By using the Wolfram Mathematica Player, a rotatable 3-D model is available for free. Furthermore, if needed, this model can be changed or extended by any interested programmer (this last option is not available in the Player).
By this, physical conditions can not only be displayed coherently, but by further calculations they can be verified (or falsified).
South Tower/Tower 4: visualization of the eruption funnel and the vitrification of the glacier valley (Silverstein Valley)
North Tower: dynamics of the eruption, effect of the nuclear chimney,
compressed air in the upper segment of the Towers; plasma jet and plasma eruption
The 25 pictures (slide show) illustrate the effects of:
a nuclear pulsator emitting within 1 hour strong X-ray and gamma radiation, which damage the Tower’s structure and soften it up (via a 4He + 9Be fusion, powered by subcritical uranium fission neutron flux)
a short fizzle reaction (fission of 235Uran) – after the formation of a liquid rock bladder and separation of the uranium pulp and the imbedded foreign metall (moderator)
The [faulty] 9/11 experiment:
the force behind the motion patterns
The
Force Behind the Motion
“Nobody, FEMA, ASCE, NIST, AIA, ..., and all
the kings horses and all the kings men, no one can make a simple
experiment that can demonstrate the official force behind the motion.”
“A&E: there is no evidence
for acute radiation syndrome”
Argument: a nuclear
weapon produces high radiation values in the first seconds and causes
disease symptoms...
more precisely: ... that become perceptible
starting at dosages of 1 Sv, their development depending on other
environmental factors (dust / toxic fumes / burnt skin caused by
hot gases, etc.)
An analysis of the
symptoms caused by radiation indicates an exposure of max. 2 Sv
(nausea / fatigue / vomiting) With a probability of 50%, hair loss
starts at 3 Sv.
In the case of an average dosage
[up to 2 Sv], symptoms appear within hours and days, these are amongst
others skin damage, internal bleeding and changes in the blood count
Dermatological symptoms: Erythema (itching
reddening of the skin); purpura; bullae (blisters); abscesses; hair
loss (in the case of high dosages [3 Sv] partly permanent); necroses
Gastrointestinal symptoms: Nausea; vomiting;
diarrhea; loss of appetite
Hematopoietic symptoms (myelosuppression):
elevated risk of infection caused by a reduced number of leukocytes
(leukopenia); elevated number of hemorrhages caused by a reduced
number of blood plates; anemia cased by a reduced number of red
blood cells; arterial hypotension
Neurological symptoms: Dizziness; headaches;
drowsiness; disorders of the central nervous system (seizures, tremors,
ataxia)
Argument: the study
shows high concentrations of the two theoretical fission products barium
and strontium. There is no evidence of these being radioactive,
i.e. they may also be impurities of other materials.
more precisely: ...the analysis of the solids shows
high concentrations of the theoretical fission products, in reality,
it is not possible to make a statement concerning the radioactivity.
This changes with
the analysis results of the dissolved substances that lists the expected
fission products (no information on radioactivity)
Argument: the quantity
of barium and strontium must be in an exact proportion to the quantity
of radioactive cesium, this is not the case.
more precisely: ...the quantity of radioactive barium
and radioactive strontium
must be in a precise proportion to the quantity of radioactive cesium
– and also to other fission products.
The proportion of
of cesium and other fission products is not correct! WTC-14:
cesium = 0.06mg/l; cer = 0.01 mg/l;
lanthanum < 0.01 mg/l; yttrium = 0.11 m/l;
zirconium = 0.08 m/l; niobium = 0.02 m/l
“A&E: the claim is contradicted
by fission product yield data”
Exotic nuclear disintegration
“A&E: the assumption that
a neutron-induced alpha decay of uranium-235 took place and the
alleged decay of helium-4”
Argument: these reactions
are unlikely or impossible.
this argument digresses from the topic and
leads to a discussion of the exotic scenario of a nuclear disintegration
The question is:
“why is a nuclear process out of the question?”
“A&E: the suggested neutron-induced
alpha decay of uranium-235, and the alleged decay of helium-4”
Natural presence / impurities
“A&E: the possibility of
a natural presence of certain substances is neglected”
Argument: the presence
of exotic elements (as they develop in a nuclear reaction) does not
prove an actual nuclear reaction, they could also come from stored
chemicals
more precisely: the presence of barium and
strontium does not prove an actual nuclear reaction, common elements
such as zinc, natrium and titanium have no evidentiary value
However the elements
of the barium and strontium decay chain are listed, their actual
presence supports the assumption of a radioactive process It would be grossly negligent
to assume that the elements of the decay chain would be present
in electric devices – and that no search was necessary (decay of
barium: Lanthanum; cer / strontium decay: yttrium; zirconium; niobium)
“A&E: the existence of common
substances is neglected”
Force of the resulting nuclear
blast
“A&E: the enormity of the
claimed nuclear blast is implausible”
Argument: the total
amount of the alleged uranium fission products would result in a
blasting force equal to that of a thousand Hiroshima bombs – in
reality, William Tahil assumes one detonated reactor
this argument is flimsy and assumes that the total amount of
barium and strontium comes from a nuclear process. If only a fraction
of the quantity comes from a nuclear process, this is sufficient
for a total destruction.
The question is:
“why is a nuclear process out of the question?”
“A&E: the massive scale of
the claimed nuclear blasts is implausible”
Fission vs. fusion
“A&E: Internal contradictions
of the arguments (utopian nuclear weapons)”
Argument: the authors
contradict themselves
this argument repeatedly implies that the total amount of
barium and strontium comes from a nuclear process – thousands of
tons (fission).
This leads to an argumentative dead end, one can only
speculate about the existence of utopian “special nuclear weapons
without radiation”
The question is:
“why is a nuclear process out of the question?”
“A&E: Internal contradictions
in the arguments”
8.6 A&E argument: Tritium coming from
other sources
Confirmed elevated
tritium values
“A&E: our assessment of the
claim that tritium found in a split water sample collected in WTC
6 is evidence that nuclear blasts occurred at the WTC”
Argument: the 30-fold
increase of the normal value can be explained by different weapon depots
at the WTC (night vision devices that were destroyed and released
tritium)
more precisely: this argument offers an alternative
explanation for the presence of tritium, it does not exclude a nuclear
process
The question is:
“why is a nuclear process out of the question?”
“A&E: our assessment of the
claim that tritium found in a split water sample collected in WTC
6 is evidence that nuclear blasts occurred at the WTC”
8.7 A&E argument: Steel dust and solidified
steel droplets
Pulverization of
steel
“A&E: our assessment of the
claim that the inner steel structure turned into dust”
Argument: a maximum
of 5% of the dust de facto consisted of steel dust and solidified steel
droplets
more precisely: ...which is equal to several
thousand tons and on closer inspection only confirms Dimitri Khalezov’s
approach – and does not disprove it
Knowledge on the
scattering and absorption behavior of neutron rays on iron is crucial
for a better understanding. Fast neutrons effortlessly permeate
matter, the slower the neutrons the higher the probability of an
absorption.
“A&E: our assessment of the
claim that structural steel was “dustified””
Argument: steel girders
from Twin Tower levels 41/42 and 75/76 were demonstrably found,
they were not pulverized
more precisely: ... however statements concerning
the weakening of the structure / embrittlement of the steel girders
cannot be made anymore.
The embrittlement
must be seen in a statistical average and in dependance of the scattering
behavior on potentially existing obstacles. Assuming a destruction front
as in the case of a tsunami (either intact or completely destroyed)
is not correct.
Model by Dimitri Khalezov (right)
in comparison
The destruction may develop differently in the building,
everything is possible from embrittlement to dustification.
the explosive charge
is positioned 25 m deeper in Khalezov’s model – 100 m
the cavity is drawn too large – even liquid
granite cannot be compacted in such a way (sand can)
the real fracture zone (blue: fragmentation
of the crystal structures due to pressure-compressing shockwave
AND neutron radiation) is oversized (the tower is not affected)
the neutron lens and sealing of the channel
are not described
the embrittlement zone of the steel due to
neutron radiation is not described separately (light blue in the
new model)
the statistical component of the scattering
and absorption behavior of neutron rays on iron is not considered
(fast / slow neutrons)
the formation of a liquid rock bubble is not
described (to avoid demolition of the foundation protection, the
“bathtub”)
8.8 A&E argument: Diseases and aggressive
forms of cancers due to toxins
Poison vs. radioactivity
– toxicity vs. ionization
“A&E: our assessment of the
claim that the WTC-related cancer cases affecting first responders
and WTC site workers are evidence of their exposure to radiation
from nuclear blasts”
Argument: the toxic
fumes and asbestos fibers that people had been inhaling for weeks are
solely responsible for the diseases
more precisely: this argument offers an alternative
explanation for the diseases, it does not exclude a nuclear process
The question is:
“why is a nuclear process out of the question?”
“A&E: our assessment of the
claim that “The WTC-related cancer cases affecting first responders
and WTC site workers are evidence of their exposure to radiation from
nuclear blasts””
Cancer after 30 years
“A&E: the [cancer] victims
of the nuclear weapon attacks from 1945 typically developed multiple
myeloma [a cancer of the blood-forming system] not until 30 years
after the event and not within a few years.
Experience gathered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki does not
confirm the proposition that the WTC-related cancers are side-effects
of a nuclear explosion.”
Argument: a lot of
first responders and WTC site workers developed a cancer of the
blood-forming system within a few years after the event, much faster
than the victims of the nuclear attack in 1945
more precisely: ...the first responders and
site workers working in the eruption crater fell ill much faster
than the victims of the nuclear attack of 1945
The Hiroshima bomb
was detonated at a height of 580 m, the fire ball and the radioactivity
spread extensively in the air. In the case of 9/11, a significant
inclusion of radioactivity in the ground can be assumed (concentration
in the center of explosion).
“A&E: victims of the 1945
atomic bombings contracted multiple myeloma typically after a 30-year
latency period, but the WTC-related cases of multiple myeloma were contracted
after only a few years.
Thus, the data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not support
the claim that the WTC-related cancers are effects of nuclear blasts.”
Hypothetical radiation exposure
on September 11, 2001
Model calculation for “radiation
sickness”
A rescue team member works 10 hours on this
day
Amount of radiation at 40 mSv / h: Total amount
= 0.4 Sv on this day
Mr. Jim Fetzer invited us to participate
in the third “Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference” via teleconference
in September 2016 on short notice.
In the context of the presentation, we gave a list of
questions to Mr Wayne Coste from ae911Truth. This list of questions
eventually ended up on a waiting list.
Question 1 [www.911history.de]
“how do you explain – without a nuclear charge
– the formation of a mushroom cloud over Building 7, towering one
mile above the City?”
“how do you explain – without a nuclear charge
– the formation of a vortex in the mushroom cloud over Building
7?”
Question 3 [www.911history.de]
“how do you explain – without a nuclear charge
– the non-conservation of angular momentum when the South Towers
Top toppled over and stabilized suddenly in freefall at 15° (a nuclear
charge would produce a rising fountain of material acting as a stopping
bolt)?”
“how do you explain – without a nuclear charge
– the non-conservation of angular momentum when the South Towers
Top toppled over and stabilized suddenly in freefall at 15° (a nuclear
charge would produce a rising fountain of material acting as a stopping
bolt)?”
Question 4 [www.911history.de]
“how do you explain – without a nuclear charge
– the eruption of white gases from underground, mixing with the
black clouds of the Tower's dust?”
“how do you explain – without a nuclear charge
– the eruption of white gases from underground, mixing with the
black clouds of the Tower's dust?”
Question 5 [www.911history.de]
“how do you explain – without a nuclear charge
– the scintillation phenomena of the cameras, which started to register
green dots, blue stripes etc, as soon as the fleeing cameramen were
engulfed in the [e.g. radioactive] dustcloud?”
“how do you explain – without a nuclear charge
– the scintillation phenomena of the cameras, which started to register
green dots, blue stripes etc, as soon as the fleeing cameramen were
engulfed in the [e.g. radioactive] dustcloud?”
Question 6a [www.911history.de]
“have you taken into account that the primary
uranium fission products (confirmed by the USGS) will nearly all
decay within a few days, with the exception of modestly radioactive
Zirconium)?”
“have you taken into account that the primary
uranium fission products (confirmed by the USGS) will nearly all
decay within a few days, with the exception of modestly radioactive
Zirconium)?”
Question 6b [www.911history.de]
“have you taken into account that many iron
isotopes are stable an will not be activated by neutron radiation?”
“have you taken into account that iron will
rather scatter and not absorb neutron radiation, thus NO ACTIVATION
will occur?”
ADDITIONAL QUESTION 6d [911history.de]
“did you take into account that the statistical
distribution of the fission products may change due to rescattering
of neutrons: for ex. a shift from strontium-90 to strontium-91”
1. Probability distribution
of isotopes after uranium fission (lab)
2. Rescattered neutron radiation
3. Center of explosion with the isotopes
4. Potential transition of strontium-90
to strontium-91 after absorbing a neutron
“have you taken into account that the expected
statistical distribution of fission products may change due to scattered
neutron radiation, e.g a shift from Strontium-90 to Strontium-91?”
A complete summary of the strange events of the destruction
of the World Trade Center Complex, while asking questions to the
listener.
@ 22:31: So much to be explained. Why did the South Tower
fall first when it was the second Tower to be hit?
@ 59:56: Engineers are not just focusing on the Twin Towers.
The most disturbing structural event was not that the Twin Towers
fell – but that Tower 7, ignited by flying debris fell due to fire
alone.
9/11
A Journey Into Consciousness Sophia Smallstorm 9/11
Deals with perception and who is shaping our perceptions about
9/11, and how each of our perceptions can differ and our developing
consciousness about what we experience
@ 53:07: FEMA search and rescue first responder Matthew Tartaglia
speaks about what happens when people wake up...
