The USGS (United States Geological Survey) groups analyzed the dust at different locations. A summary of some findings and links are given below.
Do you know what "pathways" from fission are? They are the decay processes from fission, leaving certain elements.
Are you aware of the implications (at least initially) are that mini-nukes were used in NYC on 9/11? How could that be?
Of course, this means explaining how what people think a nuke would do is and is not present in the contextual evidence: some things don't happen with smaller and directed nuke charges; other things do and are present at the scene.
The dust findings themselves, leading to at least doubts about the official story:
Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It’s very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place.
Lithium: With the presence of lithium we have compelling evidence that this fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium has taken place.
Lanthanum: Lanthanum is the next element in the disintegration pathway of the element Barium.
Yttrium: The next decay element after Strontium, which further confirms the presence of Barium.
Chromium: The presence of Chromium is one more “tell tale” signature of a nuclear detonation.
(Short form for easy copying into limited space:)
Tritium: A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another “tell tale” sign of nukes.
The high quantities of all results listed below, are most plausibly from fission, in evidence in that dust; plus I have listed a fair overview of the reasoning about the buildings' actions during destruction and after.Barium&Strontium:400ppm+(
I work with the best civilian and non-civilian 9/11 Truth activists in the world. There is an article coming which will address most of this in detail. Other articles were taken down in the last year for various reasons, and were not complete simple overviews.
overview of the USGS findings and links to them
explanation of why USGS would not call out loudly about this (their job is sample analysis not combined comparison for 9/11 for all samples)
overview of what fission pathways are (decay processes and the resultant elements expected)
overview of how mini-nukes exist
overview of how lower radiation effects come from fission and mini-nukes, but immediate cleanup took dust off streets first, new building not build on location but dirt added and pools of circulating water created, perfect for slow decontamination
overview of how mini-nukes would leave results in:
- size of chunks thrown
- collapse effect if placed on alternating segments of floor levels
- dust particle sizes
- cancer diseases of extreme rarity and multiple forms
- effects on beams
- ineffective, non-response from nuclear physicist Steven Jones, to Jeff Prager: Jones writes here ( ) that he replied to Prager on this subject, but all his link was for was to his work on *other* aspects of dust, which means he dissembles, demurs, deflects, lies http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-30/mini-nukes-wtc-one-more-time though he does admit that extremely high temperatures were present at the core event http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf -- and note, AE911T (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth never tested for other explosives than thermite, either, and thermite, even nanothermite, is less explosive than dynamite, plus would burn bright like a limelight, ongoing through the destruction, plus require massive quantities)
- mushroom cloud, directed blasts upward, from several floors at a time (though some mushrooming can happen from explosives too)
- pyroclastic flow (though quick dissipation of heat, flash of brightness hidden each time, by walls, so not pyroclastic burning along streets, unlike volcano hot air all through miles of burnt lungs and crispy critter bodies everywhere)
- i.e., heat flashes unseen, burn not wide or far but up and quick fall-off to warm or cooler air
- HAZMAT suits used (also expectable from and dirt trucked in and water-wash of vehicles for long time after and at location now in pools and dirt over whole area, as at Chernobyl)
- leaves on trees okay because of thin but moist (while paper thin but dry and people thick but moist, not okay)
- Concrete of Stairwell B survivors blocking main heat and radiation
- EMP effects
- Building 4, etc.
Argument justification (partial):
So ... the dust findings are physical evidentiary material; interpreted as related to the day, the dust they are part of and a whole host of other things known from the day, the reasoning is exactly scientific. After becoming fully informed of such evidence and the reasoning which is on this side, you can then judge. That is also how science (knowledge) and court (debate) work.
Argument and evidence (overview about emotions):
Before you think this is impossible, or discount the findings' implications right away, remember:
evidence is only implications, stronger or weaker, which we follow to think through a fuller idea, and test that by comparison with the initial thoughts from the evidence presented. Evidence is not a guarantee -- not technically speaking -- for this is a flawed world and so is our mind. But with appropriate methods of argument, and judging at the end, with all objections noted, ideas do not have to be scary; conclusions may be, but those are a decision based on good method, when finished!
Would you have zero passion to talk about something serious with a person who believes in cartoonish realities -- or is this a cartoonish reality? You will read of the dust in a moment. Is this belief system and content is a big fat NO, or is it science, the proper method of knowing something, using physical points and argument and judging without prejudice?
Should not the USGS findings, below, make an open-minded skeptic wonder? The great scientific and other intellectual minds would wonder; Kepler would at least wonder, and look further. Would he find it correct? Maybe, maybe not. But if you don't engage evidence tendencies, to see if they bear full-case merit, you will not know. Do not label me BEFORE thinking, and lose an opportunity to learn more about something which might well be very important.
Previous discussions and an upcoming article:
These findings and questions were discussed at the Vancouver 9/11 Hearings, 2012, mostly by Don Fox, Dr Jim Fetzer, using partly Jeff Prager and others' work. I attended as a presenter on another, an alternate or co-explanatory physics theory (explanation) of what happened, based also on the evidence available, but with some differences in emphasis.
The video and audio were flawed at the event and further corrupted after, for all speakers. However, the research went on. (My own slide presentation, which was very well received, covered another idea but compared it to the following, and also went over some justifications of that theory, even if the particular theory was not applicable on 9/11 or was used with the following method. I give a link to my slides at the bottom.)
My own slide presentation (slides only):
Done on an even more secret type of energy usage, as a postulate, these slides present the basics of and compare and give further background on Dr Judy Wood's ideas:
Note: I still think a combination may have been used. But I am open to one (Mini-Nukes because of massive blasts after smaller bombs) or the other (different energy use for other buildings, e.g., effect on Building 4, where part of building gone, rest remaining), but if the latter, then these alternate energy uses have to leave fission results.