyer attributes the damage to aluminum vehicle parts such as engine blocks and mirrors to strong EMP eddy currents produced by nuclear detonations at Ground Zero: “and what else do eddy currents create? HEAT if the currents are strong enough. The stronger the eddy currents, the more heat which will be generated. Although magnetic fields are being created, they are temporary in aluminum because it is not magnetic, but paramagnetic. This means aluminum will be affected by magnetism, but it cannot be magnetized.

“SACRIFICIAL VEHICLES” PROVIDE SHIELDING FOR OTHER VEHICLES AND SHOW PULSE VECTORS

A vector is simply a line that shows direction and usually has an arrow. Arrows are not shown above, in an attempt to simplify the image. The direction of force is from upper left to lower right. The notated image above provides a possible explanation for the location of the source of the magnetic pulse, and why some vehicles were damaged and others were not. This parking lot may be the best evidence in support of my theory.

Yellow lines indicate the pulse(s) blocked by the rear row of vehicles. It appears the entire outside of all rear vehicles were destroyed. Note how several hoods on the rear row of vehicles have white dust or ash, indicating an intense heat originating from under the hood. This is probably caused by the engine block vaporizing, and the white dust may be aluminum oxide. If the vehicles are still around somewhere in a junk yard, some simple lab tests will confirm this.

White lines show the pulses that reached the vehicles in the foreground.
Orange shapes around each car show the damage threshold line. The cars are basically undamaged below these lines and some might be repairable. If it wasn’t for “sacrificial” vehicles at the rear, those in the foreground would have been completely burned.
Note that white and yellow lines are not meant to be a literal interpretation to show size of the pulse, how many lines of force hit each vehicle, etc… Each line is intended to show only the direction the pulse(s) came from. Regardless of whether this parking lot is close to the WTC or not, it clearly shows that the nuclear device (or pulse source) was high above the ground. If the pulse source were close to the Earth, then vehicles in the foreground would have been completely shielded from the pulse.” (Twietmeyer, 2007)
Ed Ward’s take: I believe some of what he attributes to EMP was done by neutrons – in particular his linear evaluations (angle computations) would seem more neutron than EMP. EMP should tend to flow around – seems to be a correlation of dust cloud carrying EMP. So the linear blockage of cars protecting other cars would seem to be more appropriate for neutrons. Other than that seems on the money, IMO.

The Temperature of the Pile

Temperatures at Ground Zero were 600 to 1,500 °F or even higher for 6 months after 9/11. Firemen were fighting fires at Ground Zero for 99 days after 9/11. AVRIS data showed that temperature in one spot was 1,341 °F on 9/16/01. These high temperatures could be attributed to neutron bombs that were detonated underground in order to destroy the foundations of the Twin Towers. Some of the hotspots may have been unexploded nuclear fissile material reacting underground.

The workers at Ground Zero experienced hellish working conditions. One Ground Zero worker, Charlie Vitchers, describes the nightmare “The fires were very intense on the pile, the heat was very intense. In some places you couldn’t even get onto it. In some areas where you could walk, you’d travel another five feet and then you could just feel the heat coming up and you would have to just back off. You’d say to yourself, “I can’t see a fire, but I can feel the heat, so something’s wrong here,” and you’d back off.

That was one of the concerns we had about putting equipment on the pile, because the operators were sitting eight or ten feet up above the debris pile in their cabs and couldn’t feel the heat. But they’re carrying a hundred gallons of diesel fuel, hydraulic hoses, and other flammables, and there was nothing to stop the heat from wrecking the machine. If they got stuck in a place where the heat was so intense that it set his machine on fire, that operator wasn’t going to make it out.

We were so lucky. We didn’t lose anyone. We lost a lot of equipment, mostly due to collapses, but didn’t have any piece of equipment catch on fire or anything like that. But hoses melted, and there was a lot of damage to tires- some of them melted just from being too close. I mean, the bottom of your shoes would melt on some of the steel. Some of that was so hot you could feel the hair on the back of your neck start to burn when you walked by. There were cherry-red pieces of steel sticking out of the ground. It was almost like being in a steel-manufacturing plant. You just couldn’t physically go near that stuff.

Every time a grappler grabbed a piece of steel and shook it out, it would just fan the fire, like a fan in the fireplace. All of a sudden there’d be smoke billowing out.

The Army Corps of Engineers eventually supplied us with infrared aerial shots of where the heat was. It was like looking at the blob. The fire was moving under the pile. One day it would be here, it would be 1,400 degrees, the next day it would be 2,000 degrees, then five days later it wouldn’t register over 600 degrees.” (Stout, Vitchers & Gray, 2006)

Conclusions of this Study

Evidence for fission and fusion abounds at Ground Zero. Tritiated water in any significant quantity is a telltale sign of a thermonuclear explosion. A 170 meter high plume of smoke was observed rising from Building 6, and massive amounts of tritiated water were found in the basement. It appears to be beyond reasonable doubt that this building was nuked, because no alternative explanation is reasonable.

The Twin Towers were 500,000 tons each and destroyed in 9 and 11 seconds respectively with debris ejected hundreds of feet out. There can be no doubt that the Twins Towers were nuked as well.

The USGS dust samples prove beyond all doubt that nuclear fission took place at Ground Zero. Fission triggered fusion bombs such as mini or micro neutron bombs explain the dust and water sample evidence perfectly.

The destruction of the Twin Towers was an unprecedented use of nuclear bomb technology. The public had never before witnessed anything like it. While Steve Jones and Judy Wood, among others, have added to uncertainty over what happened to the WTC buildings on 9/11, the mystery has finally been solved. The World Trade Center was nuked on 9/11.

Donald Fox has done extensive research on the role of mini-nukes by Dr. Ed Ward and on work by The Anonymous Physicist on the towers and has formulated an account of how it was done and why there is more to this story relative to very low-yield thermonuclear devices. See his blog at https://donaldfox.wordpress.com.

Jeff Prager, founder of an award winning magazine for Senior Citizens, in 2002 he tried to prove 19 Muslims hijacked four planes and attacked us. By 2005, he realized this was false, sold his business, left the US and began to investigate 9/11 full-time. See 9/11 AMERICA NUKED, Part 1, Part 2.

Ed Ward, M.D., among the leading experts on the use of nukes on 9/11, maintains an extensive archive about them at his “Weblog of Tyranny”, http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/, and has also appeared as a guest on “The Real Deal”, which you can hear at radiofetzer.blogspot.com

References

Semkow, T., Hafner, R., Parekh, P., Wozniak, G., Haines, D., Husain, L., Rabun, R., & Williams, P. U.S. Department of Energy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (2002). Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center (UCRL-JC-150445). Retrieved from llnl.gov website: https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf

Clark, R., Green, R., Swayze, G., Meeker, G., Sutley, S., Hoefen, T., Livo, K., Plumlee, G., Pavri, B., Sarture, C., Wilson, S., Hageman, P., Lamothe, P., Vance, J., Boardman, J., Brownfield, I., Gent, C., Morath, L., Taggart, J., Theodorakos, P., & Adams, M. USGS Spectroscopy Lab, (2001). Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center Area After the September 11, 2001 Attack (Open-File Report 01-0429). Retrieved from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/

Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, (2009). Investigation of the Environmental Fate of Tritium in the Atmosphere (INFO-0792). Ottawa: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/pubs_catalogue/uploads/Investigation_of_Environmental_Fate_of_Tritium_in_the_Atmosphere_INFO-0792_e.pdf

Tritium in Precipitation. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.science.uottawa.ca/eih/ch7/7tritium.htm

Jones, S. (2006, September 28). Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis That Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers. Retrieved from http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

Ternary fission. (2013, March 22). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved April 19, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ternary_fission&oldid=546177060

Helmenstine, A. M. What is a Neutron Bomb? Retrieved from http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/neutronbomb.htm

Cohen, S. (2006). F*** you! Mr. President: Confessions of the Father of the Neutron Bomb. (3rd ed., pp. 123-124). Retrieved from http://www.AthenaLab.com/Confessions_Sam_Cohen_2006_Third_Edition.pdf

Stout, G., Vitchers, C., & Gray, R. (2006). Nine Months at Ground Zero: The Story of the Brotherhood of Workers Who Took on a Job Like No Other. (Google eBook ed., pp. 64-65). Simon and Schuster. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=4VD–5-T5IcC&lpg=PA62&ots=I8PEz77ZPT&dq=ground zero grappler&pg=PA64

A Nuclear Power Primer: Part 3: How Does Radiation Hurt Us and How Much Does it Take? (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/a_nuclear_power_primer_part_3_how_does_radiation_hurt_us_and_how_much_does_/

Twietmeyer, T. (2007, March 24). What May Have Melted the WTC Vehicles. Retrieved from http://rense.com/general75/melt2.htm