Analysis & Links
Underground
Nuclear Power Plants
Chernobyl
on the Hudson
Secret Fallout
Killing Our Own
Tritium
1700 Designated Ground Zeroes
The Last Wave from Port Chicago
Environmental Studies of the WTC after the Attack
Project Gabriel
The Trouble with Steven E. Jones' Research
Controlled Demolition Inc.
Underground
Nuclear Power Plants
It may not be widely known that several Underground Nuclear Power Plants (UNPPs) have been operated since the early 1960s.
In Western Europe, 4 small Underground NPPs have been operated at Halden (Norway, 1960s); Agesta (Sweden, 1957); Chooz (France, 1960s); and Lucens (Switzerland, 1962).
Construction of the Swedish Agesta complex started in 1957 and operations started in 1964. The underground reactor was a small CHP system (for a Stockholm district), producing only 10MW of electricity and some 70MW of thermal energy for district heating. It is believed it was also used for military plutonium production.
Agesta Reactor
 |
Construction of the Swiss Lucens reactor started in 1962 and it went live in 1966. This was also a small reactor producing some 8MW of electricity. It was built in an underground cavern and experienced a core meltdown in 1969.
In the Soviet Union, the AD-2 underground reactor was commissioned in 1964 to provide combined heat and power (CHP) to the city of Zheleznogorsk. It is still operational and was also used to produce weapons grade plutonium. Russia have recently been studying plans to build more underground NPPs using small "mini" reactors based on naval technology.
The report "Underground Nuclear Power Plant Siting" by The Aerospace Corporation and California Institute of Technology (1972) analysed different potential underground NPP configurations and scenarios with a view "toward novel approaches to siting plants within the State of California". 4 potential underground sites on the California coast were listed. One of the stated advantages of underground siting was the "reduced population-distance requirements" - i.e. an underground NPP could be situated much closer to major population centres due to the improved containment.
 |
It was stated that underground NPP construction was feasible because of the European experience with 4 reactors and existing experience with large underground excavations for hydroelectric facilities.
"The most apparent advantage for underground power plant siting is improved containment".
"The separation distance from the plant to population centres might well be reduced from the 10-20 miles characteristic of comparable surface plants to a small localised area".
In other words, it was seen as quite feasible to locate underground NPPs within a city limits.
This diagram shows a cross section through the underground nuclear reactor containment structure.
 |
Several nuclear reactors worldwide are used not just for electrical power generation but also for district heating - Combined Heat and Power - using the steam generated from the NPP for heating and air conditioning (via steam chillers). CHP is desirable due to its higher efficiency and better utilisation of power plant thermal energy.
New York has one of the largest district heating systems in the world. Starting in 1882, the ConEdison system covers much of Manhattan (including 7 WTC) from the southern tip to 75th Street. It would have made sense for the UNPPs under the WTC to have been integrated into the district steam heating system to improve their efficiency and to disguise the reactor cooling system.
In his 7th August 2007 testimony to New York City Council, the President of the International District Energy Association spoke of how "district energy recycles and reuses the heat that is produced during generation of electricity. Standard power plants effectively convert only about 33-36 percent of the fuel they burn into electricity. Nearly two-thirds of the fuel used in the electricity production process ends up being rejected or "wasted" up the smokestack, in cooling towers or exhausted to rivers, lakes and oceans. Combined heat and power recycles this waste heat and uses it to heat buildings in a surrounding area through a district energy system. Combined heat and power is most feasible when there is an area near the plant that has a need for the heat – a downtown area......"
Integration of the UNPPs into the ConEdison system would eliminate the problem of having to discharge cooling water into the Hudson, which would lead to increased river water temperatures, a possible radiation signature and could lead to discovery of the NPPs. In addition, if there were or are "Manhattan Project" underground military facilities being powered by the UNPPs, these would also require heating and cooling. Integration into the pre-existing district energy system would be the simplest approach.
It can be seen that UNPPs had already been built and operated before construction of the WTC commenced. The Swedish Agesta reactor could be a blueprint - a small underground nuclear reactor used for CHP for a major city and for military plutonium production.
Where else would the military place at least some critical nuclear weapons material facilities at the height of the Cold War other than underground? What other electrical power generating technology would be used to provide long term power for underground military infrastructure during and after a nuclear war?
Chernobyl
on the Hudson
by Dr Edwin S. Lyman
In September 2004 the Union of Concerned Scientists published a report into the Indian Point nuclear power station, located on the Hudson River 35 miles north and upwind of Manhattan. Entitled "Chernobyl on the Hudson", the essence of the conclusions are that the low probability of a Severe Accident (a core meltdown) is no longer sufficient justification to permit such plants to continue operations - because the plant is so vulnerable to terrorist attack that a determined operation would have a very high probability of causing a core meltdown, with the ensuing loss of tens of thousands of lives.
The report analyses the scenario of a commercial aircraft being deliberately crashed into the nuclear reactor containment building, with the additional possibility of a ground assault to disable other safeguard systems.
It is also interesting to note that in the 1960s, some 16 nuclear reactors were ordered for construction within 100 miles of New York. Only 5 were built. One of those ordered in 1962 (but fortunately not built) was to be located at Ravenswood, 3 miles east of Manhattan.
Indian Point is a very controversial nuclear power plant and there is now overwhelming evidence that cancer rates are significantly higher in the vicinity of all nuclear power stations. Some are worse than others. A campaign is underway to prevent Indian Point from receiving a license renewal and to force its closure.
The following table from the privately initiated Radiation and Public Health Project, which is now the only program checking Sr90 levels in children's milk teeth in the USA, shows the levels of certain gaseous radionucleide emissions into the atmosphere from Indian Point 3 from 2001 to 2004.
The link is http://www.radiation.org/spotlight/071112_IndianPoint.html.
|
Table
6 Selected Measures of Radioactivity by Quarter 2001 - 2004 |
|||
|
Total
Millicuries
|
|||
| Quarter | Xenon 133 | Fission Gases | Tritium |
| 1st Q 2001 | 59 | 91 | 360 |
| 2nd Q 2001 | 218 | 251 | 457 |
| 3rd Q 2001 | 321 | 1040 | 1120 |
| 4th Q 2001 | 378 | 1400 | 1430 |
| 1st Q 2002 | 5580 | 8180 | 1310 |
| 2nd Q 2002 | 1820 | 3790 | 1670 |
| 3rd Q 2002 | 166 | 202 | 1540 |
| 4th Q 2002 | 33 | 55 | 679 |
| 1st Q 2003 | 141 | 181 | 495 |
| 2nd Q 2003 | 190 | 229 | 828 |
| 3rd Q 2003 | 371 | 525 | 951 |
| 4th Q 2003 | 523 | 1590 | 830 |
| 1st Q 2004 | 144 | 204 | 1420 |
| 2nd Q 2004 | 1290 | 1450 | 1340 |
| 3rd Q 2004 | 29 | 58 | 1140 |
| 4th Q 2004 | 36 | 121 | 1570 |
| One millicurie is 1/1000th of a curie. The physical half lives of Xenon-133 and Tritium are 5.24 days and 12.3 years, respectively. Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. www.reirs.com/effluent/EDB | |||
The extraordinarily high level of Total Fission Gases emissions in the first quarter of 2002 with 8180 millicuries immediately stands out. The average for the whole 4 year period is 1210 millicuries per quarter but the first and second quarters of 2002 are nearly 7 times and over 3 times this level.
Why are there such striking variations in Total Fission Gas emissions from the Indian Point 3 reactor, from 55 millicuries per quarter to 8,180 in the first quarter of 2002?
The Total Fission Gas emissions for these 4 years are 19.4 curies. The above cited report also shows that from 1970 to 1993, total emissions from Indian Point were 17.5 curies - in other words, Indian Point has emitted 11% more radiation in 4 recent years than in the entire 23 year period from 1970 to 1993.
The 8 curies released in the first quarter of 2002 are nearly half the total 23 year amount from 1970 to 1993.
This may be circumstantial evidence, but if Indian Point deliberately released these very high levels of fission gases in the first quarter of 2002, the timing could have been to coincide with any radiological investigations being carried out in the New York area in the aftermath of the WTC destruction. Once the "shock and awe" had worn off and medical attention started to be focused on the developing illnesses of rescue workers and residents, increased radiation levels and detection of fallout from the WTC destruction could be blamed on Indian Point.
Secret
Fallout
by Dr Ernest Sternglass
This book should be read by anyone who wants humanity to have a future.
Dr Sternglass is a pillar of humanity who has worked tirelessly since the 1960s to reveal the Mortal Danger posed to the Human Race and this planet by Nuclear Power and nuclear technology.
From the 1981 Introduction:
"Directly out of the business of nuclear weapons came the business of nuclear power, heralded in our country with the slogan, Atoms for Peace. Even that innocent-sounding slogan is part of the endless pattern of public deception that surrounds the entire nuclear enterprise. Let me interject a present example that poses the relationship nicely. In our country the entire hydrogen bomb enterprise—both R and D and production—is not under the Department of Defense, but the Department of Energy. It goes, not into the Defense budget, but the Energy budget. It is by far the largest item in that budget, consuming well over one-third of it. The next largest item in it is nuclear power.
"Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are two sides of the same coin. Nuclear power is life threatening in three independent ways, each in itself formidable.
"First is the threat of accident in nuclear power plants. This book tells in some detail the story of the accident at Three Mile Island. But one didn’t have to wait for that to know that nuclear power plants—unlike what the public has been told—are thoroughly accident-prone. Those great realists, the American insurance companies, refused from the beginning to insure nuclear power plants. Hence we have the Price-Anderson Act, renewed by Congress every 10 years since 1957, which lays the bulk of the liability in the event of nuclear accident on "the government"—i.e., on the taxpayers.
"The second life-threatening property is that every nuclear reactor now in operation produces the artificial element plutonium-239 as by-product. This is not only, as already said, perhaps the most toxic substance known. It is also the most convenient material from which to make fission bombs. The "trigger quantity"—the smallest amount from which one can make a workable atom bomb—is 2 kilograms, 4 2/5 pounds. You could carry that, and safely, in a grocery bag. To make a Hiroshima size bomb would take 6-7 kilograms, say about 14 pounds. You’d need a shopping bag for that. Every nation that now possesses a nuclear reactor can, if it chooses, begin to make nuclear weapons. It is expected that within the coming decade perhaps a dozen more nations than now possess them will exercise this option. It should be added that plutonium provides the trigger at the core of all hydrogen bombs, and in some also the shell.
"The third life-threatening aspect of both nuclear power and weapons involves the disposal of nuclear wastes. No one knows what to do with them. The periodic meetings of international experts have so far yielded no credible solution.
"In my opinion the entire nuclear enterprise, both power and weapons, represents a wrong turn for humanity, a development that cannot be tamed, that remains life-threatening not only in all its present manifestations, but all future developments that have been contemplated.
"Meanwhile the public is subjected to a continuous barrage of propaganda and misinformation designed to reconcile it to an increasingly problematical and expensive support of both nuclear power and weapons. The weapons, ostensibly for our security, are of course the principle source of our insecurity; and the nuclear power, that we are told we need for energy, supplies in 1980 only about 12% of our consumption of electricity, hence only about 2% of our total energy consumption, at a still unreckonable cost in both health and money."
The famous Sternglass Report of 1968 on the effects of the 1953 Troy/Albany fallout on childhood leukaemia rates put world wide attention on the matter. (See Killing our Own, P95).
In an interview in 1992, Dr Sternglass details how since Three Mile Island, there have been two major releases of radiation from US nuclear reactors that have been kept secret. The Oyster Creek reactor near Atlantic City released 3 to 5 times as much radiation as TMI, contaminating the food supplied to New York. In 1985-86, Indian Point released as much as TMI, into the reservoirs supplying New York.
I urge you to read from P108 onwards in Secret Fallout - The Minds of the Children:
"It was shortly after reading another story in the papers about how the United States and the Soviet Union had failed to agree once again on a treaty to halt all underground nuclear tests that my attention was caught by an article in The New York Times about an apparently unrelated subject. The report dealt with the fact that in 1975 the scores in the nationwide Scholastic Aptitude Tests had dropped by the largest amount in two decades. While there had been a more or less steady decline in both the verbal and the mathematical scores since the mid-1960s, generally by no more than 2 or 3 points, the average verbal scores had suddenly dropped 10 points in a single year. Since our son was taking the S.A.T. tests that year, I read the article with more than casual interest.
"Suddenly the question flashed through my mind: When were these young people born or in their mother’s womb? Most of them were 18 years old when they graduated from high school. What was 18 taken from 1975? It was 1957, the year when the largest amount of radioactive fallout ever measured descended on the United States from the highest kilotonnage of nuclear weapons ever detonated in Nevada. Just as in the case of the Baneberry test, the radioactive iodines must have gone to the thyroids of the infants in their mother’s womb, where it would retard their growth and development ever so slightly so that it was not readily noticeable, and only when the children were tested 17 to 18 years later on a nationwide scale would it show up in a sharp drop in intellectual performance.
"Clearly, if the effects were serious enough to lead to a rise in infant mortality and congenital defects back in 1957, as I knew had taken place, then for every baby that died shortly after birth, there must have been many who were minimally brain-damaged or whose cognitive growth may not have reached its full potential.
"I remembered from the 1969 Hanford symposium that this was exactly what had happened to the young children on the Marshall Islands after the radioactive cloud from the "Bravo" hydrogen-bomb test in 1954 had accidentally showered the island of Rongelap, 150 miles away, with fresh fallout. As reported by Conard at that meeting, in the following fifteen years, all the children developed thyroid disease of one form or another and showed severe growth retardation, both in their bodies and the size of their brains.
From the 1992 interview:
DTR: On a final somewhat philosophical note in all this, you wrote in Secret Fallout how, if the information can't get out, it's as if the immune system of a body is suppressed and it can't adequately deal with what's going on.
EJS: That's right. So a society is bound to destroy itself if it continues to suppress this information. And what will very likely happen is simply as follows: Since the people in China have practically no nuclear reactors and Japan is fortunate in having no milk and cheese in its diet, it will probably be the case in the next ten to thirty years, the east Asian nations will, the island nations like Japan, Taiwan, the islands of Indonesia, will become the dominant countries in the world because they won't have children who will be crippled from birth. They will have children who will be born full, normal weight and will have no impairment of their ability to do mathematics and computer programming and calculation and reasoning skills.
DTR: As well as themselves to be able to produce healthy babies.
EJS: That's right. And so if you produce healthy babies, you have a good chance to advance economically and industrially and be very highly competitive compared to countries like Russia, and England, and the United States that have poisoned themselves and continue to poison themselves in order to hang on to a technology that they created as a result of the cold war".
Make no mistake: if Nuclear Power is not shut down, it will destroy the Human Race.
Killing
our Own
The Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation
by Harvey Wasserman and Norman Solomon
This book was published in 1982 in the aftermath of Three Mile Island. It can now be downloaded gratis as a pdf file (copy here). The title is self-explanatory.
Read it.
In the foreword the authors quote Albert Einstein:
"Through the release of atomic energy, our generation has brought into the world the most revolutionary force since the prehistoric discovery of fire. This basic power of the universe cannot be fitted into the outmoded concept of narrow nationalisms. For there is no secret and there is no defence, there is no possibility of control except through the aroused understanding and insistence of the peoples of the world.
"We scientists recognize our inescapable responsibility to carry to our fellow citizens an understanding of the simple facts of atomic energy and its implications for society. In this lies our only security and our only hope—we believe that an informed citizenry will act for life and not death."
In 2002, the paper "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" was presented at the American Chemical Society National Meeting.
This paper is well known in the "911 Truth Movement" for its presentation of anomalous levels of Tritium discovered at the WTC site 10 days after the attacks.
Of the 51 water samples analysed from the WTC complex, Manhattan, local reservoirs and Brooklyn (mainly), two samples from the basement of WTC 6 showed anomalously high levels of Tritium activity.
The levels measured were 3.53 ± 0.17 nCi/l and 2.83 ± 0.15 nCi/l of Tritium activity in this location.
We will use the units of Becquerels for the rest of this analysis because it is a much less disingenuous unit. 1 Bq = 1 radioactive disintegration per second. 1 nCi is 37 Bq.
In Becquerels, the WTC 6 basement Tritium levels equate to 130.6 Bq/l and 104.7 Bq/l.
The WTC storm sewer also showed somewhat raised levels of 0.164 ± 0.074 nCi/l (6.1 Bq/l) but according to figures cited by the authors this would be within normal background levels of Tritium in water in the US, cited at 0.1 - 0.2 nCi/l or 3.7 - 7.4 Bq/l.
The authors postulate that this Tritium in the WTC 6 basement came from two sources: Radio Luminescent Exit signs on board the two 767s which crashed into the towers and from Tritium night sights fitted to weapons stored at the site.
Before I comment on their very interesting analysis, I will present some key data from the recent report by Dr. Ian Fairlie "Cernavoda 3 and 4: Environment Impact Analysis: Report for Greenpeace" which "examines the existing releases of tritium, the radioactive isotope of hydrogen, from the Cernavoda 1 Candu reactor in Romania".
The Canadian CANDU reactor is known as a Heavy Water Reactor (HWR) because it uses deuterated water (heavy water) as the coolant and moderator. The deuterium atoms in the water capture neutrons from the core to moderate the reaction and become Tritium. Tritiation of ordinary un-deuterated coolant water also occurs to some extent in the widespread PWR and BWR reactor designs but to a much lower degree since H atoms will have to capture two neutrons to tritiate, while heavy water contains many D atoms that only require one more neutron to form Tritium (T).
CANDU reactors are therefore well known for being the most polluting reactors in terms of Tritium production, which is released into the surrounding environment in increasing amounts as time goes on from all reactors of this type.
Dr. Fairlie presents data on the levels of background Tritium present in the local environment around the Cernavoda reactor before it started operation in 1996 and compares it to the levels found in 1999. (Upper and Lower limits removed for clarity. Units: Bq/l or Bq/kg).
Cernavoda Environment - Tritium Levels (Bq/l)
| Before Operation (1996) | After Operation (1999) | |
| Air Humidity | 7.4 | 330 |
| River Water | 3.1 | 39.9 |
| Vegetables | 3.5 | 18.5 |
| Cereals | 4.9 | 25.4 |
It can be seen that while the level of Tritium found in the WTC storm sewer of 6.1 Bq/l is in the range of background Tritium levels at Cernavoda and background US levels of 3.7 - 7.4 Bq/l, the amount of Tritium in the WTC 6 basement samples of 131 and 105 Bq/l are two orders of magnitude higher on the Becquerel scale than normal background and are three times higher than the concentration of Tritium found in Danube river water (40 Bq/l) downstream of the Cernavoda CANDU reactor, the reactor type which is the most Tritium polluting of all reactor types.
It can reasonably be deduced that the water in the WTC 6 basement has indeed been significantly tritiated by an artificial source, which can only occur by:
During the power excursion and core meltdown of the reactors, the water in the primary cooling system, the ECCS and the WTC air conditioning system (absorption chillers under the Plaza) would have been irradiated leading to the production of deuterated and tritiated water.
The presence of these high tritium levels in water samples from the basement of WTC 6 is consistent with the hypothesis of the prior occurrence of nuclear fission explosions and is further corroborative evidence that this occurred – tritium is what one would expect to find in water at the site of a nuclear explosion.
We will now discuss the very interesting paper "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" which at first glance appears to present the case that the source of the anomalous Tritium levels in the WTC 6 basement was the RL Exit signs in the aircraft and gunsights on law enforcement weaponry stored at the site. In reality, this is a carefully worded document to communicate what really occurred without saying so in as many words.
The team analysed 51 water samples in total from the local area including downwind of the WTC (mainly Brooklyn) but only found tritium levels above background in the samples from the WTC 6 basement (two orders of magnitude higher than background).
"All results were zero within detection limits" for these areas, including the South Manhattan water distribution system which is closed to atmospheric deposition.
The study calculates that the two aircraft would have contained a total of 34 Ci of Tritium in their RL Exit signs at the time of impact. The authors first comment on what the T2 in the aircraft would have undergone on impact:
"Considering the jet fuel explosion and high-temperature fires at the WTC, T2 was efficiently oxidized to HTO, based on weapons-testing data (37), as well as laser heating experiments (38). This oxide immediately vaporized due to the intense heat. Most of the HTO would be transported in the vapor phase with the wind, since the weather was dry on 9/11/01 (18). One cannot accurately determine how much HTO condensed on building surfaces and deposited on the ground with the collapse of the buildings, but this would have been a small fraction of the 34 Ci available. One indication is the low 0.164 ± 0.74 nCi/L from the WTC sewer, collected two days after the attack. Since the initial source was small, it is consistent that the environmental samples collected downwind over seven weeks after the attack contained no tritium (Section 3)."
Therefore they imply that the WTC sewer tritium level of 0.164 nCi/l (6 Bq/l) measured on 9/14/01 may indicate the actual tritium deposition from the aircraft, this being two orders of magnitude lower than the actual observed level in the WTC 6 basement.
Even though the vast majority of the tritium must have oxidised and been dispersed as HTO vapour in the plume, no tritium that could be distinguished from background levels was detected locally downwind of the site.
The paper goes on to make an important comparisons with other fires involving tritium containing objects that have occurred:
"It is important to compare this small release of tritium in the fire with two other incidents caused by fire and involving the release of molecular tritium. One incident involved a fire in a community building at Council, Alaska, on 9/6/87, where 12 RL light panels for airport runway marking were stored, totaling 3000 Ci of tritium (39). It was a free-burning fire, which consumed the building in 1 hr. Tritium assessment was done 11 days after the accident. The remaining GTLS tubes were mostly undamaged but disfigured, indicating that all tritium had escaped. No air-borne tritium was detected. All tubes were carefully wiped on surfaces, and the HTO activity from the wipes amounted to 6.5×10-8 of that originally present. No HTO was found in bioassay or environmental samples. The release scenario at the WTC from the airplanes is consistent with this accident. However, the Twin Towers collapsed before their complete burning, so the fraction of tritium deposited at the WTC might be larger. Another incident, involving containers with tens of thousands CI of tritium, was a fire on a C-124 airplane on the ground at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, OH, on 10/12/65 (40). That fire was actively extinguished. Elevated levels of HTO were found in bioassay samples, on emergency and fire equipment, clothing, in the debris, as well as in the soil and water from nearby samples. In comparison with the Alaska incident, the active fire fighting contributed to capture of some of the HTO on site.
Therefore in the situation at Council, Alaska, a small building containing 3000 Ci of tritium (as opposed to 34 Ci in the WTC 767s) left no detectable trace of Tritium afterwards. It took an aircraft fire with tens of thousands of Ci of T to leave detectable traces.
The authors then go on to present a simple model of how the HTO from the aircraft could have percolated down into the WTC 6 basement.
"Using c2=3.18 nCi/L, t=10 days, and the values s1 and f2 given above, we obtain A0=0.86 Ci from Eq. (3). Taking the total tritium activity of 34 Ci from the two airplanes implies an upper limit for the HTO deposition fraction of 2.5%. This fraction, although the right order of magnitude, is high by a comparison with the two tritium fire incidents described in Section 5, indicating that the airplane source alone was insufficient.
Therefore the authors conclude that from the two RL fire accidents they analysed, the scenario of 2.5% of the 34 Ci of tritium in the two aircraft percolating into the bottom of the bathtub is too high a deposition rate. "Therefore, the source term from the airplanes alone is too small to explain the measured concentrations, and another missing source is needed" they state.
The only other source postulated is weapons equipped with tritium sights slowly releasing T2 into the debris, it being oxidised to HTO and washed down into the basement of WTC6. This would have required 6.1 Ci of activity, from 120 weapons with 50 mCi each - not unreasonable at first sight but they conclude this is too high again since it would require complete destruction of the guns, complete T capture and complete conversion to HTO. In reality many of the guns were retrieved with only minor damage and intact sights, so there was only very limited Tritium release from this source and insufficient to account for the Tritium levels by itself.
In the conclusion they state:
"There is evidence that weapons belonging to federal and law-enforcement agencies were present and destroyed at the WTC. Such weapons contain tritium sights by design. The exact activity of tritium from the weapons was not determined. The data and modeling are consistent with the tritium source from the weapon sights (plus possibly tritium watches) in the debris, from which tritium was slowly released in the lingering fires, followed by an oxidation and removal with the water flow. Our modeling suggests that such a scenario would require a minimum of 120 equipped weapons destroyed and a quantitative capturing of tritium, which is too high, since many weapons were found with only minor damage and tritium sights are shielded in a metal. Therefore, such a mechanism alone is not sufficient to account for the measured HTO concentrations. This indicates that the weapons/watches are consistent with the missing source, which would have complemented the airplane source".
The authors have effectively discounted the weapons as a source of tritium almost entirely in the conclusion by saying they were found with minor damage and protected sights - but then baldly contradict themselves in the next sentence to say "this indicates that the weapons/watches are consistent with the missing source" - when they have just stated that 120 weapons would have been required but that is too high because the guns found were undamaged - and earlier stated that the 2.5% capture rate from the aircraft was too high - so without any quantification, they imply that since the tritium could only have come from both the aircraft and the gunsights together at less than 2.5% capture rate from the aircraft and at less than 120 guns, that must have de facto accounted for the tritium. Absent is any quantification of the actual contribution from each source.
Looking back at the two accidents they cite, a fire involving 3000 Ci of tritium in Alaska, no tritium was detected anywhere in the area 11 days later. The initial amount of T2 present was two orders of magnitude higher than from the WTC aircraft and concentrated into one relatively small building yet no tritium was found afterwards.
Therefore if an accident involving 1000 times as much tritium in a small building led to no tritium being found 11 days later, we would not expect to find any tritium 10 days later in the enclosed basement of the WTC 6 from an incident involving 1000 times less tritium in a fireball hundreds of metres above, from whence any HTO formed or T2 gas released would have dispersed away into the atmosphere. And in fact none was found downwind in the aftermath.
So in reality this means the aircraft source can be entirely discounted, from comparing it to the fire in Council, Alaska and that leaves only the gunsights. 120 such gunsights would have been required but the guns were mostly found undamaged and therefore these could not have accounted for the tritium source either.
The correct implication of the paper therefore is that a third unknown source supplied the high levels of tritium activity detected in the basement of WTC 6 some 10 days later. If it was not another contaminant from some other tritiated source, it can only have occurred by in situ tritiation of water.
1700 Designated Ground Zeroes (DGZs)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/index.htm
The National Security Archive at George Washington State University is an invaluable resource for all students and researchers of government malpractice.
The Nuclear Vault on the archive contains many documents detailing the history of US nuclear military activities. Their recent Electronic Briefing Book "New Evidence on the Origins of Overkill" describes the US military nuclear policy to bring devastating nuclear power to bear against over 1700 targets in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Vietnam and Eastern Europe.
The official language to describe a nuclear target was a DGZ - Designated Ground Zero.
New Evidence
on the Origins of Overkill
First Substantive Release of Early SIOP Histories
By William Burr
Washington DC, November 22, 2007 - The first comprehensive U.S. nuclear war plan, produced in 1960, was controversial within the U.S. government because top commanders and White House scientists objected to its massive destructiveness — the “high level of damage and population casualties” — according to newly declassified histories published today by the National Security Archive. The war plan also appalled Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who wanted to find ways to curb its overkill, but the first nuclear plan revised on his watch remained massively destructive.
“The SAC people never seemed to be satisfied that to kill once was enough. They want to kill, overkill, overkill, because all of this has built up the prestige of SAC, it created the need for more forces, for a larger budget. …. [T]hat’s the way their thinking went.” - Admiral Roy L. Johnson, USN (ret’d), Deputy Director of Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff (1961-1963) 6 December 1980 (Note 1)
I strongly recommend that you read this EBB for an insight into military nuclear "mentality".
One wonders what the Designation was for the WTC Ground Zero.
The Last Wave from Port Chicago
1/10/07: This website has just come to my attention. It is one of the most important websites in the world. It presents the results of over 20 years investigative research by Peter Vogel, former Secretary of the Board of Directors of the New Mexico Energy Research and Development Institute.
His research shows that the first atomic test of the modern age did not take place at Alamorgodo on the 16th July 1945.
The first Atomic Test of the modern age took place at the US Naval Dockyard of Port Chicago, 30 miles north of San Francisco, at 10.30pm on the 17th July 1944.
Hundreds of US Navy personnel and civilians were sacrificed in a covert test to validate the theoretical models and evaluate the "combat" effects of a nuclear explosion on humans.
Donald M. Kerr, Director of Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory told Mr Vogel: "You will never be able to prove it".
In 1981, the Los Alamos archivist "who had come to Los Alamos in 1945 as the first postwar archivist when the only archived materials at the lab were those that had originated with the Manhattan Project" told Mr Vogel: "To understand that we could have done that to our own men, I had to remember that the men killed in the explosion were mostly n***ers."
The bitter truth is revealed. From sending soldiers to walk towards atmospheric nuclear fireballs; to nuclear test holidays in Las Vegas; to injecting prisoners with radioactive materials; to considering those living downwind of Hanford as economically unimportant; to spraying the Middle East and Balkans with "Depleted" Uranium - the very first atomic bomb explosion started the Atomic Age as they intended to continue it: by treating human beings as disposable laboratory animals.
To vapourise 3,000 people and contaminate the whole of New York with hundreds of tonnes of radioactive fallout is just a logical continuation of a long line of such "experiments".
Who - or What - are these patently Inhuman "They" who have been perpetrating this Nuclear Holocaust upon humanity for over 60 years?
Environmental Studies of the World Trade Centre Area after the September 11, 2001 Attack
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-010429/chem1/WTCchemistrytable.html
This link is to the Forensic Data which proves that the WTC was subjected to intense nuclear explosions.
On September 17th and 18th 2001, two scientists from the USGS collected samples of dust from Lower Manhattan where it had been deposited by the collapse. Their report OFR-01-0429 was published on November 27th 2001.
This link is to the table of data showing the concentration of different elements in the dust, including unprecedented quantities of Strontium, Barium, Cerium, Lanthanum and Yttrium.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/radiation/dir/mstreet/commeet/meet11/brief11/tab_i/br11i1a.txt
This is a useful document from the National Security Archive at George Washington University. It is a document from the 1950s on Project Gabriel - a project to determine how nuclear fallout from US atomic bomb tests is distributed across the world and the biological uptake of fallout products.
The uptake of Strontium 90 in children’s milk teeth was used to monitor fallout across the world up to the 1980s. Few countries now continue this practice, since Sr 90 levels had been continually falling since the ending of atmospheric atomic bomb tests in the 1960s. However, in 2003 it was reported that the levels of Sr 90 in US children’s milk teeth had started to rise again, from the scattered monitoring still going on. There can only be one explanation for this - Sr 90 is being released into the atmosphere again from clandestine atmospheric nuclear explosions. The Indian and Pakistan tests were contained underground and could not release SR 90 into the environment.
This rise in Sr 90 levels is proof that clandestine atmospheric nuclear explosions are taking place. If “Ground Zero: WTC” was not the only source, it is certainly one of the sources.
“A theoretical analysis of the long range aspects of GABRIEL was made in 1949 by Dr. Nicholas M. Smith, Jr., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, at the request of the Atomic Energy Commission. Smith concluded that Sr-90 is by far the most hazardous isotope resulting from nuclear detonations...”
The Trouble with Steven E. Jones’ 911 Research
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones
This is an article by Morgan Reynolds on Professor Steven Jones and his well known “thermite” theory for the destruction of the Twin Towers.
There are some very interesting photographs, of the streets being washed down afterwards. Cars were burned in a peculiar way, warped, with one half burned and the other half untouched. Plastic upholstery in the cars unburned. There are reports of paper being untouched, while metal burned and people were vapourised.
Washing is standard practice to remove radioactive contamination.
The burning of metal but not paper or plastic is very interesting. As I go into in the report, there are aspects of the fallout which lead you to conclude that the “device” produced extremely intense neutron radiation.
It was not just an explosive device - it was also a Neutron Bomb.
Metal objects would block and absorb the neutrons and so heat up instantly, whereas paper and plastic would offer no resistance and the neutrons would just pass through. Hence metal burns while paper is untouched.
The Human Body is 70% water. Water is one of the best neutron absorbers, used as a radiation shield. In an intense neutron flux, people would probably turn to plasma and evaporate. This was always one of the “horrors” of the Neutron Bomb scare in the 1970s, when it was proposed to stop the Russian tanks from rolling across the North European Plain. The Neutron Bomb would kill people but leave infrastructure etc. intact.
Why the WTC “Device” produced directed neutron beams from a central explosive source is intriguing. In the report we touch on the technological appearance of Koenig’s Sphere which took pride of place in WTC Plaza and somehow managed to survive, largely intact. I doubt it was just “modern art”. It looks like an eyeball - i.e. a wave collection and amplifying device.
 |
In an advanced form of nuclear reactor, one would not simply create an “atomic pile” to create sufficient neutron density to initiate the fission chain reaction, by amassing enough “critical mass” of uranium together in a big lump. How crude. One would use a Laser approach to amplify the neutron emissions from a relatively small amount of material, by resonance, to build up the amplitude and energy into a concentrated and coherent neutron beam. A NASER - Neutron Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Neutron pulses would then be fired at the fissile material to initiate nuclear fission.
However, if we are going to go to the trouble of creating these High Energy Neutrons, another vista opens up - nuclear fission using Uranium 238 rather than Uranium 235. In fact, that is the whole motivation to create High Energy Neutrons at all, so that nuclear reactors can be powered by the abundant U238 rather than scarce U235.
Over 99% of natural Uranium is in the form of the U238 isotope and 0.7% is in the form of the U235 isotope. In a conventional nuclear reactor only U235 can be used to generate power. U235 will fission when hit by the “slow” or low energy neutrons emitted by other U235 atoms when they decay. Therefore a “critical mass” of U235 must be accumulated, so that the neutrons emitted by the entire mass of U235 will sustain a fission chain reaction. This is why natural Uranium is “enriched” to about 5% U235 and 95% U238 for nuclear fuel. The chain reaction in the reactor is then controlled by the moderator rods, cooling system etc.
Uranium 238 is useless in this system because it will only fission when struck by High Energy Neutrons. Proposals have existed for decades to build reactors using the principle called Accelerator Driven Fission. High energy neutrons are produced in a particle accelerator and used to bombard U238, creating fission and power. One advantage of this is that it is much safer. There is no self sustaining chain reaction - if the accelerator is switched off, the reactor shuts down and there is no chance of a runaway core meltdown or Chernobyl Syndrome. Abundant U238 and existing nuclear waste stockpiles can be used as fuel, transmuting them into safe disposable by-products.
I do not believe that 60 years after the original Manhattan Project, that the US Military have not made this obvious next technological step.
Indeed, the next obvious step is not just to use a brute force “particle accelerator” to produce the neutrons but to develop a Neutron Laser as I outlined above.
The reactor would look something like this. A central sphere containing the fissile material - U238, surrounded by say 32 Neutron Laser Guns. The rate of power production from the reactor would then be controlled by the Pulse Repetition Rate of the NASERS. The power output could be turned up and down at will by turning a dial.
Now we come to how the whole reactor could be destroyed at once in a massive fission event. The NASERS would all be turned up to maximum. The U238 would all fission in a massive “power excursion” leaving a molten pool of material. As the whole system was destroyed, neutron pulses from the NASERS would escape, not to mention the intense secondary neutron emission from the entire mass of U238 and its daughter products fissioning in a confined space (neutron leakage). There would indeed be an enormous explosion, an atomic blast, but unlike a U235 blast there would be no self sustained chain reaction. Because High Energy Neutrons are required to fission the U238, a relatively small explosion was produced in comparison to the quantity of U238 which must have fissioned.
This is of course now moving firmly into the domain of hypothesis. It is the purpose of hypothesis to try and explain or postulate explanations which best account for known facts, based on our state of knowledge.
We know that over 700ppm of Strontium and over 500pm of Barium was present in the dust. We therefore know that at least 500 tonnes of Uranium were fissioned per tower. We therefore deduce the nuclear device was some sort of reactor, not an atomic bomb. We have evidence of intense radiation beams, consistent with neutron emission and we know that if 500 tonnes of Uranium from a conventional reactor had fissioned in a chain reaction all at once, containing 5% U235, the Atlantic Ocean would now be filling the crater where New York City used to be. Therefore, we put forward the hypothesis that the reactor was instead some form of High Energy Neutron reactor, using much more stable U238, which produced much less explosive energy when hundreds of tonnes of it underwent instantaneous fission.
Koenig’s Sphere may be a model of part of the device - hidden in plain sight for all to see.
The Dark Side of Professor Jones
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/darkside.html
This is a detailed critique by Gerard Holmgren of Professor Jones’ hypotheses. As Mr Holmgren says, the demolition of the WTC is not a hypothesis - it is a fact proven by prima facie evidence.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com
Controlled Demolition Inc. are by now well known in the 911 Truth Movement as the world leading experts on the subject of controlled demolitions. Many have inferred that their involvement in the clean-up operation after 911 is evidence that they were involved in setting up the building for demolition beforehand. I think this is unlikely. I base this on the revealing interview given by Mr Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, to New Scientist magazine published on July 24th 2004. This interview should be read by all 911 researchers - salient extracts are in the "Ground Zero" report.
CDI's web site presents many photographs of controlled demolitions in progress. The sequence of photographs taken during the demolition of a building in Sao Paulo show very clearly the famous "squibs" firing out of upper floors at the beginning of the operation, similar to those seen at the WTC.
There is no doubt that conventional demolition charges were used in the Twin Towers. Why do this if the towers are going to be destroyed by nuclear devices? The pre-positioned conventional charges could not possibly have any controlling effect on the power of the nuclear blast.
The reason - Layers of Deep Black Cover. They know that anyone looking at it afterwards with any intelligence will see the towers were blown up with enormous force. But they do not want anyone to suspect it was a nuclear device. So they cover it with evidence of a conventional controlled demolition. This diverts attention away from the fact that they were not simply imploded but volcanically exploded, from the top down.
The military use different levels of secrecy and cover stories to mount "Black Ops". One set of operatives are given one reason for what they are doing. Another team, with no mutual knowledge of the other teams, is given a different set of tasks with a different cover story and so on. Everything is compartmentalised on a "need to know" basis so nobody has the complete picture except a few pulling the strings at the top.
One team, for example, may have been assigned to electronically hijack the aircraft or direct the "drones" by electronic remote control. They think the new "Gulf of Tonking" attack will be limited to the aircraft crashes. Level One. Another is assigned to plant the charges, under pretence of an anti-terrorist exercise. Another squad know it's for real and oversee it. They don't know it's going to be nuked. Level Two. The "elite" nuclear demolition team set up what they think are "SADMs" - Small Atomic Demolition Munitions - joking about how "Saddam" will be blamed. Level Three. They don't know that clandestine reactors are going to be sent super-critical. Level Four.
On the day, each team performs its job in sequence - unaware that even greater perfidy will follow, executed by an even Blacker team. Afterwards, people who realise they have been used can be liquidated. Even the "patriots" who were prepared to go along with a conventional demolition, to "wake the Americans up for their own good", might have balked at contaminating New York with hundreds of tonnes of radioactive fallout.
| Terms |