Part 1 of 4: Were Nuclear Reactors the Cause of the WTC Destruction?

Part 1 of 4: Were Nuclear Reactors the Cause of the WTC Destruction?

By Barry Ball, Barbara Ellis, and Russ Hallberg

WTC Research  Legislative Alliance

Perhaps it was the boiling clouds—black, grey, white, and especially “nuclear brown”—surrounding the World Trade Center’s 110-story North and South Towers (WTC 1, 2) that made the world conclude the two hijacked airliners crashing into the buildings on September 11, 2001 had dropped nuclear bombs in elevator shafts. After all, the dreaded “stem-and-mushroom” cloud was rising from WTC 1 looking remarkably like a South Pacific atom-bomb test. How could they not, especially those familiar with media visuals of tests since 1946? Or those aware of a volcano’s powerful energy fields disgorging lava, pyroclastic flows, and lahars? [i]

The principal advocate for the theory that reactors were the primary causal agent that ultimately destroyed all seven WTC buildings is William Tahil, a British aerospace/technological consultant. He is the author of Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Centre. He contends that 9/11 not only was the first nuclear attack against the United States, but “the world’s first nuclear controlled demolition.” [ii]

Tahil argues that signatures of a reactor were plentiful, beyond just brown clouds of dust and the curious application of the 1946 term “Ground Zero,” to the WTC. Its dictionary definition is the geographical point of a nuclear explosion.

As evidence, he cites radioactive fallout found by the U.S. Geological Survey in samples from 35 sites surrounding the WTC for nearly a mile. Other signs were the speed of the Towers disintegrations (8 to 10 seconds), the shock and blast waves, the pyroclastic main cloud, base-surges of street-level dust clouds, electromagnetic pulses (EMPs), upwellings of clouds from street gratings blocks away, the 2,800ºF heat under the WTC debris, and, possibly, the giveaway light-blue Cerenkov Radiation when the debris “pile” was cleared in mid-March. Add to all these signs, the molten metal in the footprints of WTC 1, 2, and 7 that for three months could not be extinguished by water or daily soil changes as it consumed concrete, steel, glass, office combustibles. The increasing incidence of radiation-only cancers from residents is another tell-tale sign of a nuclear “event.”

In short, reactors would seem to merit as much consideration as a causal theory to be investigated as any of the others suggested since September 11, 2001.

Introduction

Consideration of a nuclear reactor usually summons up colossal size as at, say, Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island. But just as yesteryear’s atomic bomb has been reduced to a pellet with a 5-millimeter diameter, reactors in a nuclear submarine have shrunk to 38’ x 33’ dimensions and are probably getting smaller. The latest non-military reactors are to be 6’ x 20’ sized, portable, self-contained energy-producing plants made by Toshiba, ostensibly for industrial and municipal use. Hyperion Power Generation’s underground model is starting production of 4,000 units for a 2013 delivery date and promises buyers they can return fuel cores for refills. [iii]

But military history demonstrates that weapons systems usually are operational at least a decade before being made public—particularly anything nuclear because of very real “fission fears.” People may have forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but perhaps not reactor “events” spewing radiation from the power plant at Russia’s Chernobyl which made the surrounding area uninhabitable. Or Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island “accident” (a partial meltdown). Less publicized significant “events” have happened at South Carolina’s reactor at Aiken, Alabama’s Brown’s Ferry, and Britain’s Windscale. One source noted that “more than 26,000 mishaps have occurred at U.S. reactors” from 1979-88 alone, 35% of which were never reported presumably because it would harm the public image of the nuclear-power industry. [iv]

Bringing Reactors Into the WTC

Even though reactors have been miniaturized, how could two of them have been installed under WTC 1 and 2, especially if security was intensified after the 1993 bombing in the North Tower? Tahil postulates they were secretly provided for WTC electrical energy prior to 1993.

Building owners and landlords know that no high-rise structure is entirely immune from those bent on terrorism (e.g., anthrax in ventilation systems). The North Tower had a history of people slipping past security guards. For example, in August 1974, France’s celebrated high-wire walker Phillipe Petit performed a 45-minute illegal, yet breathtaking, act crossing eight times from the North to the South Tower’s 110th floors. A friendly tenant had permitted him to store equipment and his team, all brought up in van on a freight elevator. And in February 1993, a van full of terrorists and urea nitrate got past North Tower basement guards and left six dead, 1,000 injured, and $500 million in repairs to five basement levels. [v]

Security was supposedly tightened in 1996 when the Port Authority hired Securacom. Its chief executive officer was President Bush’s cousin; his brother Marvin Bush was on its board. They did install cameras everywhere and added personnel. Vehicles, especially delivery vans, underwent minute examinations by staff and bomb-sniffing dogs. ID tags were required for tenants, clients, and sightseers, and turnstiles slowed down lobby traffic. Nevertheless, in January 1998 a Mafia-type team used “maintenance access” to grab over $1.6 million from a Brink’s crew about to enter the Bank of America on the North Tower’s 11th floor. One robber had worked at the WTC for 20 years and used his ID card to get their briefcases full of ski masks and guns past Securacom guards. [vi]

The Towers also always had high vacancy rates—15% after their doors opened (WTC 1: 1970; WTC 2: 1972)—despite proximity to the New York Stock Exchange and global financial institutions. Empty floors and offices are ideal hiding places for those bent on destruction. On September 11, 2001, WTC 1 had 16 empty floors; WTC 2 had eight. No count of empty offices has been issued. [vii]

WTC 7’s owner Larry Silverstein had almost no tenants in 1986 when that building was scheduled to open. He was rescued at the eleventh hour by a financier who later went to prison. But by that time, it was filled with federal agencies—SEC, IRS, Secret Service, FBI, etc.—retaining them up to 9/11 by attractive rent discounts. So dire was the situation in the Towers by 1996, however, that the Port Authority eagerly agreed to provide five empty floors in WTC 1 (8, 35, 85, 91, 92) as rent-free studios for artists and sculptors. They were supposedly vetted by the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council’s World View Project. [viii]

True, the Towers were sightseeing icons, but internally and externally, they creaked and were rotting with age. Externally, the aluminum cladding was corroding and needed replacement before sections fell to the sidewalks and killed passersby. And aside from plumbing and wiring needs, the owners—the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey—kept postponing asbestos abatement while petitioning the city for demolition permits. In turn, the city complained the Port was still getting tax abatements on the Towers since their 1966 groundbreaking. Tenants complained about the “closely spaced, poorly-lit floors,” and when their iron-clad leases expired, many fled to more attractive space nearby. Undoubtedly, many more departed when Silverstein became WTC landlord on July 24, 2001 and promptly raised rents by 40%. [ix]

On September 11, WTC 1, 2, and 7 apparently contained 27 empty floors and an unreported number of vacant offices. Because most tenants and visitors in shabby buildings rarely give others a second glance, the perpetrators had an array of possible disguises: workmen, maintenance and restaurant personnel, the well-dressed feigning interest in renting offices or in visiting tenant allies. Or posing as “artists-in-residence” in jeans and sandals, lugging easels and equipment boxes and chattering in a foreign tongue. One victim’s brother recalled his saying in the months before 9/11, that several “foreign-looking” men were frequenting the communication center on the 110th floor of WTC 1 to make international calls in a foreign language. That witness was unusual. Most rarely give other in elevators or halls a second glance. [x]

But in late July 2001, when Silverstein’s $3.2 billion bid for the WTC leases made him the landlord, abrupt changes began. [xi]

He dispensed with the Port’s interim security system between September 1 and 7, 2001 “to let [Silverstein Properties] more fully operate everything from safety systems to tenant relations.” Yet it would have been impossible for his people to master that vast assignment, let alone monitor the thousands passing through Tower lobbies by September 11. Kroll Associates then took over security

hiring the FBI’s deputy director John O’Neill on August 23. His forte was field assignments, however, not supervising building security. [xii]

In that interim between July 24 and September 10, tenants may have been asked to temporarily shift quarters for “repairs” or “upgradings” of utilities. Those above the Towers’ 48th floors were notified three weeks before 9/11 that a powerdown to recable for expanded broadband was scheduled for the weekend of September 8-9. That meant no electricity on those floors, nor elevator service—or surveillance cameras—again, ideal working conditions for 9/11 perpetrators.[xiii]

An additional troubling sidelight was that at that time, one of the world’s leading demolition experts, Mark Loizeaux, admitted he was in WTC 7’s Emergency Management Agency on the 23rd floor when Silverstein became the Port’s landlord. His company had demolished 7,000 buildings, including Detroit’s Hudson Department Store. He was fully knowledgeable about the complex (“I did a report on the World Trade Center when I was at college and I knew exactly how it was built”). [xiv]

As Tahil views it, if Loizeaux were in Silverstein Properties offices in WTC 1 to discuss demolition of one of the company’s other properties, that was one thing. But it was quite another to be in Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s command bunker for the city’s security. In fairness, the session could have involved notification that Silverstein was preparing the aging, asbestos-laden white elephants for demolition and to make another plea for the city to issue the permits. Giuliani’s security people would need to be alerted. [xv]

The latter case seems quite possible because after seeing the WTC 2 hit and jet fuel pouring down its sides, Loizeaux did not contact officials about fire and aircraft crashes. Instead, he “called a couple of people on the National Research Council Committee involved in assessing the impact of explosives.” That does seem to indicate demolition rigging was already in place. [xvi]

Tahil points to yet another angle to Loizeaux’s visit:

“It is clear that anyone intent on carrying out an illegal or clandestine controlled demolition of a building would require the advice of an expert on how to do it. The best way to obtain that advice would be under a pretext of some sort, such as security planning.”[xvii]

Placement of Reactors

He posits that the 1993 bombing may have been an attempt to flatten the Center “by destroying the coolant system for the nuclear reactors further below,” indicating the Port had secretly installed them to provide cheap power for the Center—and for neighboring buildings. The possibility exists that the City Council had winked at the installation instead of announcing hearings and drawing the fury of demonstrators. It is equally possible that two state-of-the-art reactors may have been installed in mid-summer 2001 for this deed. [xviii]

Tahil’s thinking is that the WTC’s outsized chiller may have been doing double-duty by drawing water from the Hudson River for the Center’s air-conditioning and for a coolant vital to a pair of light-water reactors as well. Located between WTC 1 and 3 and catercorner to WTC 2, the chiller occupied considerable space from Basement Levels 3 to 5. Its refrigerant plant and pipes were on B-6, resting on the concrete floor slabs of the WTC’s “bathtub.” The “bathtub” prevented the Hudson from flooding Lower Manhattan’s subterranean “city” of shopping concourse, subway, and basements of other buildings. [xix]

The Chiller’s Possible Role

The chiller’s water-cooling capacity was 54,000 tons, but even in the hottest weather, Tahil estimated that the WTC used only about 29,000 tons. After the 1993 bombing damaged the chiller, the Port Authority quickly installed a temporary replacement with a 21,000-ton capacity. Because the substitute apparently was never hauled away after repairs to the main chiller, that would mean 50,000 tons of water-cooling capacity either was sitting idle or furnishing nuclear power to neighbors grateful for the savings on utility bills. [xx]

Aerial photographs seem to bear out his supposition because “upwellings” of steam were pouring out of street gratings two and three blocks south of the WTC. As he commented about them:

“These upwellings are some distance from the WTC itself. Assuming there was an extensive underground facility or small city under Manhattan, there would have been a certain number of air vents and other exits to the surface. …[T]he force of the [nuclear] blast would have also been channelled through the underground corridors and hollow spaces, forcing dust and debris up into the atmosphere through these exits.” [xxi]

If Tahil’s chiller thesis proves wrong, it does not rule out the possibility that in late summer, state-of-the-art reactors were secretly placed directly under WTC 1 and 2 atop the concrete floor slabs bracing the deeper of the bathtub’s two huge (80’ deep by 520’ x 980’) three-foot thick, slurry-styled concrete walls. A set of reactors, of course, would require a concrete containment structure with working space for operators. [xxii]

The bathtub’s construction supervisor George Temaro has said the chiller had two steel “cooling water” intake pipelines with six-foot diameters to siphon water from the Hudson River and two discharge lines. Reactor cores require a coolant circulating around the core vessel containing the bundles of nuclear fuel to prevent overheating. A pipeline to carry water to the reactors could have been easily inserted within those intake lines. Intentional exposure of the core and instant volcanic eruption of the radioactive fuel would require only shutting off the coolant line. [xxiii]

Further, like the Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island reactors, those at the WTC would have rested on concrete—in this case, the bathtub’s concrete-slab flooring. Yet the slabs were intact after the destruction. As Tahil explained:

“[A reactor] is designed in the first place not to explode. If it does go supercritical, the explosion that is produced will probably not involve all the fissile material and not at once. There will also still be moderator material (graphite, etc.) in the core and the geometry of the fuel is not, of course, optimised for explosive effect.

“The best guide to what can happen is what occurred at Chernobyl, when the core meltdown blew off the 2,000 tonne lid from Reactor No. 4 and devastated the plant, but did not flatten the area for miles around. What was left was an open mass of fissile material undergoing a nuclear fission chain reaction relatively slowly, but still generating intense volcanic quantities of heat.” [xxiv]

He thinks that secondary causal agents—cutting charges, perhaps of the thermite variety—were applied in advance to the steel beams in both Towers. He leaves the destruction of the Center’s five remaining buildings to other causal theories involving either nuclear bombs or high-yield explosives common to demolishing large structures—office buildings to casinos. A pair of Loizeaux’s shoptalk interviews furnished a post-9/11 hypothetical about the Towers in particular and about his company’s strategies in general:

“If I were to bring the Towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.” [xxv]

“We tend to look for a shattering explosive because we want to instantaneously remove the structural integrity of whatever we’re working on. So we would opt for nitroglycerin or NG-based dynamite. With a steel structure, we use something called a linear-shaped charge that concentrates the force of a high explosive called RDX. For example, it took 80 pounds of shaped charge to bring down two New York gas tanks built with 5 million pounds of steel.” [xxvi]

The nine-story WTC 5 suffered two gigantic holes that went straight through to the bottom-level basement. The hole in the eight-story WTC was 100 feet in diameter—and also dropped to the bottom basement. The nine-story WTC 4’s south wing was cleanly separated from the north wing which was flattened. Under the demolished wing was an equally large crater three stories deep. All the holes were strong indicators that explosions did hollow out basements for rubble. The slim 22-story WTC 3 (the Marriott hotel) had no holes, but WTC 2’s falling debris carved a “V” from roof to the third floor. [xxvii]

The WTC 7’s late-afternoon destruction (5:20) took only 6.5 seconds to fall almost exactly into its footprint. Seismic and videographic evidence—plus a major witness’s statement—strongly indicate the basements also were hollowed out by a shattering morning explosion concealed by the destructive noises and sights of WTC 2 disintegrating. It was followed by a far more powerful explosion—seismically recorded—after owner Larry Silverstein gave orders to “pull it,” a demolition term he knew well from a lifetime spent in real estate. Loizeaux had said any demolition had to be planned to the last millisecond (“the right explosive, the right pattern of laying the charges….”). So it is unlikely in the time between Silverstein’s order and the split-second collapse, that WTC 7 could have been rigged within hours for what has been called by experts a “perfect” controlled demolition. [xxviii]

If that were so on a seemingly sound, 15-year-old building, it is difficult not to extrapolate that the same fate probably awaited the Towers.

How Reactors Could Have Been Used

Reactors usually are classified into four types—with subclasses—based on coolant systems: light water, heavy water, graphite-moderated, and fast-breeder. Perhaps because the WTC had access to Hudson River water as a coolant, Tahil deduced the agents were thermal light-water types, but has not ruled out the popular fast-breeder type. It is smaller than ordinary reactors, but its coolant is liquid sodium and uses a fuel mix of plutonium dioxide and uranium dioxide. Uranium “breeds” additional plutonium to produce energy. However, river water was at hand and the security force might question constant deliveries of these products. [xxix]

Because of heavy amounts of zinc found by USGS in the dust, Tahil adds a key caveat that a secondary weapon requiring that element, possibly with a coating of an additional radioactive element (zinc 65 isotope) might have been used in the coolant:

“If the zinc was indeed a fission product, the device that produced it must have been specifically engineered to produce it: The reactor must have been specially set up or an even more exotic device consisting of hundreds of tonnes of fissile material was designed. This device then produced mostly neutrons and enhanced radiation fallout with a relatively small blast in comparison with the mass of fissile material present.

“We may well be looking at the signature of a very “advanced” nuclear device or a reactor carefully set up to produce maximum radiation damage.” [xxx]

Whatever the reactor type was, they have the commonality of a core containing bundled fuel pellets of nuclear ingredients that collide, divide and set up a chain reaction creating enormous amounts of energy via such fissioning.

The fuel setting off this chain-reaction must be tightly controlled in that core chamber by rods and moderator material (water, heavy water, or graphite) and cooled to prevent a volcanic, chain-reaction explosion. That would spew fission products (radiation) into the atmosphere and, wherever they land. to contaminate all living things for half-lives of centuries. [xxxi]

Simultaneously, if temperatures reach the 5,000ºF level in the containment building, everything in it “melts down” into “nuclear lava” and radiation-loaded dust. That explains why containment buildings are usually made of concrete—even today for Chernobyl No. 4’s slowly disintegrating sarcophagus. [xxxii]

Explosions Clear Basements for Rubble

Seismic evidence and witness statements indicate that high-yield explosives were used in basements of all buildings except the Marriott that morning to clear space for their remains. The Towers’ detonation and impact times were seconds apart, as Richter-scale data in the endnotes show. [xxxiii]

Now, WTC 7 was never hit by aircraft and has become NIST’s nightmare in attempting to explain its destruction. According to city official Barry Jennings, trapped in WTC 7 shortly after the aircraft impacts, a significant explosion took out the sixth-floor landing and staircase below him. When he looked out a window, only WTC 1 was still standing. While awaiting firefighters to locate him, he heard several other explosions in WTC 7. So did at least one First Responder. By the time Jennings was led down into the lobby by a firefighter,

the walls had collapsed and they were stepping over bodies. [xxxiv]

The WTC 1 lobby also was a wreck, according to a firefighter whose unit arrived two minutes after one aircraft’s impact: glass from windows and revolving doors blown onto West Street, 10-foot marble panels hanging off walls, elevators for Basement Levels 1-6 to Floor 30 with doors blown off hinges, and two fire-blackened people dying in that lobby. It is difficult to believe that a hit between the 94th-98th floors was responsible for that kind of damage to the lobby unless the aircraft had dropped a bomb into elevator shafts. One firefighter never forgot the scene:

“There was elevator doors ajar. There were elevator doors missing. I could see an elevator car twisted in the shaft….there was a bunch of rubble on the floor…about three feet high in the middle. The ceiling wasn’t charred. So I had thought the floor blew up….I came to learn that that was bodies. We had to climb over and around this pile.” [xxxv]

The bodies in both lobbies, obviously retrieved from fire-blistered elevator cars, seem to indicate they were sacrificed by explosives under the shafts to clear basements for rubble. If this supposition proves correct, explosives for WTC 1 and 2 had to be above the bathtubs, but for WTC 7 no such delicate placement was necessary. Evidently, the perpetrators believed the public would think it collapsed either from Tower vibrations or fire from WTC 1’s falling debris.

Other evidence of reactors involves 50-ton exterior column beams flung upward from Towers basements to pierce buildings such as the Deutsche Bank across from WTC 2 (15th floor), the American Express (17th-19th) and Verizon buildings across from WTC 1’s two sides. Down in WTC 5’s basements, a firefighter reported “one guy had an “I” beam on him.” It could have been hurled either from WTC 1 or 7. A First Responder said he even saw a police cruiser destroyed by “an ‘I’ beam.” [xxxvi]

Seismic Evidence of Aircraft Hits, Bombs, and Reactors

Timing between aircraft impacts and explosions had to be of the split-second variety to conceal basement detonations in the three skyscrapers. Seismographic data from the Palisade station across the Hudson River shows that seemed to have happened:

Palisade Event Richter

Time Time Event Reading

8:46:26 8:45-46 WTC 1 hit 0.9

9:02:54 9:03 WTC 2 hit 0.7 [xxxvii]

The time frame between aircraft impacts and destruction of WTC 1 and 2 was 8:46-10:28 a.m. (1:40 hours) and 9:03-9:59 a.m. (57 minutes), respectively.

Seismologists point out that Richter readings always come from Earth’s movements or explosives coupled to the ground, not from plane impacts on buildings or falling debris. Earthquakes rumble up to a climax and then decrease, but a sudden spike denotes a ground-planted explosive device. A look at charts in the endnotes from the Palisades station across the Hudson River shows sharp spikes of short duration, a hallmark for detecting any underground explosions whether from nearby quarry blasts or faraway nuclear testing. [xxxviii]

The six spikes—five that morning, one that afternoon—were startling and revealing. The temblors ranged from a magnitude of 0.7 to 2.3. Those listed as “unknown events” may have been explosions at WTC 4, 5, and 6. The times, events, and Richter-scale readings—including those for WTC 7—were:

Palisade Event Richter

Time Time Event Reading

8:46:26 am 8:45-46 am WTC 1 hit 0.9

9:02:54 am 9:03 am WTC 2 hit 0.7

9:59:04 am 9:59 am WTC 2 destroyed

[WTC 7 explosion?]2.1

10:28:31 am 10:28 am WTC 1 destroyed 2.3

11:15:04 am Unknown Near 1.0*

5:20:33 pm 5:20 pm WTC 7 collapse Near 2.3*

____________________________

*Not given, but reflected in the endnote’s seismic charts. [xxxix]

One Palisades seismologist interpreted the low readings on the first two aircraft impacts against the Towers:

“Since the main collapses, a major concern has been if strong shaking affected the structural stability of nearby buildings. [But] earthquakes of ML 2.3 are not known to cause any structural damage in buildings….” [xl]

A major clarification about Richter readings was added:

It is well known in seismology that Impact Sources produce Low Frequency Waves while Explosive Sources produce High Frequency Waves. The Seismic Waves produced during the WTC collapse were High Frequency Waves—again indicating that they could not have been produced by the impact of rubble on the surface, but rather by an impulsive explosive source.” [xli]

After the aircraft impacts, nearly an hour went by before WTC 2’s destruction. In Tahil’s interpretation of the seismic evidence, the perpetrators’ tactic seemed to be that exposing the reactor’s core and subsequent dramatic action of the disintegration would cover simultaneous detonations of secondary explosives to destroy three of the smaller WTC buildings. If so, they were extraordinarily successful. Even WTC 7’s spectacular collapse was barely mentioned by the media because of the distractive chaos across the street at the WTC. Millions still seem unaware that this third skyscraper, 47-stories high, was destroyed—and not by aircraft, but on orders of owner Larry Silverstein.

Essentially, Tahil’s reactor theory involves the perpetrators shutting off the coolant for a partial meltdown, using the Towers’ central steel cores as a “chimney” for vaporizing them within 8 and 10 seconds. He notes a reactor can go out of control within 30 milliseconds before its volcanic eruption of radiation. Thus, both Towers, in turn,

“…exploded violently and ejected pulverised concrete and rubble in all directions, followed by a pyroclastic flow of hot dust following the same pattern as the base surge of an underground nuclear explosion…. [A]n estimated 90,000 [sic] tonnes of concrete in each tower was literally pulverised into dust, sand or grit-sized particles—an absolutely unprecedented event.

“This indicates that the forces on the concrete were so high, they exceeded its tensile strength…. by a factor of 300 or more…. and literally tore it apart.” [xlii]

In other words, the nuclear “event” began with exposing the reactors’ cores, followed by the violent upward thrust of the nuclear fuel—150 feet per second. Its white-hot heat shot upward vaporizing the Towers’ interiors of concrete, steel, glass, combustibles—and people—into dust. Blowing to the top and out into the atmosphere, the tremendous energy flung its steaming load of vaporized materials skyward to become multi-colored pyroclastic clouds of dust and radioactive fuel. But the eruption’s energy, like volcanic lava and pyroclastic flows, sped downward vaporizing the buildings’ exteriors. Only mountains of flying paper and corroded aluminum cladding escaped. [xliii]

To at least three firefighters, the vaporization process was a stopper:

“I looked up, and it appeared as if the North Tower—it almost appeared to be liquefied. The very top of it began to cascade out and down, almost in a rolling motion.[xliv]

“I happened to be looking up at [the Tower], and from the fire floor down, it was just like a really loud crackling noise. It sounded like a million firecrackers, and just a wave, right from the fire floor down. Just a wave that started to come down.” [xlv]

“…I heard the rumble within a couple of seconds, and then I saw the brown, thick, malted-milk dust cloud and smoke and whatever else coming down. It was rolling down with a roar like you couldn’t believe.” [xlvi]

Then, a natural phenomenon burst on the apocalyptic scene. A pair of hurricanes 300 miles off in the Atlantic Ocean—Erin (Class 3) boosted from the south by Gabrielle (tropical depression)—acted as vacuum cleaners to inhale the dust-packed clouds and exhale them off Greenland. It was a coincidence almost too extraordinary to be believed by some. They believe that weather manipulation has been achieved by the U.S. military from an Alaskan base, despite a United Nations 1976 resolution forbidding the major powers from using such weapons. [xlvii]

Military-directed hurricanes or not, the explosive events happening in Lower Manhattan made Erin’s Class 3 status largely unknown except for those in its path off East Bermuda and crews from the National Hurricane Center. Erin lingered only for 9/11 and then was buffeted east by the cool, cleansing winds from Canada and Gabrielle’s swift push north from the Gulf and Florida. The two storms thus prevented air stagnation over New York City that could have exposed millions to radiation. The scale of a subsequent cancer epidemic would have left no doubt about nuclear devices destroying the Center. [xlviii]

Fallout (Uranium, Strontium, Barium, Zinc, and More) Detected by USGS

Measurements of chemical and mineralogical elements in dust samples gathered in and around Ground Zero were initiated by the U.S. Geological Survey six days after 9/11. Its airborne team photographed the thermal hotspots. Both missions used state-of-the-art equipment and agency facilities. [xlix]

The ground team gathered samples during the evenings of September 17-18 from 35 sites in Lower Manhattan within a mile of the WTC’s circumference. Two were indoors samples, two from beams. Samples were taken from undisturbed places: window ledges, windshields, flower pots, and protected areas in entryways and stairs. Indoor samples came from a gymnasium and a 30th floor apartment. Tests revealed 42 elements. [l]

Though a September 14 downpour might have had mitigating effects on ground-sample results, USGS researchers also mixed water with some particles for a second test (leaching). Aerial images revealed the expected high level of asbestos, but the agency’s report on both analyses was artfully crafted apparently not to alarm the public about nuclear evidence. It said that ground dust

“…although quite variable, reflects the chemical contributions of materials used in building construction or found in buildings, such as glass fibers, concrete, gypsum wallboard, steel girders, wiring, ductwork, electronics, computers, paper, and many others.

“The mean concentrations of some heavy metals in the WTC dust samples (such as antimony, molybdenum, zinc, copper, lead, chromium, manganese, nickel, and barium) are relatively high compared to their mean concentrations in natural soils from the eastern United States.” [li]

It was the particles of barium, zinc, and lead, elements that never should have turned up in Lower Manhattan, that caught the instant attention of those like Tahil who were knowledgeable about fallout. He quickly turned to the report’s tables to check the “ppm” (parts-per-million) of those particles.[lii]

He was stunned by the monumentally elevated levels of nuclear particles omitted in the news release, but faithfully recorded in those tables: Uranium and its deadly offspring of strontium, barium, and zinc. Massive levels were found of strontium: 3,130 ppms as a maximum; 378 ppms as a minimum; and 726.61 ppms as the mean. In leaching tests, strontium’s minimum was a 561 ppms; the maximum, a staggering 1,690 ppms; a mean of 1,083.10 ppms. Other elements the USGS found were significantly rare for the area. [liii]

The location with the greatest concentration of nuclear pollutants, according to the data, was the southeast corner of Water Street and Coenties Slip, near the Brooklyn Bridge. It had the greatest levels of zinc (2,990 ppms) and the second highest levels of both strontium (1,000 ppms), and barium (765 ppms). The center for the highest levels of strontium (3,130 ppms) and barium (3,670) was at the intersection of Broadway and Dey, a block from the WTC’s eastern side. Even if those elements had been found in minuscule quantities, renown radiation experts such as Dr. John W. Gofman have warned for years:

“There cannot be a safe dose of radiation. There is no safe threshold. If this truth is known, then any permitted radiation is a permit to commit murder.” [liv]

The USGS’s 33 outdoor samples do indicate irrefutable signs of nuclear materials:

Element Minimum Maximum Mean Offspring

barium 317.0 3670.0 533.38 uranium

strontium 378.0 3130.0 726.61 uranium

zinc 57.4 2990.0 1004.70 radon/ uranium 1.96 7.57 3.29

*cerium 50.9 356.0 91.23 barium

chromium 86.5 224.0 116.61

copper 10.3 438.0 136.31

*lanthanum 25.8 175.0 45.96 barium

lead 9.13 756.0 166.75

manganese 0.07 0.19 0.11

titanium 0.21 0.39 0.26 plutonium

*vanadium 24.9 42.5 30.67 decay

*yttrium 30.2 243.0 57.45 stront. [lv]

__________________

• Rare elements for the Greater New York City area.

Tahil ruled out someone in New York City or New Jersey storing these elements—especially barium, strontium, zinc, and uranium. Barium and strontium are banned in construction materials because of toxicity. One construction expert wrote:

“Indeed, any building with these concentrations of the highly toxic (and in this case radioactive) elements Strontium and Barium in its structure could never have been built because the construction crew would have become seriously ill first.

“….The only explanation that is possible—and indeed the scientifically inescapable conclusion—is that a large-scale fission chain reaction of uranium 235 took place in the locality, releasing Strontium, Barium and many other radionucleides into the environment as daughter products of Uranium fission….The presence of large quantities of other well-known daughter products in correlated quantities makes the case overwhelming, beyond any shadow of a doubt whatsoever that a nuclear explosion occurred.

“The complexity of the other relationships are also what we would expect from a high-energy nuclear explosion rather than the low-energy fission in a controlled reactor. Fission did not stop with two fission fragments—many of these were fissioned in turn into smaller atoms by the intense concentrated neutron radiation in and underneath the building[s].” [lvi]

The clincher for Tahil that reactors were involved was the presence of high levels of vanadium, a radioactive decay product. An expert in aerosols and atmospheric sciences, Dr. Thomas Cahill of the University of California, also had studied the USGS report and pronounced the vanadium level the highest ever seen in the U.S. So were the high levels of nickel and chromium, both decay products.

Then came a puzzling event during WTC cleanup. Beginning on October 3, vanadium levels increased day by day until October 26 when it was joined by a significant spike in chromium and nickel levels. Tahil’s conclusion was that

“…perhaps the reactor core was exposed [on that day] allowing high amounts of chromium and nickel into the atmosphere.” [lvii]

Shock and Blast Waves

When a reactor’s fuel core is exposed, fissionable energy is triggered into a chain-reaction. It is followed a nano-second later by a blast wave’s shock “front” of compressed air shutting out sound, and silently “blasting” everything in its path. As it strikes the ground, the super-heated wave roars along, flattening people and objects until its force is expended. It also can rupture and ignite gas and storage tank. Traveling directly behind it, however, the blast wave extinguishes fires just as candlelight does when someone blows it out. Unfortunately, by then, the damage is done.[lviii]

Therefore, if vehicles are parked close together—as they were in WTC garages and the neighborhood—one ruptured gas tank or gas leaked on the ground can set off a chain-reaction of fires. That seems to have happened even to fire trucks and ambulances despite valiant efforts made by dozens of firefighting companies to extinguish them. [lix]

As one firefighter said of the shock wave:

“[We were running] towards Vesey Street as fast as we could with all our gear, and as we were running, thinking we’re never going to make it. It was just ridiculous to think you were going to make it. We both wound up getting knocked down by the blast, I guess, from like a pressure wave. It took us off our feet. My helmet flew off.” [lx]

Another remembered:

“I was just able to take my helmet off and get my face piece on and just get my helmet back on without snapping it, and I felt a blast. It might have knocked me to my knee and then I got up. It was all orange. It was papers on fire. …I could feel a little heat on the back of my neck and my ears. It surrounded me and then all of a sudden it just turned black—black ash.” [lxi]

Several First Responders recalled the unearthly silence of the shock and blast waves that followed. One reported:

“…in the distance you could see ladder trucks turned into the building [WTC 6]….Then, it was dead silent. There was no noise after 1 Trade Center fell. It was like something out of a movie. It was really loud and then it was—maybe it was just my hearing from the blast. I wasn’t hearing the minor things.” [lxii]

The Street-Level ‘Base-Surge’ Clouds

Another sign of an underground nuclear action is a “base-surge” cloud that also travels along the ground. The dust contained in it on 9/11 was too cool and heavy to rise to thousands of feet and accompany the lighter and hot (500º-1,500º F) “pyroclastic” main cloud. The heavy “ejecta” from the fuel eruption falls to Earth and, still full of energy, is transformed into a dirt-and-air-filled cloud. It billows rapidly outward. On 9/11, the base surge carried particles of concrete, steel, office combustibles, asbestos, human remains, ash—and the radioactive materials revealed by USGS spectrometers. [lxiii]

Thousands of First Responders and civilians never will forget the “dust-of-death,” so named now because of post-9/11 fatalities from pulmonary diseases and radiation-related cancers. Several Responders recalled their vain attempts to outrace the base surges:

“I was in the thick of it as far as the dust cloud was concerned. Day turned into night….The force of it just hit me in the back and blew me like ten feet into a police van…. Air, dust, dirt, debris. Not heavy debris. It felt like I was shot in the back with a shotgun. Pellets. All these pellets were hitting me… The dust engulfed me, pushed me…. Then I dropped down to the [sidewalk], scrambled to get around the building that was on the corner for protection.” [lxiv]

“We tucked in behind this building and in seconds it was nighttime. The dirt was over my head. I was chewing it, trying to get some air.” [lxv]

“At that moment, everything was just total darkness. You couldn’t see anything. You couldn’t breathe. We were coughing. I got out my handkerchief so I could at least use that as some type of filter. I got a couple breaths, and then you’re just coughing…. When we got outside….you still couldn’t see anything, but you could see silhouettes of trees, so we knew we were on the outside.” [lxvi]

Electromagnetic Pulses (EMPs)

Another signature of a reactor “event” is an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Basically, in a meltdown or nuclear bomb explosion, a side-effect is created by radiation that is ionizing. The particles’ tremendous energy sets electrons spinning at such a strong rate that it “shorts out” anything operating off a circuit such as computers, power lines, appliances, telephones/cell phones—

even Pacemakers. EMPs are a major concern for the military’s sophisticated communication systems as much as they were for First Responders on 9/11. They depended heavily on Handy-Talkies, especially for evacuation orders that were never heard by firefighters who died on the Towers’ upper floors. [lxvii]

Initially, the Handy Talky manufacturer was singled out for blame, but when the New York fire department’s WTC task-force interviewers made a point of asking Responders about that product, their statements indicated that blame probably should fall on EMPs:

“I proceeded to give Maydays on every channel. I had the mobile radio so I had every channel. I heard absolutely nothing. It was completely dead. … the silence, the eeriness of having no mobile communication with anything made me feel a little uneasy.” [lxviii]

“People were sharing cell phones to see if they could call. There were no signals. Nothing else like that.” [lxix]

“I had a 400 radio. I couldn’t get through to anybody….I was on EMS Citywide and I don’t know if my radio was clogged or the batteries [were at fault]. It could have been a hundred different things.” [lxx]

A renown 9/11 investigator and engineering professor, Judy Wood, Ph.D. offered an observation underscoring EMPs:

There is eyewitness testimony saying the power to WTC 2 went off a second or two before WTC 2 began to come apart. I believe this is true and that it was done to isolate the WTC Towers from the power grid. Otherwise, they may have knocked out the power grid over a very large (multi-state) area. We can remember when a power surge knocked out the power grid for New York City and much of the northeast. So, I can’t imagine that a total destruction of a WTC tower in 10 seconds would not cause a problem.” [lxxi]

Extreme Heat in Ground Zero Cleanup

Another prime piece of evidence underpinning the reactor theory is the extraordinary high temperatures (800-1,300º F) of the WTC’s surface heat after 9/11. It was recorded on September 16, 2001 by NASA’s thermal-sensitive cameras in aerial photographs shot at 6,500 feet. Those data were reflected in the unusually lengthy period—September 11 to December 19—it took for extinguishing the pools of molten metals in basement levels of all three skyscrapers. In fact, the hottest surface places recorded on the “Pile” by September 16 were WTC 1 (1,376º F), WTC 2 (1,1340º F), and WTC 7 (1160ºF). [lxxii]

If those temperatures did not indicate additional signs of a partial meltdown, the below-surface readings assuredly did to Tahil. Instead of heat subsiding within a week, as is generally the case for major fires, the astronomically elevated heat levels remained for three months. Cleanup vendor Bechtel Corporation—with 40 employees at the Pile—issued this comment about working conditions:

“The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties. More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero.” [lxxiii]

The report’s views on heat was echoed by California’s Rand Corporation, which sponsored a conference about lessons learned from First Responders:

“… the rubble pile was so hot in places that it melted the soles of boots (a problem noted by members of the trades, law- enforcement, and firefighter panels). Work shoes with steel reinforcements in the soles and toes protected feet against punctures by sharp objects, but often could not be worn because they conducted and retained the heat, causing blistered or scorched feet. One special-operations member said, “Steel toes never break in. We’d all be sitting there at night bandaging up and everybody had the same blisters. It was related to wearing the steel toe for that duration.” [lxxiv]

In two of the chief reactor accidents in history, that 2800ºF temperature was never attained. Windscale was 2,372ºF; Three-Mile Island was 2,012ºF. True, Chernobyl registered 4,172º F, but 14 days later dropped to 598ºF. The same rapid decline was reported for the other two other reactor disasters. [lxxv]

At the WTC, thermal energy vaporized the rubble—concrete, steel, glass, combustibles—and emitted aerosols of chromium, nickel and other metals elements directly related to radioactivity. It was those “volcanic temperatures” and the constant simmering pools of molten metal that could not be hidden from the public. Neither could daily changes of soil, nor hosing down the embers. These are well-known remedies for extinguishing fission’s chain reactions until their energy is expended and decay begins.[lxxvi]

Interestingly, trucks bearing rubble to New York City’s Fresh Kills dump did not carry “hot” residue. Like downtown streets, trucks were hosed down before leaving Ground Zero. The city’s WTC information website explained that the purpose was to reduce “dust” from construction materials, especially asbestos. Others like Wood believe the hosing was done chiefly to decontaminate radioactive rubble and soil loads. Her associate John Hutchison posited that some kind of chain reaction was ongoing at WTC “even after the energy field [was] removed.” [lxxvii]

Tahil’s perception is that the high temperatures persisting until December ruled out a nuclear bomb because its energy would have been dissipated immediately after detonation. Like many authorities on construction/demolition, he also ruled out fires from aircraft jet fuel and added what millions apparently never have wanted to know and impossible to accept:

“The thermal energy available from the fuel on board each aircraft is minuscule in comparison with that required to melt the steel columns and raise the temperature of the rubble to the temperatures of 1000K [1,832ºF] recorded by the AVIRIS infra-red system at the surface, let alone the underground temperatures that were vapourising glass.

“The only explanation that can bring together both the evidence of nuclear fission and the volcanic temperatures on the site is that of the core meltdown of a nuclear reactor.” [lxxviii]

‘Cerenkov Radiation’

A highly visible signature of an exposed reactor core is “Cerenkov Radiation” or “Cherenkov Light,” a phenomenon named for its Nobel prize- winning discoverer, Pavel Cerenkov. When a core’s escaping radiation particles—gamma rays—meet the atmosphere, they send up an eerie light-blue light ray nearly to outer space. The color stems from gamma particles moving more rapidly than the speed of light. [lxxix]

At Chernobyl, the chief mechanical engineer for Reactor No. 4 recalls the hypnotic power of Cerenkov Radiation. Minutes after the steam blew off the 2,000-ton concrete cover from the reactor, he stood for a few seconds in the road watching the death-dealing gamma rays rising from it:

“…I could see a huge beam of projected light flooding up to infinity from the reactor. It was like a laser light, caused by the [radiation] ionisation of the air. It was light-bluish and it was very beautiful. I watched it for several seconds. If I’d stood there for just a few minutes, I would probably have died on the spot because of gamma rays and neutrons and everything else that was spewing out.” [lxxx]

The blue glow at that Soviet complex remained for two weeks until core fissioning ended and decay of nuclear remains began. [lxxxi]

Tahil cites Cerenkov Radiation because if the exposed core in the Chernobyl accident could emit it, so could intentional exposure under the Towers. Once most of the Tower debris was cleared away—probably by mid-March—and if reactors were there, the cores would still emit radiation into the atmosphere with those giveaway light-blue rays. After-dusk concealment measures would have to be in place by the perpetrators.

Tahil’s extrapolation may have been highly speculative, but possible. When much of the debris field was cleared away by mid-March, a light concrete cover was poured over the WTC 1 and 2 sites. The city then placed two banks of 44 light blue spotlights atop them as a “Tribute in Light” memorial to the Towers. Lights were switched on at dusk until 11 p.m. from March 11 to April 13, 2002. This commemorative gesture would only be temporary, a baffled public was told. Even those of moderate means around the world probably would have been eager to fund those lights permanently, judging from complaints. Not even Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s vow of permanent lights allayed tears, anger and puzzlement when the lights were extinguished almost a month later trucked off to a Las Vegas warehouse. [lxxxii]

Tahil was not baffled about the memorial’s brief life, obviously refusing to believe city actions involved conserving electricity or budget shortfalls. As he viewed the too-brief memorial touch:

“It is possible that by Spring 20…the reactor cores were exposed to the atmosphere for least some of the time. In order to cover up the intense blue light that would otherwise attract attention—and advertise what lay beneath the rubble [the two burned-out micro- reactors]—these two light projectors were set up with the cover story of being a “Light Memorial” for a period of one month. They were used to shine up into the sky in the same place as the Cerenkov Radiation being emitted by the reactor cores to mask them or at least provide a cover story to explain them.” [lxxxiii]

Perhaps it was an unrelated factor, but when Silverstein rebuilt WTC 7, one of its features was a seven-story, permanent “podium light wall” at its base. The wall has a seven-story ray of light that follows pedestrians walking past two sides of the building. Its color? Light-blue. [lxxxiv]

Radiation-Related Cancer Increasing

Those base-surge clouds were deadly because the toxic dust penetrated bodies. So were the pyroclastic clouds that were not spirited away by Hurricanes Erin and Gabrielle. If Tahil’s theory about reactors proves true, their radioactive residue had to have settled for miles beyond the Greater New York area. What certainly is known is that millions have become affected physically and mentally either on 9/11 or in its aftermath—firefighters, rescue/recovery workers, residents, commuters—according to New York City’s health commissioner. Respiratory and lung ailments from Ground-Zero cleanup have received the most medical and media attention because of sheer numbers (22,416 in 2003 alone). Add to those figures the class-action suit of 8,500 recovery workers against New York City and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for lying about clean-air quality post-9/11 perhaps to protect the area’s economy. Like the 2,400 Pennsylvania families suing state and federal agencies concerning the Three Mile Island tragedy, they, too, face official denials about radiation deaths and ailments. [lxxxv]

Some 400 of the WTC litigants have developed cancer, considered highly significant by oncologists because of their relatively young ages and general good health prior to 9/11. Thirty-three died of cancer by 2006. Most foreboding of all, 75 of them have developed blood-cell cancers that could only be linked to radiation: non-Hodgkins lymphoma, multiple myeloma, thyroid cancer and myelogenous leukemia. Today, the unexpected, rapid growth of cases strongly indicates to health professionals that cancer may be the “third wave” of WTC-linked ailments and soon outnumber pulmonary deaths. Physicians increasingly are making comparisons to Hiroshima/Nagasaki blood cancers from the 1945 atom bomb attack and that same connection to victims of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. [lxxxvi]

Conclusion

Tahil and a growing number of others now have this significant and sufficient body of evidence to underpin the theory that reactors were the primary causal agent for the WTC’s destruction However, as with any theory—certainly all major ones concerning the WTC destruction (fire to super-thermite)—nuclear reactors as the primary causal agent will need to undergo significant scrutiny by national/international experts in the sciences and engineering professions. That is the thrust of a bill the Portland 9/11 Legislative Alliance has proposed to key members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Questions raised about reactors underneath the WTC 1 and 2 undoubtedly will be raised. Whether mini-reactors or not, whether installed prior or after the 1993 bombing or not, among the unanswered questions are:

If reactors are designed not to explode, as Tahil states was the case at the WTC, why did both Chernobyl’s and Three-Mile Island’s reactors explode in the way he perceives happened on 9/11?

• Why wouldn’t reactors under the Towers explode horizontally as well as vertically?

If coolant was deliberately removed, why would the bottom third of the Towers still be intact—particularly the six basement levels?

• If the reactors were resting on the bathtub’s concrete slabs, why were those slabs relatively undamaged?

• Could a single hurricane like Erin, militarily directed or not, “vacuum up” most of the radioactivity spewing from the Towers?

If the reactors expelled radioactive fuel, as was shown in the U.S. Geological Survey’s September 17-19 tests, why wouldn’t the authorities have ordered at least the evacuation of all pregnant women and children, as was done by Pennsylvania authorities after Three Mile Island’s “event?” Not to mention the Soviet authorities mandating evacuation of 135,000 living near Chernobyl?

• How could the Port Authority install reactors under the WTC prior to 1993 without the knowledge and licensing of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? Or the City of New York?

• How could reactors installed prior to 1993 escape maintenance staff attention considering those at nuclear-power plants wear recognizable radiation-proof suits and have special facilities for decontamination?

[PART 2: Were Mini-Nuclear Weapons Used to Destroy the WTC?]

__________________

The three authors are founders of the Portland 911 Legislative Alliance. Barry Ball has been a Portland 911 group facilitator/activist and co-author of the 9/11 investigation bill and its presenter House members and the research director of the House Science & Technological Committee in Washington last September.

Barbara Ellis, Ph.D, is a long-time journalist (LIFE magazine, Washington, D.C. Evening Star, Beirut Daily Star) and was a technical-journalism professor (Oregon State University/Louisiana’s McNeese State University). She was a 2004 nominee for the Pulitzer Prize in history (The Moving Appeal) and, now, the principal of a writing/editing/pr firm.

Russ Hallberg is a Portland activist (impeachment/911/depleted uranium, low-level radiation studies). He says: “My history-teacher mother taught me well about false-flag operations and the 1898 sinking of the USS Maine.”

[Part 2: Were Mini-Nuclear Weapons Used to Destroy the WTC? ]


Endnotes

[NOTE: The “WTCTF” citation is an acronym for the New York City Fire Department which in late 2001 and early 2002 sent personnel to First Responders to interview those on the front-lines of the disaster to secure an oral history for the department. The 503 interviews of First Responders by the WTCTF were statements, not testimony under oath.

However, the statements were immediately put under seal by city officials seemingly as national security matters demanding secrecy. Few agreed that what Responders had to say about their experiences on 9/11 were threats to national security. Instead, if opened to the public—as has been customary in New York City for all major fires—it would enable fire and police departments to learn from those most immediately involved in such an event. It also once again would show the heroism of those First Responders to 9/11.

It took a lengthy lawsuit by The New York Times which used the Freedom of Information Act to open those records on August 12, 2005. The newspaper published all of the statements and made this archive available to Internet users. To view them, the URL is:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html.]

[i] Perhaps because most firefighters can distinguish between smoke colors, the brown dust cloud stood out as unusual (Billy, Richard, Interview, WTCTF, October 10, 2001, 3; Mallery, Paul, Interview, WTCTF, December 12, 2001, 10); Guidetti, Peter, Interview, WTCTF, October 12, 2001, 9). “World Trade Center: A Film by Oliver Stone,” 9-11 Research, http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/docs/tower2_exp1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html&usg=__yTxURwgMaW22X9DQ8EuVHwttJR4=&h=429&w=360&sz=31&hl=en&start=129&tbnid=3fYC8oojnezJyM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=106&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSouth%2BTower%2Bhit%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D120. U.S. Department of Energy Photo, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Storax_Sedan_nuke.jpg.

[ii] Tahil, William, Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Centre (NP: William Tahil, 2006), http://www.nucleardemolition.com/GZero_Report.pdf, 92.

[iii] Nave, C. R., “Fusions,” HyperPhysics. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/finert.html#c4, 1-3. “Nuclear Propulsion,” FAS Military Analysis Network, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/eng/reactor.html. 4. 4. “Toshiba Builds 100x Smaller Micro Nuclear Reactor,” next energy news, December 17, 2007, http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next6-energy-news-toshibha-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html, 1. Fehrenbacher, Katie, “Hyperion’s Nuclear-In-A-Box Ready By 2013,” GigaOm Network, http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-abox-ready-by-2013, 1-9.

Though these small portable reactors have a near-future production date, the history portion of this paper notes weapons probably have been ready for production five to ten years earlier. So developers such as Livermore Laboratories and vendors tend to be significantly cautious about announcing public marketability until production has been long underway. For example, Livermore in 2004 admitted researchers were “pursuing a concept called SSTAR, a small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor” (Rennie, Gabriele, “Nuclear Energy to Go: A Self-Contained, Portable Reactor,” Science and Technology, July/August 2004, https://www.11n1.gov/str/JulAug04/Smith.html.

[iv] Montague, Peter, “Human Harm From Low-level Exposure,” Rachel’s Hazardous Waste News, June 13, 1990, http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn185.htm, 2. Other significant reactor accidents include: Chalk River, Canada, December 12, 1952 (human error); Mayak Plutonium Facility, Russia, September 24, 1957 (cooling equipment failure); Windscale, England, October 10, 1957 (human error, poor management and faulty instruments); Lubmin, Germany, December 7, 1975 (safety systems failure); Aiken, S.C. , 30 between 1957-85; April, August 1988, January 1989 (human error, mechanical failures, design); Tokaimura, Japan, September 30, 1999 (human error) [ Schneider, Keith, “DuPont Asserts It Fully Disclosed Reactor Problems,” The New York Times, October 3, 1988; ibid., “Improper Test at Savannah River Causes New Accident in Reactor,” January 25, 1989. Shukla, Shobha, “Chernobyl Day: Do Not Break the Nucleus,” OpEdNews, April 27, 2009, http://www.opednews.com/populum/print_friendly.php?p=Chernobyl-Day-Do-Not-Brea-by-Shobha-Shukla–Ci-090425-3.html, 2. NA, “Accidents 1980’s,” Project of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/accidents-1980%27s-08.htm, 2.

[v] Man on Wire, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1155592. Glanz, James and Lipton, Eric, City in the Sky (New York: Times Books, 2003), 219. NA, “World Trade Center: February 26, 1993 bombing,” Criticism, Wapedia, http://wapedia.mobi/en/World_Trade_Center?t=2, 10-12. “World Trade Center bombed,” History.com, http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=article&id=4792, 1.

[vi] Mazza, Jerry, “9/11 and the Greenberg Family,” Onlinejournal.com, September 29, 2006, http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_1261.shtml. 3. Brosnan, Neil, Interview, WTCTF, December 12, 2001, 7. Reppetto, Thomas, Bringing Down the Mob: The War Against the American Mafia (New York: Macmillan, 2007), 279.

[vii] NA, “The Process of Creating a Ruin,” Business Week, October 5, 2001. NA, “The Towers Rise,” http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.improbableco…art%3D20%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26h1%3Den%26sa%3DN, 2. “Socioeconomic Conditions,” Renew NYC, Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, Chapter 9, http://www.renewnyc.com/content/pdfs/eis/Chapter%209%20-%20Socio.pdf, 1. When the Port Authority was advertising for leasees in March 2001, one business writer said of Tower income: “…whoever wins the Trade Center can expect a relatively paltry stream of cash for some time, until the long-term leases are up” (Rice, Andrew, “Silverstein Recovers: Dark Horse May Win World Trade Center,” The New York Observer, April 8, 2001.

“List of tenants…” Wikipedia. These data must be carefully weighed for accuracy because CIA officials later admitted they had “secret offices“ in WTC 7, described as its second largest quarters in the U.S. One suite was on the 25th floor, shared with the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS also was the only tenant listed on the 24th floor. (“WTC History,” Improbablecollapse.com, http://www.improbablecollapse.com/screens2/history.html. 4. NIST, Final Report, 5-2.

[viii] Shook, David, “The Sky-High Stakes in Vornado’s Twin Towers Deal,” Business Week, March 9, 2001.

Hoffman, Jan, “An Artist’s Garret, on the 85th Floor; Port Authority Finds Room for Painters in Trade Center’s Towers,” The New York Times, April 30, 1998. Bertozzi,Vanessa, and Brew, Kathy; York, Jamie; and Astrinsky, Elinoar, “Being an artist at the World Trade Center: World View artists-in-residence remember their time in the towers,” Sonicmemorial.org, ND, http://www.sonicmemorial.org/sonic/public/artists/artist.html, 1-3. Since 9/11, Silverstein Properties has donated space on the eighth floor of the 120 Broadway building to continue the LMCC’s artist residency program (The National Arts Policy Data Base, http://www.americansforthearts.org/NAPD/modules/resourceManager/publicSearch.aspx?id=11027).

[ix] NA, “Silverstein Makes a Huge Profit off of the 9/11 Attacks,” Whatreallyhappened.com, ND, http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html, 2.NA, ”World Trade Center Back On The Block, Forbes, March 21, 2001. Anderson, Brian C., “The Twin Towers project: A Cautionary Tale,” City, Autumn 2001, http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id-j617. Rice, Andrew, “Silverstein Recovers: Dark Horse May Win World Trade Center,” The New York Observer, April 8, 2001. NA, “The Towers Rise,” http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.improbableco…art%3D20%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26h1%3Den%26sa%3DN, 2. “Socioeconomic Conditions,” Renew NYC, Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, Chapter 9, http://www.renewnyc.com/content/pdfs/eis/Chapter%209%20-%20Socio.pdf, 1. Leibovich-Dar, Sara, “Up in Smoke,” Haaretz, July 12, 2007.

[x] Anonymous Source known only to authors Ball, Ellis, and Hallberg.

[xi] Bagli, Charles, “Deal is Signed To Take Over Trade Center,” The New York Times, April 27, 2001.

[xii] Moss, Michael and Bagli, Charles V., “After the Attacks: The Instincts to Flee Competed With Instructions to RemainThe New York Times, September 13, 2001. “List of Tenants..,” 4-5. Strangely, while Wikipedia lists the 34th floor being occupied by four tenants (Royal Thai Embassy Office, Thailand Tourist Authority, the Port Authority of NY/NJ, Port Commerce Department), the WorldTradeAftermath.com website lists no tenants on that floor. It lists the Thai offices on 37, and the Port’s offices only on 3, 14,19, 24, 28, and 31. The Lehman Brothers offices, however, were the same in both sources (“1 WTC [North] Tenants by Floor,” WorldTradeAftermath.com, http://worldtradeaftermath.com/wta/wtc_info/tenants_by_floor_wtc1.asp, 1-2. Wright, Lawrence, “The Counter-Terrorist,” The New Yorker, January 14, 2002.

[xiii] Lehrman, R. Leland, email from Scott Forbes of South Tower’s tenant Fiduciary Trust, “Letter to Swiss Re,” http://www.serendipity.li/wot/lehrman.htm. 2.

[xiv] Else, Liz, “Baltimore Blasters,” New Scientist, July 24, 2004, 48. “Silverstein Properties, Inc.,” Fundinguniverse.com., http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Silverstein-Properties-Inc-Company-History.html, passim.

[xv] “Silverstein Properties, Inc.,” passim. Clark, Richard, “Former high-level officials challenge the conventional explanation of how and why the Twin Towers came down,” OpEdNews, November 3, 2007, http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_richard__071103_former_high_level_of.htm, 3.

[xvi] Else, op cit.

[xvii] Tahil, 92.

[xviii] Ibid., 153.

[xix] Ibid., 133, 132. Tamaro, George J., “World Trade Center ‘Bathtub’: From Genesis to Armageddon,” National Academy of Engineering Website, http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/BridgePrintView/CGOZ-58NLJ9?OpenDocument, 1-4.

[xx] Tahil., 132-34.

[xxi] Ibid., 154-55.

[xxii] Tamaro, 1-2.

[xxiii] Ibid. Post, Nadine M., “Engineers Plan Assessment and New Support for WTC Foundation Perimeter Walls, Buildings,” The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., September 17, 2001,

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:jBKTUpYMIKAJ:old.911digitalarchive.org/crr/documents/1434.pdf+floor+slabs+of+the+WTC%27s+bathtubs&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us 4-5. NA, “Nuclear Energy: How Nuclear Energy Works,” Ontario (Canada) Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, http://www.mei.gov.on.ca.wsd6.korax.net/english/energy/electricity/index.cfm?page=nuclear-how-it-works, 1-5.

[xxiv] Tamaro, 1-4. NA, “Diaphragm Wall Case Study #4: World Trade Center Recovery, NY, NY,” DeepExcavation.com., 2006, http://www.deepexcavation.com/casesudies4.html, 1-2. Post, 2-3. Hoversten, Paul, “Robot to map in Chernobyl plant,” USAToday, April 23, 1998. NA, “Three Mile Island: The Inside Story,” NMAH, National Museum of American History, Figure 2.6., http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/02-06.htm. Ward, 4. Other known meltdowns include two at the Idaho National Laboratory (1955, 1961), Detroit’s Fermi fast-breeder (1966), Decatur (AL) Brown’s Ferry (1985); those “unknown” to both the International Atomic Energy Administration or regulatory bodies elsewhere in the world should be worrisome to the public [Tahil, 153]. Ibid., 146.

[xxv] Bollyn, Christopher, “New Seismic Data Refutes Official WTC Explanation,” American Free Press, September 5, 2002.

[xxvi] Ibid., passim. Else, op cit.

[xxvii] Overbye, Dennis, “Under the Towers, Ruin and Resilience,” The New York Times, October 9, 2001. Richiusa, Patrick, Interview, WTCTF, December 13, 2001, 10. Brosnan, Neil, Interview, WTCTF, December 12, 2001, 11. Suden, Gerard, Interview, WTCTF, October 9, 2001. “America Rebuilds,” PBS, September 2002, wmv.video. http://www.whatreally happened.com/cutter.html.

[xxviii]Else, op cit. NA, “America Rebuilds.” Else, op cit.

[xxix] Tahil, 133, 43. Leer, 1-2.

[xxx] Tahil, 68-71.

[xxxi] Spinrad, Bernard I., “Nuclear Reactor,” Encyclopaedia Britannica online (2009), http://www.britannica.com/Ebchecked/topic/421763/nuclear-reactor/45765/Critical-concentration-and-size, passim. Ontario, “Nuclear Energy…” passim. NA, “Basic Characteristics of Reactor Types,” IEER Reports:NPD, http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd-tbl.html, 1-2. Tahil, 61-72. Ward, Ed, “911 Ground Zero Tritium Levels 55x Over Normal,” rense.com, June 15, 2007, http://www.rense.com/general76/wtc.htm, 1-7. Lakhman, Marina, “A Virtual Cleanup of Chernobyl,” The New York Times, September 1, 1997. NA, “Three Mile Island: The Inside Story,” Smithsonian, National Museum of American History, http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi02.htm, 1-2. “Windscale 1957: Inquiry publishes cause of nuclear fire,” BBC, November 8, 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/8/newsid_3181000/3181342.stm, 1-3. Lakhman, op cit.

The Chernobyl “accident” caused the immediate and permanent evacuation of 143,000 people residing in the power-plant area. As the radiation traveled around the world, estimates are that 17 million were subject to the fallout. By 2000, 300,000 reportedly had died in Ukraine alone from radiation-related ailments. And of the 600,000 who rushed from all parts of the former Soviet Union to help recovery efforts, 100,000 are among the dead and debilitated. In addition, this event heavily contaminated 7,000 square miles, involving parts of three republics (Belarus, Ukraine, Russia). Most of that land is unarable and uninhabitable, given plutonium’s half-life of 24,360 years (NA, “Chernobyl,” Aztec Research, http://www.aztecresearch.net/images/chernobyl12.gif, 4; Higginbotham, 1).

[xxxii] Ibid., 6.

[xxxiii] “Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City,” http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf.

WTC 7, Richter Reading at 5:20 p.m., Palisades Seismic Station

[xxxiv] Avery, Dylan, Bermas, Jason, and Rowe, Korey, Loose Change, 3rd Edition, http://loosechange911.com/index.shtml?p=89. De Micell, Amy, “Hanging Around WTC 7, Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, June 24, 2007, http://www.mujca.com/jennings.htm, 1-2. Nimmo, Kurt, “Bodies in WTC 7: Jennings Interview Demolishes Official Version,” Infowars, June 23, 2008, http://www.infowars.com/bodies-in-wtc-7-barry-jennings-interview-demolishes-official-version, passim. Barry Jennings Uncut and Barry Jennings—9/11 Early Afternoon ABC7 Interview, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI&feature=related. Michael Hess, WTC 7 Explosion Witness on 9/11, UPN 9 News, September 11, 2001. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2E911blogger%2Ecom%2Fnode%2F17829%2Fprint&feature=player_embedded. The First Responder’s name is not given here to protect him and his family because Jennings died under mysterious circumstances sometime in August. His family moved to parts unknown (Blood, Jack, “New Information on the Death of 9011 Eyewitness Barry Jennings,” The Daily Ed, April 16, 2009, http:// edwardrynearson.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/new-information-on-the-death- of-911-eyewitness-barry-jennings.

[xxxv] Walsh, William, Interview, WTCTF, January 11, 2002. NA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations (Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, May 2002), I: 4. Green, William, Interview, WTCTF, December 26, 2001.

[xxxvi] Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, August 2008), xiii. Richiusa, Patrick, Interview, WTCTF, December 13, 2001. Fiorentino, Vincent, Interview, WTCTF, 5.

[xxxvii] “Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City,” http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf.

[xxxviii] Kim, W.-Y.; Sykes, L. R.; Armitage, J. H.; Xie, J. K.; Jacob, K. H.; Richards, P. G.; West, M.; Waldhauser, F.; Armbruster, J.; Seeber, L.; Du, W. X.; Lerner-Lam, A., “Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City and Shanksville, Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001,” American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2002, http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf, 1, 6, 8-9. “Seismograms recorded by LCSN Station PAL (Palisades, NY), World Trade Center Attack,” http://www.ideo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html, 1-6. “September 11: Chronology of terror,” CNN.com/U.S., http://archives.cnn/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack, 1. Bollyn, Christopher, “Seismic Data: Two Huge Energy Bursts Under WTC Towers,” American Free Press, December 13, 2004, 1.

[xxxix] Tahil, 76-83.

[xl] Bollyn, 2. Kim, 4.

[xli] Tahil, 81.

[xlii] Ibid., 152, 125, 127.

[xliii] Ibid. Wood, Judy, “Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt,” May 21, 2007, http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt6.html.

[xliv] Moriarty, David, Interview, WTCTF, December 4, 2001, 7.

[xlv] Coutsouros, Dean, Interview, WTCTF, October 11, 2001, 3.

[xlvi] Guidetti, Peter, Interview, WTCTF, October 12, 2001, 9.

[xlvii] Begich, Nick and Manning, Jeane, “The Military’s Pandora’s Box,” solar-energy.net, 1995, http://www.haarp.net. United Nations 1976 Weather-Weapon Resolution 31/72: Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, December 10, 1976, http://www.scribd.com/doc/3436120/UN-1976-Weather-Weapon-Treaty.

[xlviii] Pasch, Richard J. and Brown, Daniel P., Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Erin, 1-15 September 2001, National Hurricane Center, November 20, 2001 and January 25, 2002, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2001erin.html, 1-9. Lawrence, Miles B. and Blake, Eric S., Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Gabrielle, 11-19 September 2001, National Hurricane Center, December 18, 1001 and April 12, 2002, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2001gabrielle.html, 1-11.

Because weather control as a military weapon was being developed in the 1970s by the major powers—the U.S., Soviet Union, et al.—the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1976 adopted a resolution against such maneuvers (UNGA RES. 31/72, TIAS 9614: Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques). However, it is unlikely to be honored if military officials or weather manipulators see its advantages, as seems to have happened in the last decade. That might explain why three scientists at the University of Munich’s Meteorological Institute immediately launched an investigation of both Hurricane Erin and Gabrielle (Robcke, Matthias, Jones, Sarah C., and Majewski, Detlev, “An Investigation of the Extratropical Transition of Hurricane Erin (2001) Using the Global Model of the German Weather Service,” University of Munich Meteorological Institute, 2002.

[xlix] Swayze, Gregg A. and Hoefen, Todd, Sample collection in the World Trade Center area, Sept 17-18, 2001, U.S. Geological Survey, ND, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/sample.location.html, 1.

[l] Ibid. Six years later, a 9/11 website story heralded a test of a single sample of 7.5 grams of dust taken from an unnamed site to an unnamed “certified laboratory” for analysis by three unnamed 9/11 researchers. They claimed it yielded tritium levels 55 times beyond normal (Ward, Ed, “99 Ground Zero Tritium Levels 55x Over Normal: Update On The Micro Nukes In The WTC, “ rense.com, June 15, 2007, http://www.rense.com/general76/wtc.htm, 1.)

When another 9/11 researcher refuted the results, a rebuttal followed in March 2009 (Ward, Ed, “The 9/11 WTC ‘Tracers of Tritium’ Lie Is Obstruction of Justice by Accessories to Murder,” Godlike Productions.com, March 9, 2009, http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message745322/pg1.

[li] Clark, Roger N., et al., USGS Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center Area, New York City, after September 11, 2001, U. S. Geological Survey, November 27, 2001, http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/wtc.r09.usgs.thermal.icon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/&usg=__-jpHlY05EpHUG5cwh_VF87YKFF4=&h=268&w=235&sz=18&hl=en&start=12&tbnid=z3k9h6ubs4rr7M:&tbnh=113&tbnw=99&prev=/images%3Fq%3DUSGS%2Bthermal%2Bphotographs%2Bof%2BWTC%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG, 1-2.

[lii] Swayze, op cit.

[liii] Ibid.

[liv] NA, World Trade Center Sample Locations, U.S. Geological Survey, 2001, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/locmap10.29.01.lare.gif. Swayze, op cit. Shukla, Shobha, “Chernobyl Day: Do Not Break The Nucleus,” Citizen News Service, April 27, 2009.

[lv] Ibid.

[lvi] Tahil, 61-62.

[lvii] Ibid., 108-12.

[lviii] “Thermal Pulse Effects,” atomicarchive.com, http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects10.shtml, 1. Nearly 1,000 vehicles were found September 13 in the WTC’s three underground floors by Bechtel’s three-man recovery team. Their report stated that: ”Some [vehicles] had exploded and were completely burned-out while others were in pristine, drivable condition,” (Burkhammer, Stewart; Black, Norman H.; Vincoli, Jeffrey, “Disaster Response,” NND, http://old.asse.org/groundzero1.htm, 7.

[lix] Interviews, WTCTF, 2001-2002 of First Responders Colon, John (p. 3); Gribbon, Frank (p. 12); Heaney, Todd (p. 13); Neligan, Dean (p. 4); Palone, Michael (pp. 2-3); Richiusa, Patrick (p. 10); Salerno, Anthony (p. 4); Suden, Gerard (pp. 8-10); Sullivan, Patrick (p.8); Winkler, John (p. 4); Rae, Joseph (p. 6); Trojanowski, Stanley (p. 5).

[lx] Bessler, Paul, Interview, WTCTF, January 11, 2002. 7.

[lxi] Green, William, WTCTF, December 26, 2001, 19.

[lxii] Richiusa, Patrick, Interview, WTCTF, December 13, 2001, 10.

[lxiii] Tahil, 126-27. NA, “Shallow Underground Explosion Phenomena,” The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Sections 2.91-2.105, U.S. Department of Defense and the Energy Research and Development Administration (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office, 1977), http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/nukeffct/enw77b2.htm, 11-15.

[lxiv] Guidetti, Peter, Interview, WTCTF, October 12, 2001, 10.

[lxv] Coutsouros, Dean, Interview, WTCTF, October 11, 2001, 4.

[lxvi] Carrasquillo, Pedro, Interview, WTCTF, October 16, 2001, 6-7.

[lxvii] “How does EMP: (electronmagnetic pulse) Bomb work?” http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080531125036AA1xTfH. “$7.4M for an EMP: Generator,” defenseindustry.com, August 7, 2008, http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cat/wmd/wmd-defenses. Vann, Bill, “Did Mayor Giuliani’s policies contribute to loss of life on September 11?” World Socialist Web Site, August 23, 2002. NA, “9/11 Commission Questions Bernard Kerik, Thomas Von Essen and Richard Shrier,” gothamgazette.com, May 18, 2004, http://www.gothamgazette.com/rebuilding_nyc/features/kerik_5_18_04.shtml. MA,
“Credible threat of electromagnetic pulse attacks,” The Heritage Foundation, December 9, 2008, http://dailyestimate.com/article.asp?id=17038. Interviews, WTCTF, passim. Rayman, Graham, and Murphy, William, “Silencing FDNY Radios: Problematic model to be discontinued,” Newsday, February 12, 2004.

[lxviii] Gaby, Thomas, interview, WTCTF, October 23, 2001, 7-8. Gaby was in WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel), the building fronting WTC 2 when that Tower disintegrated.

[lxix] Richiusa, Patrick, interview, WTCTF, December 13, 2001, 6.

[lxx] Zarrillo, Richard, interview, WTCTF, October 25, 2001, 10.

[lxxi] Wood, Judy and Reynolds, Morgan, “The Star Wars Beam Weapons and Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons,”

January 30, 2007, http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html.

[lxxii] Tahil, 97. Clark, et al. NA, “Measuring the Rubble,” The Washington Post, http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/lidar_092201.jpg. Tahil, 99. Tahil’s temperatures are in Kelvins—900º,1,000º, 1,020ø, respectively. Translations from Kelvin to Fahrenheit degrees are attained by: 1) multiplying the Kelvin by 9/5, and 2) subtracting 459.67 from the sum.

[lxxiii] Burkhammer, et al., 8.

[lxxiv] Jackson, Brian, Peterson, D. J., Bartis, James, LaTourette, Tom, Brahmakulam, Irene, Houser, Ari, and Sollinger, Jerry, “Performance and Availability of Personal Protective Equipment,” Protecting Emergency Responders: Lessons Learned From Terrorist Attacks Report, The Rand Corporation, 2002,

http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF176/CF176.ch3.pdf, 27.

[lxxv] Matlack, Gerry, “The Windscale Disaster,” DamnInteresting.com, May 7, 2007,

http:www.damninteresting.com/7p=842, 4. Higginbotham, Adam, “Chernobyl 20 years on,” The Observer, March 26, 2006. NA, “Reactor accidents—Three Mile Island, “ atomeromu.hu, ND, http://www.atomeromu.hu/tortenelem/balesetek2-e.htm, 2.

[lxxvi] Tahil, 144.

[lxxvii] Ibid. NA, “World Trade Center Disaster Info.,” NYC Health, February 2002,

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/alerts/wtc12.shtml, 2. Wood, Judy and Hutchison, John, “Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect,” drjudyuwood.co.uk., April 1, 2008, http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/JJ.

[lxxviii] Tahil, 107-08.

[lxxix] NA, “Cerenkov Radiation,” University of Pennsylvania, ND, http://www.physics.upenn.edu/balloon/cerenkov_radiation.html.

[lxxx] Higginbotham, 6, 3. Tahil, 141-42. Bond, Michael, “Cheating Chernobyl,” New Scientist, August 21, 2004.

[lxxxi] Higginbotham, 6-7.

[lxxxii] Tahil, 142-43. Jacobs, Andrew, ”A Nation Challenged: Memorials; In Morning Sky, Seamless Exit for Twin Beams,” The New York Times, April 15, 2002.

[lxxxiii] Tahil, 143.

[lxxxiv] NA, “7 World Trade Center: Podium Light Wall, “ ND, http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.digitalexperi…art%3D100%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN, 1.

[lxxxv] Frieden, Thomas R., “What We Know About the Health Effects of 9/11, “ 9/11 Health, NYC.gov.,

http://nyc.gov/html/doh/wtc/downloads/pdf/know/WTCRespiratory_Symptoms.pdf. Chart, “Respiratory Symptoms Among WTC-Exposed Populations (0-2 years after the disaster),” Report: World Trade Center Medical Working Group of New York City, City of New York, 2008, http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2008/2008_mwg_annual_report.pdf, 13. DePalma, Anthony, “For the First Time, New York Links a Death to 9/11 Dust,” The New York Times, May 24, 2007. NA, “Lung Disease Killing 9/11 Rescue Workers,” NewsMax.com Wires, January 18, 2006. Wasserman, Harvey, “Cracking the corporate media’s Iron Curtain around deaths at Three Mile Island,” Free Press, February 4, 2009,

http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2009/04/02/cracking-the-corporate-medias-iron-curtain-around-death-at-three-mile-island, 2.

[lxxxvi] Lombardi, Kristen, “Death by Dust: The frightening link between the 9-11 toxic cloud and cancer,” The Village Voice, November 21, 2006. Edelman, Susan, “Cancer Hits 283 Rescuers of 9-11,” New York Post, June 11, 2006. Conroy, Scott, “Cancer May Be Next Wave Of 9/11 Illnesses,” cbsnews.com, May 31, 2007, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/31/health/main2872809.shtml?source=search_story,1. Lombardi, op cit. Mozes, Alan, “Some Hiroshima Survivors at Thyroid Cancer Risk: Radiation may have caused chromosomal change that raises odds for malignancy, study finds,” U.S.News & World Report, August 29, 2008. Maisey, Heather and Miller, Mike, “Can Radiation Therapy Influence the Development of Second Cancers?” BenchMarks, National Cancer Institute, January 24, 2007, http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/benchmarks-vol7-issue1/page1. DePalma, Anthony, “Ground Zero Illnesses Clouding Giuliani’s Legacy,” The New York Times, May 14, 2007.

//

//

//


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: