Nuke Cancer from 9/11 Revealed

a reply to: SMOKINGGUN2012

www.youtube.com...=215s

The M388 has a 3,000 meter range, and the fireball of the 2 kiloton device is less than 50 meters across. This is less than the width of each of the WTC towers which were 208 ft square (63.4 m square)

The business end of the M388 nuclear weapon system is the W-54 micro-nuke device. These have 4 inch pits at the centre and Americium builds up in them over time.

So, by 1978 those units manufactured in 1963 or earlier, were taken out of inventory to be reprocessed. Apparently in the 1980s under George Bush 1st, at the Dimona nuclear weapons facility in Israel.

Israel got hold of 350 of these pits along with their two point compressors, and retooled them to produce a vry low fission low yield thermonuclear device, using Lithium-6 and Deuterium, as the primary energy source, with a 2 kT to 3 kT yield.

This sort of low yield, low radiation device was sought after as a means of interplanetary propulsion in the 1950s and 60s, under Project Orion

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

So, a lot of the work was done at that time for Israel.

The most secret, and for our purposes, the most interesting feature of this sort of low yield device is the ability to create a directed nuclear blast in a portable device.

Here's an atom bomb propelled vehicle with its 'pusher plate'

en.wikipedia.org.../FilerojectOrionConfiguration.png

Here's a 'pulse unit' with the nuclear device inside of a container that directs the blast against the pusher plate efficiently. This produces a beam of intensely powerful subatomic particles.

upload.wikimedia.org...

The heart of the device is a modified W-54 pit, reduced in volume, cleared of its accumulated Americium. This pit is surrounded by a Lithium-6 Deuteride shell within a Beryllium neutron reflector. This arrangement radically reduces the amount of fissile material needed.

The plutonium 'pit' is about 4 inches (10 cm) in diameter and the entire device, with Beryllium tamp, 11 inches (28 cm) in diameter. The entire assembly weighs 51 lbs (23.2 kg).

www.maxkeiseronfacebook.com...

So, we're talking about a cylindrical device that's 11 inches (28 cm) in diameter and 22 inches (56 cm) tall that masses about 88 lbs (40.0 kg).

When detonated, the mini-nuke contemplated when placed at the centre of the basement and pointed upward, produces an intense burst of alpha particles that are directed upward long the length of the tower, vaporizing the core columns. The nuclear fireball, which would be contained inside the tower even when using a conventional design, would be far smaller with this directed energy design, so in this way, we hollow out the interior of the building.

Is there evidence that a nuclear device was used on 9/11?

Yes, tritium, barium and strontium were found on the site, and there was evidence that rock was melted by a tiny nuclear fireball.

www.youtube.com...=32m50s

By the way, there is also evidence that the planes were inserted in the video feeds during 9/11,.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

So, this is a very carefully engineered psyop that had many months and years of planning dedicated to it.

originally posted by: _damon
a reply to: SMOKINGGUN2012

Easy enough to decide which it is. Just get a geiger counter and check a few places in NY near ground zero...

Just as the EPA did not test the air quality yet the head of the Agency proclaimed that the air was just fine and fit to breath, apparently nobody did any testing for radiation. Maybe on purpose?

USGS did gather some samples in 35 different locations within 1km radius of WTC, and some of those samples showed Thorium at 6 times the lowest levels detected, so there is a case for some sort of nuclear event.

a reply to: Salander

samples showed Thorium at 6 times the lowest levels detected, so there is a case for some sort of nuclear event.

You didn't think to research the topic did you.
You come to a conclusion that fits your beliefs.

A quick google search came up with this.

Radioactive materials in sandstone, concrete, brick, natural stone, gypsum, and granite contain naturally-occurring radioactive elements like radium, uranium, and thorium.

a reply to: WilliamMook

if there was a nuclear device used, cars, first responders, equipment, people at ground zero would be crapped up with contamination. Contamination spread to ambulances, fire trucks, restaurants, emergency rooms, people's homes, firehouses, police stations.....

Please cite the evidence of contamination higher than background radiation, and that contamination was present, and why it was not detectable on first responders, 9/11 victims, and at emergency rooms. Or the morgue.

And if a nuclear device was used, there would have been same day deaths do to radiation poisoning and burns.

a reply to: Salander

Nuclear detonations create radiation levels above historic and documented radiation background levels. Cite were there is proof the radiation at the WTC was above background or abnormal. Or cite where there was detectable contamination above the natural radiation levels of building materials.

a reply to: samkent

And wouldn't a nuclear device detonation cause notable radio static and noise in video broadcasts from the WTC?

Bottom line, it is not what radioactive elements are present. Trace amounts of uranium are in many natural materials. Thus, radioactive decay products of uranium are also in many items. To prove cancer was caused by radiation at an abnormal rate, you need to show there was radiation above background radiation. Or show the WTC had a dangerous level of radiation and contamination. It's not the presence of radioactive isotopes, its the level of radiation that causes cancer. And cancer is anything that causes abnormal cell growth.

And it's not that certain radioactive isotopes are present. You must show that they are out of proportion in reference to other radioactive isotopes for a given sample to prove a nuclear device was detonated.

A normal sample of normal dirt might have 5 items of x isotopes and 20 items of y isotopes. Dirt found at a nuclear detonation site might have 100 items of x isotopes and 25 items of y isotopes.....

So the ratio of radioactive isotopes is also important of a given sample.

The head of the EPA lied when she said the air was clean, and she had not even taken air samples. It is easy to imagine how she and her fellow feds might lie about radiation levels, and not even take measurements. Very easy, as it's a pattern of behavior.

Above, the "Davy Crockett" mini-nuke was brought up. The thing about nuclear weapons is that they don't just create radioactive fall-out. The disintegration of the critical mass - which is what releases all that incredible explosive energy - also creates a burst of radiation, which (inverse square law applies) will instantly kill anyone within a certain radius who isn't already hiding behind 2m of solid lead. There's no ifs or buts about this, it will kill you stone dead in a moment.

For the Davy Crockett, this radius of fatality was an estimated 500 yards.

So, is there any record of everyone within a 500-yard radius of the initial WTC explosions simply dropping dead on the spot? I ask the question, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer already.

a reply to: audubon


Advances were made in nuclear science, research and development. Tax dollars were used to fund those advances, through R&D.

The weapons of 2000 were far superior to the weapons of WWII, more sophisticated.

But the existence of the Davey Crockett shows that refinement and miniaturization of nuclear weapons was very much a goal of the DoD.

a reply to: Salander

No amount of advances in R&D can change the fact that if you cause a critical mass disintegration, you will create a burst of radiation that will be deadly within a certain radius.

That's like saying that it's possible to burst a water balloon above your unprotected head and remain bone dry. A water balloon will always release water and a nuclear explosion will always release a burst of radiation. Any other claim is an oxymoron.

The Davy Crockett was (according to the very basic reading I've just done) at the lowermost end of the possibilities for nuclear 'yield' - i.e., it was not technically possible to create a smaller critical mass and still get an explosion.

The TL;DR version of which is: "Ye cannae change the laws of physics!"

a reply to: audubon


Do you want me to believe that nuclear technology did not advance between 1945 and 2000?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: audubon


Do you want me to believe that nuclear technology did not advance between 1945 and 2000?

No. But I hope you believe that the laws of physics did not change between 1945 and 2000.

a reply to: audubon


I never said they did.

But it's interesting to note that in order for the official story to be true, the laws of physics would have to be suspended.

If by "interesting" you mean "completely stupid", then I agree with you.

a reply to: audubon


Good retort, but poor analysis.

The 911 Commission and the NIST report from the government are only cover-up, and do not comply with good science, meaning the laws of physics.

Why should I believe a story that does not comply with science?

Given your belief that R&D can somehow change the laws of physics, the question is really "why should I believe you have a sound enough grasp of science to make your criticism valid?"

the twin towers were full of asbestos!
that gives you Asbestosis Disease, Lungs!

It would have cost them 10's Millions to clean the buildings of it.
More money He made!

One Very destinked thing about a Nuc is Electromagnetic pulse!
the police fire and ambulance radios would not work.
at the very least the radios would squeal.
And all the TV cameras.

or have they made a Nuc with no EMP?