Letter to an Anonymous Nuke Hypothesist

I wanted to share this with more people than would find it buried in the blog posts below, because I feel like the faith based approach of the anonymous person to whom I'm responding, represents the approach of many both inside and outside our movement who appear to have little experience with formal logic. And I mean the kind of thinking you pick up by reading, debating people, going to college, or just having a curiosity bigger than your ego. The '9/11 truth movement' is guided by a logical, legal, and journalistic approach to the facts and their promotion. While there are those blindly following obscure lines of inquiry who will only distract us, we should reach out to those who might have strayed down an obscure path, but have a genuine concern for the truth.

Message posted to the following thread:


"I believe some form of nuclear device was used at the WTC. The chances are it is still top secret so we have no way of knowing what it is.

There is simply no other explanation for the rapid and near-total pulverisation of the concrete. I am no expert so I have no facts to back me up but I am convinced that when the truth is known these facts will be made clear.

It disturbs me greatly to see two leading bloggers here trying to jump on anyone who posts 'way out' theories. That is the way the MSM operate. It has no place in a Truth movement.

Or are we a half-truth movement?"

And my response:

Your first scentence does not represent a scientific approach. You BELIEVE that a nuclear device was used, and assume the proof is secret? Sounds like a dead end to me. At least for the time being. You say you have no facts to back you up, but you are CONVINCED that it was nukes? Sounds like faith. The only faith I bring to this movement, is my faith in informed citizens, and my certainty that the spirit of humanity through the guidance of our great prophets and thinkers, guides us toward creation and evolution, and not toward our mutual destruction.

Yes, there are many other explanations for the collapse of the towers, that do not include the use of any nuclear devices. You could turn, for instance, to any of the major 9/11 researchers, who would offer a great deal of data suggesting controlled demolition, while not mentioning the nuclear device hypothesis. Does it not interest you that none of the most prominent 9/11 researchers concern themselves with this?

The dialogue you are seeing in here is very important within the movement right now, as we are debating what should be our core priorities, and primary evidence. The 'movement' is not unified, as there are many complimentary approaches that each reach a differrent audience. This diversity of approach makes us stronger, but only up to a certain point.

To begin with, we know that this movement has been infiltrated by those seeking to undermine our efforts. We have only to think for a moment about what they might try to do, to recognize that advancing the least credible evidence would be one primary goal. For this reason there may always be this kind of conflict within the movement, as those with some degree of insight and savvy seek to defend our priorities and credibility.

Also, as in any healthy democratic body, there is an evolution through debate toward the truest, or most strategically powerful, approach. We have not yet seen our best movie, or website. And it is exactly these kinds of debate that are guiding those who are paying attention toward the strongest expressions of the '9/11 truth movement.' Without some diversity we would not be growing as quickly as we are.

However, I ask you a very simple question. If the case for complicity has been made, then what is the value of new hypotheses, actually weaker than those used to make the case?

I really think that the most prominent activists have long ago made the case for complicity, and that these late coming flights of fancy have little to offer, and generally a limited potential to distract. As Alex Jones has suggested, what hit the Pentagon is a weak link we could set aside, as it is our biggest source of mainstream slander. But otherwise, I think that most of the major 9/11 truth activist are effectively narrowing their focus on the best evidence, and that doesn't for the time being, include hypotheses about the use of nuclear devices.

Don't be 'greatly disturbed' at the fact that some of these speculations are not presently relevant to the core of our movement. And try not to take it too personally when someone calls you an agent. Personally, I am as amused as I am concerned by these hypotheses, and worry that some of us are possibly spending too much time debating a straw man.

While I can only assume that your intentions are genuine, as you claim some participation in the movement, I would stongly suggest that you become more familiar with the best we have to offer, if you are not already. And maybe spend more time in here to get a sense of the nature of debate in the forum, and the basis for people's various concerns.

I leave you with a number of questions that you can answer here or for yourself. Good luck.

I would recommend reading

I would recommend reading Prof. Jones approach which is not "Faith Based"


Dr. Steven E. Jones, his own views.
28 Sept 2006

Greek method: start with one or several observations, then apply LOGIC to seek an explanation.

Modern Scientific Method: start with a few observations, and generate an hypothesis to be tested. Then perform further EXPERIMENTS to test the hypothesis. Keep challenging the hypothesis with more experiments – and modify the hypothesis as more empirical data are acquired. Finally, based on solid evidences and analyses, arrive at a conclusion à publish results in a peer-reviewed journal or book.

• Hypothesis was raised that a small nuclear bomb was placed in each Tower –> we collect experimental evidences to find out whether the hypothesis is valid or not. (Scientific method)
• Empirical Facts: All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided, and much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades.
• I have studied fusion for decades, and have made frequent measurements of neutrons (as well as charged particles).
• Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples and a solidified metal sample for radioactivity using a Geiger counter: I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY. This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since neutron activation levels were zero.
• I also tested some sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison – and the Geiger counter showed hundreds of counts per minute. This also shows the long life of the radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs – the sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast.
• Note that concrete pulverization is often achieved in controlled demolitions with chemical explosives, e.g., the Seattle Kingdome demolition.
• Mini-nukes are not needed for pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers.
• See http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Seattle+Kingdome+demolition&search=Search

Thanks for posting that!

so much for that hypothesis, personally, I'll lay it to rest.

Great Info

Great post. Thanks for the heads up.
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain

Ya, that sums it up pretty well.

Good stuff. Keep this handy to repost again when people jump in with these speculations. This reference really helps me out. Thanks.

that said

this site can be kind of a cold place for newbies - even ones who are neither "no planers" or "nukes" - just people who are deeply troubled and need a place to go and vent since they have no one to talk to - I just wish you'd keep that in mind with Oct. 5 approaching - I plan to "represent" on that day in spite of all that - but I sure don't feel real enthusiastic about it right now