Reply to Dr. Steven Jones Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used

Reply to Dr. Steven Jones Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used WTC Towers

Dr. Steven Jones summary from "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers." It is greatly flawed.

"1. Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis."

This "observation" came from a flawed report that was scope-limited into attributing tritium to presumed building content. Out-of-scope was considering tritium coming from a destructive mechanism. The report re-defined "trace or background levels" in cases to be 55 times greater than previously. Dates for samples (9/13, 9/21), aside from being delayed, allow for tritium dissipation (from rain and firefighting efforts) and imply that tritium levels from 9/21 would be the same as from 9/11. They stopped taking additional samples when their testing of them revealed tritium levels well below the EPA threshold of what constitutes a health risk.

The "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" should not have been used by Dr. Jones unchallenged and as the final authority of what tritium levels were present.

The "mini-nuke" phrase plays on the public's perception of nukes and frames it improperly.

"4. Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium, actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background level for WTC dust."

The Lioy et al. report was also a flawed.

- Limited its analysis to three (3) "representative" dust samples (Cortlandt, Cherry, and Market Streets).

- Samples were only collected at "weather-protected" locations East of the WTC; nothing from North, South, or West. The dominant wind direction in summer months including September is to the North.

- Samples collected on 9/16 and 9/17, which is enough delay to allow for dissipation of certain radiation traces.

- Whereas it lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, it does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). Its discussion of results ignores most of the elements found in table 2. It doesn't explain their presence in the dust.

The delay in taking samples is important, because were Dr. Jones to have discussed variations of neutron devices (which he blatantly omitted), it would have been revealed that their claim to fame is dissipation of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation in 24-48 hours.

The Lioy report states:
"We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40."

Neither the actual measurement nor what technical definition of "background level" were provided in the report. One is left with wondering if any games of re-defining "background levels" was done as in the Tritium Report. (Be that as it may, these measurements from a late date were good news from the perspective of low-radiation devices.)

"5. Nuclear activation or residual 'fall-out' radioactivity (above background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131 measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low radionuclide counts (point 4 above) and again provides compelling evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis."

Nice of "the author" (Dr. Jones) to test for radioactivity in his samples, but from the perspective of low radiation neutron devices, his testing was many days late and dollars short.

"6. No fatalities due to radiation 'burning' were reported near ground zero. William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse."

True, but it is being skewed into the realm of larger mini-nukes. When neutron devices are considered, the vast majority of their energy is released (upwards) as highly energetic neutrons. As such, the other side-effects of the nuclear detonation from the blast wave, heat wave, and EMP are vastly reduced to tactical levels. Short-lived alpha, beta, and gamma radiation would be created in materials hit by the neutrons. Humans close enough to get radiation "burning" would have been decimated by the blast/heat waves or the structure falling down upon them.

These devices were DEW (directed energy weapons) in the sense that the neutrons were aimed, but not for the purpose of destruction but to get them out of the way. That tactical nature of the other side-effects therefore spared those who were farther away.

"7. No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers."

Again, this is framing it large towards mini-nukes. For all we know, the tactical heat did melt glass but then the blast way decimated it and dispersed it with other content from the building over a wide radial distance.

"8. One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.)"

Once more, he frames it as mini-nuke when ERW or neutron nuclear DEW would be more accurate. When of a tactical nature and within WTC-7, one questions whether vertically-directed plumes of dust would leave the structure.

In fairness, I don't actively champion neutron DEW for WTC-7. Each building -- including WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 -- needs to considered individually. Assuming that one mechanism was responsible for all plays right into the disinformation game and is easily discredited.

Dr. Jones' paper has other flaws including a logic error best summarized as:

"Nuclear weapons of type X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures of A, B, and C. Radiation signature D was measured. Thus, the cause of the WTC destruction was not nuclear weapons of X, Y, or Z nor any other nuclear device."

In other words, he frames the discussion around certain types of nuclear weapons and legitimately states that the radiation signature did not match those. But rather than taking just those types off of the table, he takes all nuclear devices out of consideration.

The blatant omission is neutron bombs.

What Is Red Mercury 2020?

Presumably red in color. Ballotechnics are substances which react very energetically in response to high-pressure shock compression. Google's Sci.Chem group has had a lively ongoing discussion about the possiblity of a an explosive form of mercury antimony oxide. According to some reports, red mercury is a cherry red semi-liquid which is produced by irradiating elemental mercury with mercury antimony oxide in a Russian nuclear reactor. Some people think that red mercury is so explosive that it can be used to trigger a fusion reaction in tritium or deuterium-tritium mixture. Pure fusion devices don't require fissionable material, so it's easier to get the materials needed to make one and easier to transport said materials from one place to another. Other reports refer to a documentary in which is was possible to read a report on Hg₂Sb₂0₇, in which the compound had a density of 20.20 Kg/dm³ (!). Personally, I find it plausible that mercury antimony oxide, as a low density (nonradioactive?) powder, may be of interest as a ballotechnic material. The high-density material seems unlikely. It would also seem unreasonably dangerous (to the maker) to use a ballotechnic material in a fusion device. One intriguing source mentions a liquid explosive, HgSbO, made by Du Pont laboratories and listed in the international chemical register as number 20720-76-7. Anyone care to look it up?

1. A Military Code Name for a New Nuclear Material As I understand it, this definition originates from the extraordinarily high prices commanded and paid for a substance called 'red mercury', which was manufactured in Russia. The price ($200-300K per kilogram) and trade restrictions were consistent with a nuclear material as opposed to cinnabar.

9/11 AGM-158 JASSM Evidence Side Explosions