Humint Events Online: The Importance of the Lingering Heat at Ground Zero

Thursday, July 05, 2007

The Importance of the Lingering Heat at Ground Zero

The “China Syndrome” Came to New York City on 9/11

By The Anonymous Physicist

Some people may not have not fully grasped the significance, and necessity, of my hypothesis on heat generating criticality sites at the WTC after 9/11. Some shills have actually, and laughably, attempted to claim thermite could have been been responsible for these high temperatures and molten steel.

Any attempt to have a complete theory of 9/11 must include the WTC demolition on 9/11 itself, and crucially its aftermath of the great hotpsots and molten steel, up to five months afterwards. The latter being supported by irrefutable, numerous eyewitnesses, and photographs and at least one AVIRIS overflight temperature data set. (With the second, long-delayed release of overflight data likely being bogus, as claimed here.) It is risible that a shill physicist claims this photo, of a crane lifting molten steel weeks after 9/11, as “proof” of thermite use on 9/11. Now while thermite, or other conventional explosive, may have been used in some subsidiary capacity on 9/11, my earlier articles have highlighted how only mini-nukes could have accounted for all the phenomena of the 9/11 WTC demolitions. It is not unexpected, but still sickening, to see how a shill physicist has claimed that the molten steel weeks after 9/11 “proves” thermite alone brought down the WTC towers. He HAS to claim that, for he knows well that the real source of this molten steel, weeks later, is nuclear reactions.

I have stated that only nuclear criticality sites could be the source of heat GENERATION weeks, and months after 9/11. You can find, say on Youtube, numerous videos of thermite being used to melt things, yes, including metal— but no vaporization. Note that the thermite is not being used as an explosive when it is seen melting through a car, e.g. But some of those videos clearly show that after just a few minutes, the molten thermite residue cools off and no longer glows. It is highly likely that any thermite at the WTC on 9/11 would have cooled off within hours. Indeed, I have stated that even the momentary maximum temperature of a nuke’s hypocenter (up to 100 million degrees), is known to cool off relatively quickly. You can ascertain this rapid cooling off in regards to the Trinity Site, or Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or even H-Bomb test sites. The temperatures returned to normal at all these sites relatively quickly.

Now some claim that oxygen starved fires could allow for vastly longer high temperature fires underground at the WTC. These people don’t seem to realize they have just proven the case ONLY for nuclear chain reactions!! Because only nuclear chain reactions release massive heat almost indefinitely, without needing ANY oxygen whatsoever! This is not the case for any conventional (non-nuclear) fire. This “indefinite” massive heat source was the basis for the term “China Syndrome” in regards to a nuclear reactor mishap which, in theory (but not really due to other factors), could have massive indefinite heat leading to a nuclear reactor criticality (core) remnant burning all the way through to China.

This remarkable article on Chernobyl actually states that the China Syndrome occurred at Chernobyl. It says, “‘China Syndrome’ of meltdown had taken place inside the reactor core. Thermal explosion and outbreak of fires in over thirty places were due to high-temperature and falling uranium core fragments on to the roofs of adjacent buildings.” So here we see learn that the nuclear core had exploded into many pieces of— apparently still critically reacting uranium fragments--with their concomitant high temperatures. But this is just the kind of thing I cited in my WTC 9/11 nuclear demolition hypothesis of nukes exploding either other unexploded mini-nukes, or nukes exploding the reactors in the Nuclear Borers.

So perhaps my previous term, “criticality sites” regarding the source of high temperatures and molten steel, weeks and months after 9/11 is too vague. Instead I propose that from now on we think of this aftermath of molten steel, weeks and months after 9/11 as… “The China Syndrome came to New York City on 9/11.”


Anonymous Anonymous said...

""The China Syndrome came to New York City on 9/11.""

that is a good way of putting it.
i'm glad that AP is dwelling on this and that S is posting this.

2:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blah blah blah blah nuclear bullshit blah blah blah.

Anonymous Bullshitter

9:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys really amaze me. There is no wide mouth bass with a gaping maw big enough to rival you guys in terms of taking the bait.

Comparing 911 with Chernobyl?

WHERE is the radiation?

WHERE are the radiation deaths?

WHERE are the thousands and thousands of thyroid cancer victims, 6 years later?

Where is the evidence?

It has been pointed out here that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and there is nothing even remotely closely resembling that.

The Anonymous Idiot (if I was that stupid I'd stay anonymous as well)
talks about "...nuclear chain reactions release massive heat almost indefinitely, without needing ANY oxygen whatsoever!"

Spooky talks about "mini-nukes" hence the lack of radiation.

You can't have both. Either you have a small nuclear event that releases little to no radiation (however the fuck THAT can happen, explain THAT one to me, Anonymous Bag of Shit) or you have a regular nuclear chain reaction that will release MEGA-MEGA rems of gamma radiation on a continuous basis.

The Anonymous Douche bag talks about a nuclear chain reaction - where is it? If it were occurring, what stopped it?

You can't just make shit up, which is the absolute modus operandi of this blog. When in doubt, MAKE SHIT UP!

broiled bass for suppah!

9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well. i know that I can't explain what 9:28 says.
hopefully AP will see it and comment.
in the meantime i would like to ask 9:28 what would be able to cause the molten metal in the basements of the wtc in the first place and enable it to remain molten for such a long time after 9/11 if not nukes which surely must have advanced a great deal since hiroshima 60+ years ago.

10:35 AM  
Blogger Spooked said...

A few points--

1) we have consistently held that advanced fusion nukes were used, fissionless pure fusion bombs release very little of the type of radiation normally seen with fission bombs-- however, there may have been some small amount of fissionable material that was used in some bombs and remained in the pile that underwent criticality

2) the scale of what was seen at Ground Zero was obviously MUCH smaller than Chernobyl

3) people did get sick who worked at Ground Zero, some with cancer

4) abnormal radiation levels could have been covered up relatively easily, remember the EPA lies about Ground Zero

5) if not nukes, what else can explain the incredible heat that lingered at Ground Zero?

6) if not nukes, what else can explain the incredible destruction seen with the WTC towers?

12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For you anonymous 10:35, I will do this for the first and very last time.

Assuming that you too are not a shill, and it appears you are not—as your reply, as far as it went is correct, and good. But it is the responsibility of readers of this (or any other) blog, if they care about the truth, to go back and re-read what I have written
(and other sources, of course) before falling for any lies from the regime’s shills that frequent any blog, such as this one, that has some truth.

So I will do this once, for you 10:35. My article, on the radiation issue, up at Spooked’s made it clear that since the 60’s or 70’s, the regime has admittedly had nukes that provide blast and little or no radiation. Some of this was publicly proclaimed as the “Plowshare Project.” So any mini-nukes used could have been of this variety, decades later. And if there was some radiation at the WTC from my China Syndrome scenario, I also addressed that as follows.
In that article I also posted a link to an indymedia article where it was shown that before shipping WTC “debris” to China, it went first to a processing plant that washed it down—a standard treatment for lowering radiation levels. I also noted the “dirt treatment” that Judy Wood alluded to, in recent comments, which can also be a method of lowering some radioactive parameters.

Other works on the radiation issue are the UCal/Berkeley data which noted high levels of Tritium (and a laughable attempt to find a non-nuke source for this); and I also cited William Tahil’s paper on his study of this data which concluded that there was significant fission radioisotopes in the WTC debris.

Then the 9:28 shill gives away who s/he works for when it cites “thyroid cancer” only. Corrupt nuking regimes, like the USA, want people to think that they are protected from nukes(and nuclear reactors), and/or their radiation, with iodine tabs, for “preventing” thyroid cancer. Every cell and organ in your body can and does get cancer from radiation, not just the thyroid.
This article on health effects from nuclear radiation states that, “Today [2006], leukemia and thyroid cancer form only a small fraction of the accepted total radiation-related health detriment.” It also cites that it wasn’t until 1974 that it was realized that Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors had “a significant increase in solid cancers”…and “nearly 50 years after the event[s], an unexpected increase was found in non-cancer diseases.” There are now, in fact, many people with all types of cancers among the responders and those who lived nearby, and many are (rightfully) suing the govts involved.

So sadly responders and people living in that area are, and will, suffer serious and deadly cancers of all types, and much other illness. And some of it will not be known for years and decades. And the shill is making a mockery of their lives.

Here also is a recent ABC article highlighting that WTC responders are significantly getting (formerly) rare blood and lymph cancers--which are well known to result from radiation exposure.

Note that these are not lung cancers. But, of course, that article will speak of inhaling “dust” precisely because radiation has not been publicly acknowledged, and likely never will be—unless some intrepid whistleblower from FEMA or whatever signs a deathbed confession years from now, as they are all sworn to secrecy.

Then the Gestapo shill does not like my statement: "...nuclear chain reactions release massive heat almost indefinitely, without needing ANY oxygen whatsoever!" So it repeats it, and now so do I, because it is true, and is easy to verify.

The shill actually proves my point at times when it asks “what stopped the radiation?” This is precisely the point that only such reactions can go on almost indefinitely and likely provided the heat source for the molten steel five, or more, months later. Any such radioactive fragments will have released heat, at the WTC, until terminated by two factors 1. The half-life of the element(s), or 2. Human Intervention. The latter including capture and cleanup--containment and removal--of any such radioactive fragments. Again, remember that the official clean-up went on until 5/30/07, and FEMA workers have been sworn to secrecy.

So the shill is, per usual, just posting lies and gibberish, and ignoring all that I have already written, and they will continue to do so—the big lie technique. THERE WERE NO NUKES, (MAYBE THERMITE or DEW), BUT THERE WERE NO NUKES,

Each citizen's responisbility is to see it for what it is and do any research or thinking as needed. But it's tone made it clear from whence it came, and to where it will implode to.

Anonymous Physicist

3:38 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Actually, I might well turn that around to extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary claims!

The extraordinary evidence is the high heat that lasted at Ground Zero for months, the molten steel, and the high incidence of cancer in ground zero workers. If you can't explain the evidence, then all the name-calling shows is your desperation.

5:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well there you go AP! that wasn't so hard for you, being a physist and all, to blast 9:28 was it?
but i am glad that my little question for 9:28 @10:35;
"what would be able to cause the molten metal in the basements of the wtc in the first place and enable it to remain molten for such a long time after 9/11 if not nukes which surely must have advanced a great deal since hiroshima 60+ years ago?"
has earned me almost the benefit of the doubt of your "assuming that i am not a shill"


5:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:00, 9:28, dude it's SO obvious the buildings were WMD'd or the legion of no-planers grows every day...face it, the perps/spooks/shills are f*cked, brah...

7:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I meant 5/30/02 for "official" cleanup termination date.

And 10:35: I am "sure" you are a fine person. But my task is not to "blast the shills" or get personal with anyone here. Rather to see if my knowledge and abilities can lead to any new realizations as to what happened on 9/11 and in other matters. And once posted, it is up to others to either ignore stupid shills, or examine and re-examine the evidence, or the works already written and/or cited. And not to expect me to write the same thing twice--won't happen again. That's then your job.

There is nothing wrong with ignoring shills when what they write is so blatently stupid or duplicitous. Or just point out the shillness of the poster.

And 7:17, good of you. Why not add where my earlier articles on nuking the wtc are?
Anonymous Physicist

7:24 PM  
Anonymous Ningen said...

Nukes or some energy source within the building makes more sense to me. "Where is the radiation?" gives me doubts, though I know some arguments have been made.

One line of argument I'm not sure I've seen is whether the visual evidence supports a nuclear explosion. I've seen the comparsons at the Finnish site, and it does look like a mushroom cloud. Has there been more detailed analysis? E.g, I've heard the argument from Jenkins on DEW that a beam of energy would move the smoke. Are there visual arguments for or against nukes?

8:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW, this is a recent article on thyroid cancer among 911 responders to answer the shill 3rd from the top.
Anonymous Physicist

4:27 AM  
Anonymous said...

Of course, the writer is totally fair.

3:12 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger