8 AE911Truth

The organization ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS for 9/11 TRUTH rules out that the World Trade Center was destroyed by nuclear weapons.

The following sections are an attempt to minimize these arguments and to point out the weak points so that the result is a uniform overall picture .

Statement of AE911Truth

a nuclear process is out of the question

Arguments: http://www.ae911truth.org/news/227-news-media-events-faq-15.html.

8.1 OUR VIEW: STEP BY STEP

8.2 A&E argument: Demolishing technique explained conventionally

8.2.1 Violation of the law of energy conservation

Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1exp10.html

8.2.2 Controlled conventional detonations

Controlled detonation in the building: shock waves with circular symmetry

Source 1: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1exp21.html
Source 2:http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp5.html

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.

Out&down. And out&down.

Short Clip: www.911history.de/f9.mp4

Source @ 14:15 (Jonathan H. Cole): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00

8.2.3 Violation of the law of momentum conservation

Controlled detonation in the building: Formation of shock waves with a circular symmetry

Source 1: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1exp21.html
Source 2: http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.3083v1
Source 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_%28liquid%29

The [faulty] 9/11 experiment: the force behind the motion patterns

Controlled detonation in the building: Formation of shock waves with a circular symmetry

Source 1: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/nt_east.html
Source 2: http://www.ju-greber.de/MUC-Springbrunnen03-40.html

The [faulty] 9/11 experiment: the actual motion pattern

The actually observed motion pattern

We can see a rising&upshooting, continuous gas and dust bands – with the building disintegrating downwards at the same time.

A cloud column as standing stem develops above the hot center, surrounded by a dust collar that spreads in horizontal direction.

Short Clip: www.911history.de/e4.mp4

Source @00:16: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUqTG9LKzJ4

THE [NOT ENTIRELY] CONTROLLED OPPOSITION

Compare these ‘explosions’ with an actual explosion on the left...

The irony: the comparison shows the nuclear explosion Borax Sedan (104 kt / –194 m)

Source@ 01:06:45: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

Compare these ’explosions’ to a known explosion on the left here...

8.3 A&E argument: Radiation values not elevated

A&E: no evidence exists for elevated levels of alpha, beta, and/or gamma radiation consistent with nuclear blasts

Contamination

Argument: A direct contamination of the surroundings could not be measured

  • more precisely: ...could not be measured 5 years after the event outside the exclusion zone

Professor Steven Jones tested the dust samples years after the event (approx. in 2006) as well as several steel components.

Commented copy: pdfs/06_Hard_Evidence_Repudiates_Mini_Nukes.pdf

NOTE: the key witness of the 9/11 dust samples of Prof. Steven Jones died in 2010 of... cancer.
Source: http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/422-in-honor-of-911-survivor-janette-mackinlay.html
Source: http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-11/janette-mackinlay-february-26-1948-december-9-2010

Source: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

A&E: no evidence exists for elevated levels of alpha, beta, and/or gamma radiation consistent with nuclear blasts

Strontium-90

Argument: the long-lasting fission isotope strontium-90 could not be found

  • more precisely: the strontium-90 expected under lab conditions could not be found

The expected statistical distribution of the fission products changes due to rescattering of neutrons millionths of seconds after the nuclear fission.

Further information: Chapter 3.2.7.3

Sampling

Steven Jones tested a solidified metal sample for radioactivity and found no radioactivity above background levels.

Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/nuclear.html

8.4 A&E argument: No acute radiation syndrome

Direct radiation influence [from the crater]

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.

ShortClip @00’:37’’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJf3-cpHmxw

A&E: no evidence exists that people suffered from acute radiation syndrome

Military field exercise with nuclear weapons (Operation Desert Rock; 1951 – 1957)

Source @04:52: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kG9kD8bPnA

8.4.1 Acute radiation syndrome

Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strahlenkrankheit

Radiation values – source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert_%28Einheit%29

Radiation exposure of biological organisms is measured with the unit sievert (1 joule / kg).

It allows to quantify the risk for the occurrence of stochastic radiation damage (cancer and hereditary defects).

Source: http://files.newsnetz.ch/upload/5/4/5436.jpg

8.4.2 The burns

NOTICE

According to the reports, the dust cloud was was scorching hot and people got burned.

Local copy:
pdfs/Toronto_Report_p_230.pdf

THE 9/11 TORONTO REPORT, page 230; New York’s News; David Handschuh

Source: THE 9/11 TORONTO REPORT (page 231)

German

A wave – a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block.

THE 9/11 TORONTO REPORT, page 231; Paramedic; Manuel Delgado

Source: THE 9/11 TORONTO REPORT (page 232)

German

... and then we were engulfed in the smoke, which was horrendous. One thing I remember, it was hot. The smoke was hot and that scared me.

8.5 A&E argument: USGS dust analysis uncritical

No proof of radioactivity in the primary fission products

A&E: our assessment of the claim that data from the USGS WTC study prove radioactive fallout in the WTC dust

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/WTCchemistrytable.html

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)

ShortClip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsN3wnO6rSU

A&E: our assessment of the claim that data from the USGS WTC study prove radioactive fallout in the WTC dust

No correlation of the total amount of potential fission products

A&E: the claim contradicts the data on the amount of other fission products

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/WTCleachtable.html

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?”

Report: http://www.nucleardemolition.com/files/Download/GZero_Report0.pdf

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.

Diagram by Dimitri Khalezov (modified): https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:SkyScraperScheme.jpg

1. Transition zone

2. Embrittlement zone (steel)

3. Spall zone (rock)

Additions to Dimitri Khalezov’s model

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?”

ShortClip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHZMPV4ijxk

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).

ShortClip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kG9kD8bPnA

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

Source (modified): http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/mushrooming.html

Hypothetical radiation exposure as of September 21, 2001

Source (600% factor after reduction: 25%): http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg

Kyle Kulinski: The Gulf War Symptoms of 9/11

Source @00’:58’’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9p4knPmXYc

8.9 Questions to A&E

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?

Source @13’:10’’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo
Source WFC height details: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Financial_Center

how do you explain – without a nuclear charge – the formation of a mushroom cloud over Building 7, towering one mile above the City?

Question 2 [www.911history.de]

how do you explain – without a nuclear charge – the formation of a vortex in the mushroom cloud over Building 7?

Source @13’:10’’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo

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)?

Source (spire breaking off): http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html

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?

Source @09:53: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_64RigP1Fk

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?

Source @ 0:45: South Tower Dust Cloud (FOX News): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGaiSrxhRhU

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)?

Source 1 (modified): http://www.nucleardemolition.com/
Source 2 (half lives): http://www.internetchemie.info/chemiewiki/index.php?title=Barium-Isotope

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?

Source: http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/reCenter.jsp?z=26&n=30

have you taken into account that many iron isotopes are stable an will not be activated by neutron radiation?

Question 6c [www.911history.de]

have you taken into account that iron will rather scatter and not absorb neutron radiation, thus NO ACTIVATION will occur?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_cross_section

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

Source: http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/

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?

8.10 Photo gallery

Source 1: @01:30:50: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjtLTkIZTnc

Source 2 (Nachtwey): https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/911-unpublished-james-nachtwey-16.jpg

8.10 References

www.911history.de/f1.mp4

Quelle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tuAcRur_fA

  • 911 Mysteries Demolitions – in its entirety

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.

ShortClip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK7fZTMX1xE

www.911history.de/f2.mp4

Quelle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIJdpApINrY

  • 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...

ShortClip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuTCnfL5IuY

Published under 'U.S. Code Title 17 section 107: FAIR USE Act'. The views expressed in this article are those of the author only.

Top of Page