Split Thread Fission in New York City on 9/11

Good Morning,

I tried to post links here some time ago and was messaged that I needed to post more commentary to be availed of that privilege. I'm a retired, full-time 911 researcher and have been at this for almost ten years.

My investigation is based on one premise and one premise only. That the perpetrators of 911 spent as much time, or more, planning reaction to public opinion as they did planning the very sophisticated event itself. I might suggest even more since it's my observation that the post-911 response was far more controlled than the actual event.

For that reason I remain unaffiliated with so-called 911 truth organizations but found this particular forum and certain of those making comments to be rather astute researchers so I've followed the commentary here to some degree.

Fission is a factual component of the event. Basic physics and chemistry prove this conclusively so I'm going to attempt to link you to the data. You'll need to access Part 1, pages 21-42, of a 3-part report I posted to the internet about a week ago. I will omit the http and w sections of the link and will hope the link then posts and will assume you're all capable of managing from there. I will also omit "html" from the very end of the link. Therefore, the link you'll want is "datafilehost.com/download-6b653c65"

I sincerely hope this helps.

I can be reached at 353 6045 in the 612 area code.

Peace

Fission In NYC on 911

I'd like to add to the most recent post previous to my own, an excerpt from a report currently being written by me, pages 80-84, titled, "Ionizing Radiation: Selected Works By Experts In The Field Of Nuclear Radiation And Analysis Of The Demolition Of The World Trade Center by Jeff Prager"

The 20th Century History Of Steven E. Jones

In 1989, from Utah, news broke in the mainstream media of an energy breakthrough that would change the world. It was called Cold Fusion. It was announced that scientists had discovered that it was possible for fusion to occur on a small, non-destructive scale, at room temperature. The long-standing promise of the nuclear power generating industry (“electricity too cheap to meter”) might finally be realized. Scientists were skeptical. Within months, a U.S. Department of Energy fusion expert authoritatively had denounced cold fusion as nothing more than bad science, a kind of fool’s gold. On behalf of the U.S. DoE, he basically insisted that the media had been taken in, and had reported the existence of something which was impossible, and that therefore there was nothing to the cold fusion story.

The name of that U.S. DoE scientist was Steven E. Jones.

The media, friendly to the powers that be, retracted their stories about the potentially huge new energy breakthrough, and apologized to the public for its apparent mistake. And, for the most part, the story went away.

The History Of 911 Truth Physics

In the wake of the 9/11 attack, up sprang a 9/11 “truth movement”. Back in 2003, its leading voice when it came to the energy surplus at “Ground Zero” was Jim Hoffman. Hoffman published an analysis of the energy requirements to have driven the expansion of the pyroclastic flow (what he termed a dust cloud) following the ‘collapse’ of the North Tower, and found it to be at least 10 times more than what the tower could have provided gravitationally, thus disproving and invalidating the government’s and media’s claims regarding the cause and “gravitational” nature of its destruction.

Despite the clarity and correctness (except for one large, energy-downplaying, assumption about the expansion ratio) of Hoffman’s analysis, and despite the fact that he was embraced and promoted by the so-called 911truth ‘movement’, neither Hoffman nor the ‘movement’ ever did much with it.

Even more puzzling is the fact that even though Hoffman had proved that we could not blame the demise of the twin towers on airplanes (hijacked or otherwise), he insisted that we could all still take the government’s and media’s word for what hit the towers and why. He went further, publishing web pages that, while they appeared to be critical of the government’s and media’s claims, actually supported the core lies about hijackers and hijacked airliners, even when that meant willfully omitting contradictory/exculpatory evidence.

Is it honest to continue to blame 9/11 on hijackers even after we know that we can not blame the too-rapid too-energetic demise of the twin towers on airplanes?

In retrospect, it appears that Hoffman’s physics analysis was intended merely to imbue him with credibility and standing among 9/11 skeptics as a leading powerful critic of the government and media regarding 9/11, so he would be trusted (and not suspected, but followed) when he subsequently turned around and declined to denounce, and even defended, some of the related, more central enemy-creating lies of 9/11.

The 21st Century Behavior Of Steven E. Jones

Suddenly, in late 2005, a self-professed “good friend” of Jim Hoffman’s appeared on the 9/11 scene (and even in the mainstream media). He was a PhD physics professor and fusion expert at BYU who’d decided that he could breathe new life into a stale old WTC “thermite” controlled demolition limited-hangout that had been kicked around the internet for years without ever gaining much popularity.

There were at least two problems with his approach: the highly-unconventional “Ground Zero” evidence clearly pointed to some kind of exotic weaponry or energy release, and, same as Hoffman, he continually sided with the government and media regarding what hit the towers, even as he insisted – proved – that “planes” could not account for what had happened to the towers.

The name of that physicist, again, is Steven E. Jones.

So then we had two very intelligent men, Hoffman and Jones, both well-promoted by the “truth movement”, both behaving inconsistently (ie, selectively and/or intellectually dishonestly) regarding their opposition to the government’s and media’s lies of 9/11. But the publics understanding of physics and chemistry and especially as it applies to nuclear devices is virtually, zero. Further, Doctor Professor Jones has insisted that we can rule out all possibility of any kind of nuclear devices having been involved in the annihilation of the World Trade Center skyscrapers due to the fact that no large radioactive signature had been detected at Ground Zero.

But the logic behind that is based upon the 50 year old truth that a (radioactively dirty) fission reaction is needed to trigger a (relatively clean) fusion reaction. However there is little reason to believe that nuclear technology had not, as of 2001, advanced beyond that of the 1950s. Nevertheless, that seems to be the basis for Jones’ having told people that they can rule out all nuclear possibilities.

It is our opinion that this constitutes a pattern, a history, of deceit; of having falsely ruled out the possibility of fusion without fission, and Dr. Jones has been dishonest.

Fission In NYC on 911

In an effort to increase my commentary to avail myself of the ability to post links I would again like to post from my current report, page 22:

Myeloma And 911

The Statistics As Of This Writing

As of March 13, 2011, there have been 134 deaths among First Responders that can be attributed directly to Myeloma. This means that of 40,000 total First Responders the death rate from Myeloma is 1 in 298.507 or rounded, 1 in 299.

In the general population the rate of Myeloma is 3.8 to 9.0 per 100,000 and 99% of those people afflicted with this rare blood plasma cancer are over 65 with an average age of 71.

The First Responders that have died from Myeloma were all between 37 and 60.

Obviously the incidence of Myeloma in First Responders is alarming, to say the least. Rather, it’s simply unprecedented in human history. Not Hiroshima, nor Nagasaki, nor Chernobyl produced these dramatic figures and these figures are the product of only the first ten years beyond the events of 911.

Perhaps, and very likely, we’re seeing the effects of 4th or 5th generation nuclear physics and the results of new devices never before detonated within the confines of a major metropolitan city.

Pages 24-25

Myeloma, 911 & The Medical Community Response

Years after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centers, researchers are still trying to determine if there is an increased rate of myeloma in 9/11 responders.

Early responders to the site, including emergency, reconstruction, and rescue workers and volunteers, would have had the highest levels of exposure to the toxic dust cloud. Within weeks of the tragedy, medical screening of 9/11 responders began. Many were noted to have health issues, breathing problems and coughs, as well as psychological trauma. These have become widely acknowledged side effects from exposure at the Ground Zero site.

Through the medical screening programs, a number of 9/11 responders have been diagnosed with myeloma. While the rates of myeloma in 9/11 responders is slightly higher than the regular population, the most striking observation is the number of cases diagnosed in people under the age of 45. The rate of myeloma is 4 times higher than doctors would expect in this young age group. Myeloma is typically a disease of older persons, occurring at the average age of 71.

Myeloma is a blood cancer that involves the over-production of plasma cells, the antibody-producing cells that develop from B-lymphocytes in the bone marrow. Myeloma is also called multiple myeloma or plasma cell myeloma.

When plasma cells are exposed to a foreign substance, or antigen, they have the unique ability to create and excrete antibodies, or immunoglobulins, to help the body fight off infection. Immunoglobulins are proteins made up of heavy chains (G,A,M,D or E) and light chains (kappa or lambda).

In myeloma, there are mutations in the DNA of a single B-lymphocyte/plasma cell, which then begins to multiply out of control. These cancerous plasma cells are called myeloma cells.

As these malignant myeloma cells reproduce uncontrollably, they begin to crowd the bone marrow and prevent it from doing its normal job of producing healthy white cells, red cells and platelets. This leaves the patient with fewer cells to carry oxygen to their organs, form blood clots, or fight infection.

In addition, the myeloma cells will continue to produce the same immunoglobulins as the original cancerous cell. This leads to an excessive amount of one type of immunoglobulin (Ig), such as IgG or IgA being created. This abnormal immunoglobulin is unable to function like a normal antibody and help to fight infection. The accumulation of one type of immunoglobulin is called monoclonal protein (M-protein).

The myeloma cells will also invade bone tissue, causing damage and areas of weakness in the bone. Plasma cells and myeloma cells release chemicals called cytokines, which also contribute to bone destruction. As a result, myeloma patients will often have characteristic bone damage called osteolytic lesions.
Sources

1. Kyle, Robert and Rajkumar, S. Vincent “Multiple Myeloma” Blood 15 March 2008 111:2962-2972.
2. Lin, Pei “Plasma Cell Myeloma” Hematology/ Oncology Clinics of North America 2009 23:709-727.
3. Nau, Konrad and Lewis, William “Multiple Myeloma: Diagnosis and Treatment” American Family Physician 1 October 2008 78:853-859.

Proof Of Fission In NYC On 911

Again, from the current report, pages 11-12:

How Radiation Affects Cells

Ionizing radiation is energy transmitted via X rays, gamma rays, beta particles (high-speed electrons), alpha particles (the nucleus of the helium atom), neutrons, protons, and other heavy ions such as the nuclei of argon, nitrogen, carbon, and other elements. X rays and gamma rays are electromagnetic waves like light, but their energy is much higher than that of light (their wavelengths are much shorter). Ultraviolet (UV) light is a radiation of intermediate energy that can damage cells (the well known sunburn), but UV light differs from the forms of electromagnetic radiation mentioned above in that it does not cause ionization (loss of an electron) in atoms or molecules, but rather excitation (change in energy level of an electron). The other forms of radiation--particles--are either negatively charged (electrons), positively charged (protons, alpha rays, and other heavy ions), or electrically neutral (neutrons).

Ionization

As an example of ionization, beta rays are fast electrons that lose energy as they pass through cells and interact with molecules. The transferred energy is high enough to disrupt chemical bonds, which results in radical formation (or ionization). Ionization differs from the ion formation that occurs in ordinary chemical reactions. The process that takes place when salt (sodium chloride, NaCl) is dissolved in water is a good example of an ordinary reaction. Sodium and chloride bind together because, separately, each atom is unstable. The sodium (Na) atom has only one electron in its outermost orbit, and loss of that electron makes it more stable. In contrast, the chloride (Cl) atom has seven electrons in its outermost orbit and gaining one electron to have a full complement of eight outer electrons makes it more stable. When the two atoms bind to form NaCl, sodium shares its single outer electron with chloride, and so, both are stable. In ordinary chemical reactions, such as the binding of Na to Cl, electrons that are lost or gained are always those on the outermost orbit. When NaCl is dissolved in water, the two atoms separate, with chloride keeping the extra outer electron; thus, the sodium has a net positive charge (hence Na+) and the chloride has a net negative charge (hence Cl-), but the net charge (balance between positive and negative) remains neutral. These charged atoms are called ions, and they are stable in water despite their electrical charges.

In contrast, when an electron passes through a cell, it releases its energy along its path (called a track) by interacting with the electrons of nearby molecules. The released energy is absorbed by atoms near the track, resulting in either excitation (a shift in the orbit of an electron to a higher energy level) or ionization (release of an electron from the atom). What differs from an ordinary chemical reaction is that when radiation donates energy to atoms or molecules, electrons other than those on the most outer orbit can be released, which makes the atoms very unstable. Such unstable atoms are called radicals and are chemically very reactive. Some radicals are so reactive that they exist only for as short a time as a microsecond.

X and gamma rays differ from beta particles in that they release high-speed electrons from atoms first. Positively charged particles transfer energy to molecules in cells by essentially the same mechanisms. Neutrons are somewhat different since they are electrically uncharged, and their main effect is to impact the nuclei of hydrogen atoms, namely protons. Since the masses of a neutron and a proton are similar, the impact results in an elastic scattering process like in billiards. The ejected protons behave as charged particles.

How Ionizations Affect Cells

Radiation-induced ionizations may act directly on the cellular component molecules or indirectly on water molecules, causing water-derived radicals. Radicals react with nearby molecules in a very short time, resulting in breakage of chemical bonds or oxidation (addition of oxygen atoms) of the affected molecules. The major effect in cells is DNA breaks. Since DNA consists of a pair of complementary double strands, breaks of either a single strand or both strands can occur. However, the latter is believed to be much more important biologically. Most single-strand breaks can be repaired normally thanks to the double-stranded nature of the DNA molecule (the two strands complement each other, so that an intact strand can serve as a template for repair of its damaged, opposite strand). In the case of double-strand breaks, however, repair is more difficult and erroneous rejoining of broken ends may occur. These so-called mis-repairs result in induction of mutations, chromosome aberrations, or cell death.

Characteristics Of DNA Damage By Radiation Exposure

Deletion of DNA segments is the predominant form of radiation damage in cells that survive irradiation. It may be caused by (1) mis-repair of two separate double-strand breaks in a DNA molecule with joining of the two outer ends and loss of the fragment between the breaks or (2) the process of cleaning (enzyme digestion of nucleotides – the component molecules of DNA) of the broken ends before rejoining to repair one double-strand break.

Biological Effects Differ By Type Of Radiation

Radiations differ not only by their constituents (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.) but also by their energy. Radiations that cause dense ionization along their track (such as neutrons) are called high-linear-energy-transfer (high-LET) radiation, a physical parameter to describe average energy released per unit length of the track. Low-LET radiations produce ionizations only sparsely along their track and, hence, almost homogeneously within a cell. Radiation dose is the amount of energy per unit of biological material (e.g., number of ionizations per cell). Thus, high-LET radiations are more destructive to biological material than low-LET radiations – such as X and gamma rays – because at the same dose, the low-LET radiations induce the same number of radicals more sparsely within a cell, whereas the high-LET radiations – such as neutrons and alpha particles – transfer most of their energy to a small region of the cell. The localized DNA damage caused by dense ionizations from high-LET radiations is more difficult to repair than the diffuse DNA damage caused by the sparse ionizations from low-LET radiations.

Peace

Dakota1955 said:

Peace

Click to expand...

Hello Dakota1955, welcome to the forums. Would you care to provide an abbreviated commentary of what you personally believe happened on 9/11 along with the evidence required to substantiate your beliefs?

Dakota1955 said:

Good Morning,

My investigation is based on one premise and one premise only. That the perpetrators of 911 spent as much time, or more, planning reaction to public opinion as they did planning the very sophisticated event itself. I might suggest even more since it's my observation that the post-911 response was far more controlled than the actual event.

Click to expand...

Good morning to you.

You should have come to us 10 years ago, we could have saved you a lot of work.

There really is nothing all that complicated about 19 terrorist hijacking 4 planes. 9/11 only gets complicated if you let your imagination run wild and think up impossible alternatives.

BTW: No one is going to read your "wall of text".

Oh, and before anyone accuses me of being only snarky without substance, this was already a refuted hypothesis long before anyone thought to come up with it. OSHA had tested for ionizing radiation on October 2002. And guess what?
Not to mention that, even using the smallest nuclear devices currently known as a model - the "Davy Crocket" shoulder fired one - the lethal radiation radius would have been right around 400 meters. There would've been no survivors from the WTC at all, most especially those trapped in the lower level stairwells, those nearby who couldn't get that far away from the collapse, etc.

Should I take note of the claimed increase in myeloma? Ignoring the lack of substantiation, as well as the two points I noted above, why should I? There was already one documented, noted increase in myeloma rates in NYC back in the 50's, and that was well before the WTC was even up, let alone supposedly nuked. If someone wants to investigate increasing incidents of certain cancers, it is a must to exclude environmental factors, since something other than a WTC nuclear device has already been shown to have contributed to previous increases in the past, and it is not established that that causal factor is still not at play today. In short, alternate, likely, and established causes must be normalized for first; otherwise, it's a more Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics argument.

Regardless, this one's dead in the water.

Dakota1955 said:

In the wake of the 9/11 attack, up sprang a 9/11 “truth movement”. Back in 2003, its leading voice when it came to the energy surplus at “Ground Zero” was Jim Hoffman. Hoffman published an analysis of the energy requirements to have driven the expansion of the pyroclastic flow (what he termed a dust cloud) following the ‘collapse’ of the North Tower, and found it to be at least 10 times more than what the tower could have provided gravitationally, thus disproving and invalidating the government’s and media’s claims regarding the cause and “gravitational” nature of its destruction.

Click to expand...

Everything from this point on in your analysis relies critically on Hoffman's figures being correct. Hoffman's figures, however, are not even vaguely plausible. I suggest you take a look at the revision history of the paper, where you'll find that version 3.1 dates back to January 2004, since when Hoffman has been working on version 4.0 but has yet to complete it. There is a reason for this; Hoffman's analysis concludes that the air in the dust cloud must have been heated to about 700 degrees Celcius in order to expand to 3.4 times its original volume. This would have caused the instant death of anyone caught in the dust cloud. Hoffman was never able to account for the fact that this didn't happen. He tried to handwave this away by suggesting that the expansion was due to the generation of large volumes of steam, but found that this required him to magic up about 2,000 tons of water that wasn't present. Since 2004, he's been trying to find a way round this fatal flaw, and failing. His version 4 draft trails off into a rather desperate-looking assertion that there are still things to investigate about 9/11, even though he can't quite pin down what they are.

The fatal flaw in this paper comes down to Hoffman's assertion that:

Jim Hoffman said:

Given that the Twin Towers' dust clouds behaved like pyroclastic flows, with distinct boundaries and rapidly expanding frontiers (averaging perhaps 35 feet/second on the ground for the first 30 seconds), it is doubtful that mixing with ambient air accounted for a significant fraction of their volume. Therefore the dust clouds' expansion must have been primarily due to an expansion of building constituents.

Click to expand...

Hoffman makes no attempt whatsoever to justify this assertion. If we do not make this unwarranted assumption, then there is no anomaly to explain. Therefore, Hoffman's entire analysis is an exercise in starting from an unjustified premise and proceeding to an utterly absurd conclusion.

Since there is, then, no energy discrepancy to explain, there is of course no need to invoke fission to explain it.

Dave

Dakota1955 said:

In the wake of the 9/11 attack, up sprang a 9/11 “truth movement”. Back in 2003, its leading voice when it came to the energy surplus at “Ground Zero” was Jim Hoffman. Hoffman published an analysis of the energy requirements to have driven the expansion of the pyroclastic flow (what he termed a dust cloud) following the ‘collapse’ of the North Tower, and found it to be at least 10 times more than what the tower could have provided gravitationally, thus disproving and invalidating the government’s and media’s claims regarding the cause and “gravitational” nature of its destruction.

Despite the clarity and correctness (except for one large, energy-downplaying, assumption about the expansion ratio) of Hoffman’s analysis, ..... <snipped wall of stuff>

Click to expand...

My bolding.

Wrong. Even Hoffman abandoned his analysis, realising it contained monumental flaws. In his first pass he assumed all of the WTC concrete was reduced to 60micron average size when calculating the energy sink. Not only was this was way off, but any 'scientist' would have known so given the source material Hoffman used to arrive at the 60micron figure.

(edit: here I was writing about the 'water theory' but Dave Rogers has covered that.)

By the way, the full url that Dakota1955 refers to is http://www.datafilehost.com/download-6b653c65.html.

Dave

ETA: I see that a large part of the paper is directed towards physicists. Speaking as a physicist, I'd like to say that the whole thing is a load of complete crap that isn't worth the time it would take me to read it. I've spotted enough deliberate lies and outright fantasy in the first few pages to be certain that there is nothing of value in the remainder.

Dakota1955 said:

Good Morning,

Click to expand...

Good day, Dakota, and welcome to the JREF

Dakota1955 said:

...
My investigation is based on one premise and one premise only. That the perpetrators of 911 spent as much time, or more, planning reaction to public opinion as they did planning the very sophisticated event itself. I might suggest even more since it's my observation that the post-911 response was far more controlled than the actual event.

Click to expand...

Hmm.
Your base premise for 10 years of full time work has been a vague personal assessment?
Do you have any evidence to convince us that your premise is correct?
What happens if your premise would get falsified? Does that mean all your conclusions become invalid?

Dakota1955 said:

...
The 20th Century History Of Steven E. Jones

In 1989, from Utah, news broke in the mainstream media of an energy breakthrough that would change the world. It was called Cold Fusion. It was announced that scientists had discovered that it was possible for fusion to occur on a small, non-destructive scale, at room temperature. The long-standing promise of the nuclear power generating industry (“electricity too cheap to meter”) might finally be realized. Scientists were skeptical. Within months, a U.S. Department of Energy fusion expert authoritatively had denounced cold fusion as nothing more than bad science, a kind of fool’s gold. On behalf of the U.S. DoE, he basically insisted that the media had been taken in, and had reported the existence of something which was impossible, and that therefore there was nothing to the cold fusion story.

The name of that U.S. DoE scientist was Steven E. Jones.
...

Click to expand...

I must confess I am a little confused here.
Do I understand correctly: You say that Steven E. Jones is a DoE scientist who killed the 1980s scientific work into cold fusion?
Because in reality, Steven E. Jones is the Brigham Young professor who made the 1980s scientific work into cold fusion (along with Pons and Fleischmann)!

Can you clarify how Steven E. Jones is responsible for the denouncement of the Pons and Fleischmann results?

Dakota1955 said:

...
It is our opinion that this constitutes a pattern, a history, of deceit; of having falsely ruled out the possibility of fusion without fission, and Dr. Jones has been dishonest.

Click to expand...

Wait a second - guys (truthers) having been wrong or/and dishonest is proof in your book for a theory of 9/11 fission-induced demolishion??

Dakota1955 said:

I can be reached at 353 6045 in the 612 area code.

Peace

Click to expand...

This is probably not a good idea.

I know that anyone with even 5 seconds and google can then look up your personal information

http://www.whitepages.com/search/ReversePhone?site_id=10583&full_phone=612+353+6045+

which then gives people your name

and your addy.

You might want to edit that out in the interest of your own safety.

Would you care to provide an abbreviated commentary of what you personally believe happened on 9/11 along with the evidence required to substantiate your beliefs

I can provide the commentary

He is an IDIOT.......

Interesting, Dakota1955 wrote his (her?) first post in the Harrit-thread 12 days ago:

Dakota1955 said:

I would challenge anyone here to an intellectual discussion regarding the events surrounding 9/11.

I would ask only that you download the PDF at the link below and read first. You'll have to add the standard http and www and :// to the beginning of the link.

bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I can be emailed at j.prager@yahoo.com

Click to expand...

Two things are interesting here:
1. This first post seems to endorse the Harrit/Jones thernite paper; today's posts seem to denounce it.
2. Note the email-address, which points to someone by the name of J. Prager (Jeff Prager is the author on the PDF linked by Dakota1955 here), while today's phone number can be traced to an Angel Prybilla.

Sidney Wang: Very interesting theory, Mr. Charleston. However, leave out one important point.
Dick Charleston: What's that?
Sidney Wang: Is stupid! Is stupidest theory I ever heard!

Fission In NYC on 911

The paper linked by myself and another commenter above is available for all to read. Pages 21-42 are the proofs using the physics, chemistry and mathematics we all know provide accurate analysis. With the Product Momentum Correlation Coefficient of 0.9897 to 4 decimals or 0.99 to 2 decimals, fission is conclusive. Ternary fission is seen and Quaternary fission is likely.

I can't provide 'proof' in this forum space but I've done that for anyone that would care to access the data, again, linked above. The data is conclusive and inarguable.

In terms of my personal contact information, I have no fears. What should I fear? The phone number belonging to me is relatively new which is why it comes up with the name you've found. You're looking at old phone data. The phone number is mine, listed, I believe, in either my name or my girlfriends name, which is not the name you 'investigators' have found. Nevertheless, the only thing I think people might fear is the truth.

The truth is that the largest and most populated financial center in the US was irradiated and thermate is the Limited Hangout to prevent further investigation.

As for small nuclear devices, Davy Crockett and similar devices are 50 year-old technology. I would suggest that the advances since then have been rather dramatic. We now have nuclear hand grenades.

As for Jones, he's the carrier of the 'Limited Hangout' for the government. As per Victor Marchetti: "A 'limited hangout' is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering - some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."

The public is enamored with Thermate. However thermate is an efficient burner and burns all of its fuel in milliseconds to reach its maximum temperature and the fuel is then spent. The thermal equations dictate that many tons of an Energetic Compound would have been required to down the towers and that still leaves 2800 degree heat for over 90 days per AVIRIS data unaccounted for.

I came here with the best of intentions.

Perhaps before ridiculing me you should carefully review the physics, chemistry and mathematical analysis linked above. Fission in NYC is a fact.

Angel Prybilla must have had the number before my girlfriend and myself. The number is about 4 months old. We moved from a house we had owned for 20+ years to an apartment. We're retired and tired of shoveling snow, cutting the lawn, making repairs and replacing appliances.

The evidence to substantiate the beliefs covers 21 eight and a half by 17 inch pages. The best I can do is provide that link, pages 21-42 at the address here. This address does not include the http or the w's. I do not have enough comments to post links. "datafilehost.com/download-6b653c65.html"

Since the publication of the eBook, "Dust" the group I work with have decided that the increase in Vanadium and Zinc, substantial, actually astronomical proportions of the dust by weight and volume, is the result of numerous and very small advanced design nuclear devices. We will address this issue more conclusively in our next report.

By examining aerial images of Building 6, and others, the holes are indicative of rather small and as yet unseen by the public, nuclear devices. Technology advances behind closed doors. Small windows allow a little bit of the scene to emerge.

Dakota1955 said:

My investigation is based on one premise and one premise only. That the perpetrators of 911 spent as much time, or more, planning reaction to public opinion as they did planning the very sophisticated event itself.

Click to expand...

This is false. Your investigation includes many premises (and some hand-waving). For example, when you say:

But the logic behind that is based upon the 50 year old truth that a (radioactively dirty) fission reaction is needed to trigger a (relatively clean) fusion reaction. However there is little reason to believe that nuclear technology had not, as of 2001, advanced beyond that of the 1950s. Nevertheless, that seems to be the basis for Jones’ having told people that they can rule out all nuclear possibilities.

Click to expand...

In addition:

As of March 13, 2011, there have been 134 deaths among First Responders that can be attributed directly to Myeloma.

Click to expand...

Where is the backup for that assertion? I can find no mention of Myeloma in your paper whatsoever.

Goodie. A "nuker". Maybe we can have a tag team match between the nukers and the space beam folks. I'll bring popcorn.

The second and third parts of the report, "Dust" can be found here:

Part 2:

"datafilehost.com/download-c8691ffa.html"

Part 3:

"datafilehost.com/download-cd8f0ba4.html"

Pages 21-42 have been emailed to NIOSH based on a public request for data relative to the medical anomalies seen in Ground Zero First Responders. The closing date is March 30, 2011.

This subject will be debated for years. For example, the Millstone nuclear power plant has debated that their generating efforts are not related to Strontium 90 increases seen in children in Connecticut. Independent physicists have debated otherwise. The debate continues. Fission in NYC is a fact. The debate is only what caused it.

Call the Fealgood Foundation and request data on Myeloma and First Responder deaths.

I thought DEW's from space is a fact. Crap. I really need a scorecard.

I'm not here to argue this issue. I came to present the data, that's all. I don't have time to participate in arguments on this forum. I joined this forum a year ago and just watched patiently. There are good, intelligent and concerned people here. And there are people who don't want the truth. That's apparent. The data is available to this forum now. When our next report is completed I'll come back and post links. Anyone is welcome to contact me by phone for an intelligent discussion of these issues. Comment boxes are a difficult and cumbersome method of communication.

Dakota1955 said:

The paper linked by myself and another commenter above is available for all to read. Pages 21-42 are the proofs using the physics, chemistry and mathematics we all know provide accurate analysis. With the Product Momentum Correlation Coefficient of 0.9897 to 4 decimals or 0.99 to 2 decimals, fission is conclusive. Ternary fission is seen and Quaternary fission is likely.

Click to expand...

Whether fact or fiction, subterranean explosions clearly had nothing to do with collapses that initiated at upper floors, nor with a collapse that was survived by a group of firefighters inside one of the stairwells, nor with an event which neither vapourised nor even deafened people standing nearby. Underground fission explosions is such a patently absurd explanation that it doesn't even pass the hysterical laughter test, let alone the giggle test.

Dave

A 'nuker' No, just someone interested in exploring the facts.

Dakota1955 said:

I'm not here to argue this issue. I came to present the data, that's all. I don't have time to participate in arguments on this forum. I joined this forum a year ago and just watched patiently. There are good, intelligent and concerned people here. And there are people who don't want the truth. That's apparent. The data is available to this forum now. When our next report is completed I'll come back and post links. Anyone is welcome to contact me by phone for an intelligent discussion of these issues. Comment boxes are a difficult and cumbersome method of communication.

Click to expand...

Well, yes you must be very busy. So, when will you be presenting your research to the proper authorities?

Dakota1955 said:

Fission in NYC is a fact.

Click to expand...

No.

Dakota1955 said:

A 'nuker' No, just someone interested in exploring the facts.

Click to expand...

When you declare something as fact when it demonstrably is NOT so, you show that you are interested only in confirmation bias, not the facts.

twinstead said:

Goodie. A "nuker". Maybe we can have a tag team match between the nukers and the space beam folks. I'll bring popcorn.

Click to expand...

You'd have to lead them to the stadium,they'd never find it by themselves.

That's why the next report revises that theory to very small nuclear devices, many, we estimate 90 (both towers and Bldg 7), placed on every 3rd to 5th floor. We know fission occurred in NY Dave, we don't know what caused it. You can debate this all you care to. The debate isn't about fission, that's conclusive, the debate is about what caused it.

Dakota1955 said:

There are good, intelligent and concerned people here. And there are people who don't want the truth.

Click to expand...

Surprisingly, though, the latter pretend to be the former, and pretend the former are the latter. If you're interested in "exploring the truth", can I suggest that, rather than making some random selection from among the already discredited lies of the "truth" movement as to which ones you choose to believe uncritically and which to dismiss on the basis of no evidence whatsoever as government disinformation, you start from some basic observations about the 9/11 collapses, then formulate a theory that agrees with them? These would include the ones I mentioned in my previous post.

Dave

Dakota1955 said:

By examining aerial images of Building 6, and others, the holes are indicative of rather small and as yet unseen by the public, nuclear devices. Technology advances behind closed doors. Small windows allow a little bit of the scene to emerge.

Click to expand...

Ok, what was the isotope used to produce the reaction?

Dakota1955 said:

The evidence to substantiate the beliefs covers 21 eight and a half by 17 inch pages. The best I can do is provide that link, pages 21-42 at the address here. This address does not include the http or the w's. I do not have enough comments to post links. "datafilehost.com/download-6b653c65.html"

Since the publication of the eBook, "Dust" the group I work with have decided that the increase in Vanadium and Zinc, substantial, actually astronomical proportions of the dust by weight and volume, is the result of numerous and very small advanced design nuclear devices. We will address this issue more conclusively in our next report.

By examining aerial images of Building 6, and others, the holes are indicative of rather small and as yet unseen by the public, nuclear devices. Technology advances behind closed doors. Small windows allow a little bit of the scene to emerge.

Click to expand...

I have looked at your book; it is complete and utter rubbish full of lies, distortions and nonsensical fantasies.

Dakota1955 said:

That's why the next report revises that theory to very small nuclear devices, many, we estimate 90 (both towers and Bldg 7), placed on every 3rd to 5th floor. We know fission occurred in NY Dave, we don't know what caused it. You can debate this all you care to. The debate isn't about fission, that's conclusive, the debate is about what caused it.

Click to expand...

There's a little button at the bottom right marked "Quote" which is invaluable when replying to other people's posts.

No, there is no conclusive evidence that a fission event occurred in NY on 9/11. There is, however, a mountain of conclusive evidence that the collapses were not initiated by any type of explosive device.

Dave

From: jeff prager [mailto:j.prager@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 11:54 PM
To: NIOSH Docket Office (CDC)
Subject: docket number NIOSH- 227

You may submit comments, identified by docket number NIOSH- 227, by any of the following methods: Mail: NIOSH Docket Office, Robert A. Taft Laboratories, MS-C34, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 45226. Facsimile: (513) 533-8285. E-mail: nioshdocket@cdc.gov.

Document attached.

The attached document is part of a 3-part document posted to the internet on March 1st, 2011. The attached document is pages 21-42 of the larger 3-part document. For links to the larger document feel free to contact me.

Cordially,

Jeff Prager


I received this reply today:

From:
"NIOSH Docket Office (CDC)" <niocindocket@cdc.gov>
Add sender to Contacts
To:
"jeff prager" <j.prager@yahoo.com>

Mr. Prager—we are not able to print the attachment. It is too large for all of our paper. Could you please send a smaller version of it? Thank you.

Diane M. Miller
NIOSH Docket Officer
513/533-8450
dmm2@cdc.gov



I am working now to accommodate that need before 5pm today by repaginating the PDF into 8.5 x 11 pages from 11 x 17 pages. I have about 25 done thus far, several more to go and will resend the document.

Perhaps I was wrong about this group. This seems to be the case.

The use of the term "truther" is indicative of the mentality here. I misjudged this forum. Forgive me for interrupting your dialogue.

Peace

My relatives live within 2 miles of GZ.

None of them show any symptoms of evidence of any radialogical exposure.

I myself, was down at GZ a few weeks after 9-11, and one week after 9-11.

I got bronchitis from my exposure to the dust, but no radiation poisoning.

I know several guys who for for the NYC DDC, who surveyed the GZ area for approx. 9 months. They all have elevated levels of certain heavy metals in their blood, but NO radiation poisoning.

To conclude, this thread is bunk. Pure bunk.