by The Anonymous Physicist
from CovertOperations Website
Also, other than myself, he is the only other scientist, or person, to write about the China Syndrome aftermath. As my illness prevented me from writing on 9/11 until 2007, his 2006 book was the first to correctly attribute the great heat and molten metal that existed at the WTC for months afterwards, to the China Syndrome of still-fissioning material.
While I discovered that independently, he was the first to demonstrate this in public writing. He deserves much credit for this. The Finnish military expert, Tahil, and myself, are the three people who have written proposed nuclear demolition schemes.
My articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC are here http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com and my articles on the China Syndrome are here http://wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com.
The Finn believes a single nuclear bomb was used on each tower, via a focused, nuclear shape charge in the basement. I have stated that numerous mini- or micro-nukes were employed in the towers, and in all the other WTC buildings. I have further highlighted that great redundancy was employed, and that numerous nukes either were sabotaged, fizzled on their own, or were impacted (without being triggered themselves), by other exploding nukes.
And so many nukes did not go off as planned, and their unused fissile material later gave rise to the China Syndrome.
My article on the
early attempted nuking of WTC7, which
failed, is good evidence of fizzled, or sabotaged nukes. Thus there were
many nukes available, whose fissile material was not employed in the
destruction, and which gave rise to the China Syndrome, in my hypothesis.
Please read all my articles, including the one on "fratricided" nukes
While my 9/11 nuclear scenario is different from Tahil’s, and I have explained in lesser detail before why I think mine is correct, and his is incorrect, I have always stated (and still do) that his work should be read by all, as I could be wrong, and he could be right, or possibly there are elements of truth, where we may both be right.
Looking at the different nuclear 9/11 scenarios, the Finn, and I, believe the evidence points to nuclear bombs. The Finn believes a single, fission-free, 4th generation thermonuclear device destroyed each tower. This is based on the govt’s Tritium finding.
Tahil does not mention the Tritium evidence, and goes with pure fission at the WTC. I have written several things chronologically as the evidence, and my thinking evolved. First I went with both sets of evidence, namely that either fusion (tritium) enhanced fission bombs, or a fission-triggered fusion bombs, were employed.
Later I noted the way the regime has total control of all scientific data, and could block release of the most damning data. I stated that it is possible that the Tritium finding was a red herring to divert people into looking for the fission-less fusion bomb, precisely because this would stop people from realizing there was a "China Syndrome" aftermath, at the WTC - which the regime wishes to hide at all costs. (Presumably only fission can yield the China Syndrome.)
So I have stated it is possible that all nukes employed on
9/11 were fission bombs, and the tritium data is spurious.
This Army man said that the nukes were emplaced by ATF and FBI personnel. He further stated that his Army team was under armed supervision by Wackenhut guards, who tested that they did not remove any radioactive evidence. We can see from this, that great redundancy (extra nuclear bomb emplacement) was employed at OKC.
Remember that Murrah was only 10 stories tall, and nowhere near as wide as the towers or WTC7. Consider the total volume of the WTC towers, the 47 story WTC7, and all the other buildings, and you can see how dozens of redundant nukes may have been employed in the nuclear destruction of the entire WTC.
If the matter is
linear, given the relative volumes, we might even conclude that 50-100
micro-nukes were emplaced, and they gave rise to the China Syndrome, in my
He does not seem to realize the possibility, or likelihood, that errors of omission, or commission, were utilized in various Gov’t studies, whereas I have highlighted this in my articles. Tahil particularly mocks those who state that the Seismic records were doctored - which includes me.
I base my view on several things,
including eyewitness testimony of those at Ground Zero, and a friend who
lived a mile north, and who described books falling off shelves, at the
moment of the first CGI “plane hit,” - or WTC1 basement (nuclear) explosion.
Also we know that the Gov’t actually asked one Seismic Lab to “re-do” their
Some of my criticisms, I will now list:
I have highlighted the reason the regime prevented, or perhaps more likely
ALTERED the data on the smallest sized dust particles. It requires far
greater energy (only nukes) to create the tiniest dust particle size.
This shows a common origin, he asserts, and is likely right. This, he says virtually proves fission occurred as Strontium and Barium are two common “daughter” elements in the fissioning of Uranium. This is likely correct as well. But he also states several things that are not correct. He makes these mistakes throughout the book. He only considers the buildings’ concrete or steel as sources of the dust.
This is a serious flaw. The buildings’ entire contents
- from people
to furniture, etc., etc. - must be considered! He also at times, assumes one
particular isotope for an element, e.g. Strontium 90, and not its other four
naturally occurring isotopes, and its other 15 artificially created
In succeeding pages, he elaborates that very high levels of Strontium and Barium in the dust study could only have come from the fissile Uranium in two nuclear reactors, very deep underneath the two towers.
But, we shall see that Strontium, Barium, and Zinc are NOT to be unexpectedly found in the vaporized rubble, as Tahil states. Thus their source need not be from massive amounts of fissioned Uranium, as Tahil claims. There are many common, known sources of Strontium. A Strontium compound can make up as much as 10% of the mass in toothpaste for “sensitive teeth.”
Strontium is a normal component of
everyone’s bones and teeth. And Tahil does not take into account the total
vaporization of half of the nearly 3000 human victims, and partial
vaporization of the others. Other Strontium sources include pottery, color
TVs, aerosol paints, drugs for osteoporosis, and other sources. However
there is one source of Strontium that has overarching importance here.
Furthermore, Wiki says,
Here Wiki indicates that Lithopone may be commonly,
Thus we see that if this pigment was used in the WTC, we have a Barium/Zinc linkage, without resorting to Uranium fission. But on page 30, Tahil shows that if one sample site were left out, Barium and Zinc have nearly a 100% (96%) correlation.
Tahil speculates that this correlation could only be from nuclear fission, and in particular, lesser known “ternary fission.”
be right, but you see from my Lithopene example, this one correlation could
be explained without fission. The Lithopene example does not disprove
fission, but it shows that any one of these correlations is not conclusive
of anything. They have limitations.
Of course, ongoing regions getting this “treatment” will have very high doses for some time. The Hair Mineral Analysis, done on people, has shown a great increase in the levels of Barium, over the last 10 years.
This means that some Barium compound has gotten into people. Regarding the USGS dust samples, the relatively large percentage of Barium, in the USGS study, could even have come from the vaporized people, or from significant mixing of the WTC dust with atmospheric Barium, or from some local Chemtrail spraying within the 5-6 days of the WTC destruction, before the samples were collected.
Barium were ubiquitous, say from the atmosphere - and its adherence to the
smoke from the WTC, the WTC dust might come down with much Barium in it.
Thus there may have been a significant base level of both Strontium and
Barium from common, non-nuclear sources.
However, Tahil’s body of evidence, in this book, which includes several correlations of daughter products of fission, his analysis of the dust from the girders whereby Tahil concludes that elements were blasted onto the girders, and were still fissioning when collected on the girders, and all his other findings, indicate that there was fission in the WTC on 9/11/01.
But the amount of fissioned Uranium is impossible to find by extrapolation of the dust, because the amounts of Strontium, Barium and Zinc may have been large, in the WTC, as I have shown above. But thanks to Tahil, we can conclude that the search for the “holy grail” of fission-free fusion (as the Finnish Military Expert has done), is likely a fruitless hangout, or red herring, and should be abandoned.
The proof of the fission is in the China Syndrome,
and the sum of the findings in Tahil’s book. More strongly put, be wary of
any alleged Nuclear-9/11 proponents who do not proclaim the China Syndrome
Aftermath of 9/11! There are only four proponents of the China Syndrome:
Tahil, myself (the “Anonymous Physicist”), Spooked, and recently Deagle.
And then that this claim of nearly 500 tons of fissioned Uranium implies to him that only a reactor or two could have been the source of the Uranium. All this rests on the USGS dust study, and Tahil’s extrapolations of its data. Now while I think his earlier near 100% correlation of Strontium and Barium, goes a long way toward proving nuclear fission occurred on 9/11, his calculations leading to 500 tons of Uranium - and subsequent hypothesis that implies two massive reactors were sent critical is flawed.
On page 144, Tahil - via extrapolation of the amounts of these elements in the USGS dust study - arrives at the estimates of 60 tons of Strontium and 100 tons of Zinc, per tower, in the fallout from the destruction of the WTC.
From this, he further estimates that there must have been at least 470 tons of Uranium in each of two reactors deep underground in each tower, that was somehow sent critical, and exploded in nuclear fashion, and caused the destruction of each tower, and gave rise to the China Syndrome.
While I, of course, agree with him that the HEAT GENERATION, of up to six months, at the WTC, leaves only the possibility of a China Syndrome, his assumptions and math need scrutiny.
So for all these reasons, we arrive at the conclusion that we cannot use the USGS data for a simple weight ratio analysis.
Furthermore, Tahil compares his nuclear reactor hypothesis to only one micro-nuclear bomb per tower, and ignores the possibility/probability that,
So from this last list, it is clear that not one, but numerous nukes per
tower could have been employed, and the scenarios I have described, could
have led to a large amount of still-fissioning Uranium or Plutonium
fragments, “left” (after WTC destruction) both near the surface, and deep
One problem is the early sub-basement explosions that were timed to go off at the same time as the alleged “plane hits” way above. I have written extensively and cited much evidence, that these were nuclear devices that were exploded and even that EMPs (Electromagnetic Pulses) were yielded at those times. Tahil agrees that these explosions were nuclear.
He cites an article that I have cited numerous times written by WTC Engineer Mike Pecoraro.
Pecoraro was below the sub-basement C level (presumably at the D level, but not described explicitly), when his colleague saw “flickering lights” (EMP?) and they ascended to the C level.
As they then ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they,
Now I have asserted, the only thing that could have done these things is neutron bombardment and/or million-degree temperatures, both from a nuke.
Tahil says his nuclear
reactors were well below the seven known sub-basement levels of the towers.
And the reactors were sent critical at WTC destruct time. But he also says
he believes the earlier “Pecoraro explosion” was nuclear.
My “Many Nukes” hypothesis, which includes my “Many Nukes fizzled/sabotaged/impacted/fratricided” hypothesis, that I have authored - remember the Finn said only one nuke per tower, which thus has some of these same flaws - seems to fit all that happened to the WTC, on 9/11, better.
Numerous redundant, fizzled or sabotaged nukes, higher up may have given rise to the large hot rubble pile. Larger nukes in the sub-basement gave rise to the flowing molten metal seen there months later. There may have been many nukes emplaced in the sub-basement that led to events that appear “reactor-like.”
Why compare a reactor only to one nuke? And given that only
1-6% of a fission nuke’s fissile material is used in its explosion, and
there were many nukes that did go off, this too allows for a China Syndrome
at the WTC, even if there were not any redundant nukes present.
Tahil apparently believes that the “Plane hits” were real, instead of the impossible CGI, they clearly are. He believes that the earlier 1993 WTC explosion was conventional, when I have highlighted the eyewitness testimony of engineer Phil Schneider who said he saw proof that it was nuclear - I guess things like Pecoraro described. (See my articles.)
Tahil often cites new, or hypothesized Physics for some of the phenomena, when this is precarious at best, and makes it look like the ludicrous DEW hangout. E.g., he states that Koenig’s sphere was involved in the WTC destruction as a “neutron reflector/focuser”.
After seeing the documentary on Koenig’s sphere, and its maker, and its creation, and how it was moved, and is still there in a nearby public park, I seriously doubt this speculation, if not also on Physics grounds. His website cites a sewer steam explosion in NYC, miles North of WTC, several years after 9/11, as some proof of a massive nuclear reactor underneath Manhattan.
But NYC has had such stream explosions
for 150 years.
In my analysis of this, I revealed how only an EMP would cause part of a car to intercept the EMP, which becomes current, and then great heat. But this is only in metal, and the boundaries (air), between car doors, prevents said current from flowing across to the other car door. See especially my analyses of EMT Ondrovic’ experience of EMP causing a car door to explode onto her, and the flickering lights in WTC6, before it was nuked.
Neutron fluxes would NOT have caused this, as
neutron fluxes would not show a distinction with car door boundaries, as we
see with several cars! So Tahil appears to try too hard to see neutrons all
about, because he wants to fit this to massive reactors under the WTC, and
that area of Manhattan.
Look at the height of the smoke at top, compared to the height of the other extant tower. It has not shot way into the sky yet. Rather it shows that the top part of WTC1 was vaporized. So this could have been from a nuke at the top to start things off. He has, or had, some connection to Alex Jones. His website had said that if you can’t reach him via email, it was NSA interference, and to contact Alex Jones.
I have no problem with the NSA inference, but Alex Jones? He has been vehemently anti-nuclear-911, and anti-NPT (the planes were merely CGI). Jones would never have Tahil’s work on his site. Jones was sent in to head the 911truth movement, after the regime assassinated true conspiracy expert Bill Cooper, within two months of 9/11.
Why does/did a Nuclear-9/11 proponent have an
anti-nuclear-911 person be his contact?
This indicates nuclear fission occurred at the WTC, but is not proof. His ignoring the Tritium finding may ultimately prove to be both bold and wise. While others, like the Finnish military expert, considered only a pure fusion bomb, this then could not have given rise to the China Syndrome of which the HEAT GENERATION evidence is massive and conclusive.
I wrote that the Tritium finding - or
more correctly, its release may have been a red herring to get people to
look only for nuclear devices that could not have caused the China Syndrome.
So Tahil as I indicated, may be both bold and brilliant here. Tahil also
reveals, on page 115, evidence of birth defects after 9/11, in NYC, that I
have not seen before.
Tahil, of course, asserts that the American regime has the opposite view. He asserts that there was massive radiation, at the WTC, and he makes the bold assertion that Manhattan should still be evacuated! If he is right, how many American cities may have reactors placed underneath them?
Now I still think that if this is the goal - and it wouldn’t surprise me if you have read my “Ultimate Truths” series (anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com) - they could more easily just place nuclear bombs underneath edifices in big cities.
Sadly, for reasons my readers may know, I think there is a fair possibility that this could be the case, as above-ground nukes are more easily gauged and intercepted by OTHERS. The Rockefeller owned or controlled WTC land area is far from their only land ownership in this country.
Could the Rockefeller-donated United Nations land be next?
In this light, and in cohesion with what I wrote above about the OKC bombing, I ask did a China Syndrome result there, if it was nuked? Deagle says his Army agent/patient said that Wackenhut guards measured and prevented anything radioactive from being removed. I trust that means that the regime’s agents removed all things radioactive.
How many cancers have there been in OKC responders, or
OKC residents, subsequently? How many more buildings or skyscrapers must be
nuked before the People wake up?
And while they were doing something to it, or carting it away, its blue light of the Cherenkov radiation (from nuclear fission) would have been visible. I have written about this in regards to one photo that Steven Jones “orange-ified,” when responders were peering into something underground at the WTC. I related this to the blue light seen when nuclear fissioning elements (cored out sphere and cylindrical insert) were erroneously kept together for too long a time, during the “tickling the dragon’s tail experiments,” at Los Alamos, that killed two nuclear scientists.
Tahil asserts that the reactor remnant was uncovered at that time, so they needed to do the light trick. I would say that large areas of fissioning fragments must have been uncovered, for them to do this. But need it have been a reactor, or its remnants?
There could have been many nuclear bombs in the sub-basement area that led to a large area, with much fissioning going on. But perhaps this is one item of evidence where his reactor hypothesis may fit better than my many nukes hypotheses. Or could a much smaller reactor have been there, and elements of both hypotheses be true?
The blue lights are strictly not proof of anything, we must remember. But this regime does almost everything it does, for a sinister reason. Another photo Tahil uniquely has (page 101) is that of a rescue dog with his responder master walking the WTC grounds. Even the dog is wearing protective boots because of the great heat there and then!
on page 101, Tahil has a photo of the large congealed mass of bullets from
WTC6. He states that 43 days after 9/11 the heat was still so intense, an
injury to the face of a responder occurred when at least one of the bullets
in the mass discharged. Here is more proof of this great heat weeks and
months after 9/11, which the intel agents for “DEW” and the O.C.T. laughably
continue to deny.
Tahil deserves much credit for his statistical analysis chapter, which helps demonstrate the likelihood that nuclear fission took place on 9/11 at the WTC, and for first exposing the existence of the China Syndrome at the WTC. His hypothesis that this had to be from two massive, deep underground nuclear fission reactors that were sent critical, and exploded akin to a nuclear fission bomb, is much less compelling, and more evidence fits my “many nukes” hypothesis, with possibly one evidentiary exception.
Therefore it is possible that he may still be right, at least in part. For that reason, and other things cited above, I recommend everyone who is not an intel agent, and wishes to know what might have occurred on 9/11, read his book, as well as all my articles. The case for two huge reactors that were made to undergo nuclear explosions has not been made.
Neither can we completely rule out that the China Syndrome that existed at the WTC for several months after 9/11/01 was, in part, from a much smaller reactor present. I am not saying I believe this, but that it cannot be excluded.
Furthermore, I can even perceive one reason why it would have been there. A breeder reactor could even have produced the fissile material for the coming nuclear bomb destruction of the WTC. Or there could have been both many micro-nukes used, and a fission reactor was also exploded with a micro-nuke at the end.
I throw these ideas out for completeness. In conclusion I remain unconvinced that the evidence indicates a large nuclear fission reactor was underneath each of the towers, and suffered a nuclear explosion, as my “Many Nukes” hypothesis appears to better explain the details of the WTC destruction, and the China Syndrome aftermath. I welcome feedback and genuine criticism from Tahil on this review, or of my own nuclear-911 hypotheses, and also the same from any non-intel agent.
As Tahil wrote, Salus populi suprema lex esti.