The Question of "mini-nukes"

Hello All, I am saddened to see contention amid the leading members of st911.

I looked for a "Forum" site on the web page to make the following comments but could not find it. I'm writing because of new information that I've discovered that may have a direct bearing on the current dispute over what, exactly, could bring the WTC buildings down. Accidentally, I was thumbing through a book that I've had for years,
"The History of the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal", by James Norris Gibson, (1989 - by Brompton Books Corp, ISBN 0 86124 564 4 ) I include all this information in case someone would like to verify the information I state.

I had heard about "mini-nukes", but didn't know much about them. This book provided me with some surprising data.

The last entry in the section on various warheads contains the following:

(Quote ON) (Warhead yields are measured in Kilotons)

Length: Shipping Container, 35 inches Width: Shipping Container, 26.2 inches
Height: Shipping Container, 26.6 inches Weight: Shipping Container, 163 lbs.

Non-specific data on SADM: Weight of the warhead is less than 79 lb. Length approx. 20 inches, diameter less than 11 inches. Yield:
Varied yields listed for the W-4 warhead, from 1 to .1 kt, not adjustable in the field.

The Special Atomic Demolition Munition is the only ADM still in service with US armed forces. It is also the only ADM the US ever deployed that could be used offensively. The SADM was developed to improve the capability and effectiveness of the NATO ADM force. The smallest nuclear device the US ever deployed, this ADM can be easily carried to it's target by helicopter, truck, jeep or in the backpack of a single US soldier; the SDAM has since been labeled the "suit case bomb."

As a result of the ease with which it can be moved, the SADM can be deployed faster than any other US SADM. The ability to attack targets in an enemy's rear, when in the hands of Navy Seals and Special Forces, has made it possible for the SADM to be used in the attacking of industrial and military facilities deep inside the national territory of hostile nations.

As per the October, 1983 Montebello Decision, by 1985 all SADMs had been removed from Europe. This device is still in the US stockpile, however, and should remain there for several years to come due to it's tactical versatility.

(QUOTE OFF) Emphasis mine.

I was struck by several things in this description aside from the co-incidence of the weapon being known as a "SADM". The first thing that struck me was the minimum power of the weapon. One tenth of a Kiloton.

That would equal 220 pounds of TNT, yet in a much smaller package. Second was the size of the warhead: less than 79 lbs, 20 inches in length, and a diameter of "less than 11 inches";. This would not be a "suitcase bomb", this would be a "tote-bag" bomb.

I immediately thought about it's possible application at the World Trade Center.


1) We have what looks like high intensity explosions turning the concrete to dust and throwing steel beams far from the core.

2) The Towers coming down in near free-fall speeds.

3) Molten steel still incredibly hot weeks after the event.

It seems VERY likely to me, that SADM's could fulfill all of those conditions, especially the molten steel. With the added benefit of being rather easy to install.

Instead of heavy explosives, thermite cutting charges, etc., that could take weeks to set up, SADM's could be "installed quickly"; the setting of the sequence only being the most difficult part. And knowing exactly the strength of each charge, would call for the appropriate size of the SADM's (from point one kt. (.1) up to 1 kt.), which could be ascertained from the WTCs design parameters. It seems to my feeble brain that an engineer could fairly easily set the size and the timing very close to perfection. As Rumsfeld would say, using "known knowns".

I would contend that such SADM charges were placed in the Core of the buildings. The SADM was designed for demolition purposes. They would generate the enormous heat necessary to instantly melt steel, something the thermite takes some time to do. And the explosions of "pop-pop-pop" have been described by firemen. Could those explosions have been SADMs inside the Core ?

The information I provided was from 1989, but I cannot imagine the military throwing away such a useful device.

I am concurrently sending this to related groups, and I would be interested in any comments about it. Does anyone have valid information regarding radiation levels at ground zero ?
-John Austin Los Angeles, CA
Information on the Montebello Decision can be found here:


Testing the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers

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

More Jones and the Word Games

"we collect experimental evidences..." 

Jones uses this phrase to create the impression that he (and others) "collected" the "WTC dust samples and a solidified metal sample" he claims to have tested.

In fact, no source, method of collection or chain of custody is given for these "samples" or the "sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago".  Where are the test results?  How, when, where and by who were these samples collected?

Jones is a semi-artful liar who positions words and phrases to intentionally mislead.

Is the solidified metal sample from the WTC? He statement is not clear.

He speaks of "experimental evidence" yet present no test results.

He claims to debunk the hypothesis based on his word regarding his test on his samples yet presents none of the his evidence.

But he saves the best for last.

"Mini-nukes are not needed for pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers."

The statement "top-down" demolition as observed for the WTC Towers" implies a familiarity with other top-down demolitions.

What other "top-down demolitions" is Jones referring too? Any examples of "top-down demolitions" other than the WTC Towers? 

The tallest building ever imploded was 439 feet high.

J.L. Hudson Department Store
Detroit, Michigan, USA
Records: At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building & the tallest structural steel building ever imploded. At 2.2 million square feet, Hudson's is the largest single building ever imploded.

How does Jones know what is needed for a "top-down demolition" of a building three times higher than any ever imploded?




You are joking aren't you.

All of the evidence was removed illegally.
I believe that I recall a video where Dr. Jones stated that he received a sample of the debris from a woman who sent him some that she had saved from her place.

I have some ash from the St Helens eruption. Some lady who lived near there had put some in a small vial and sent it to my mother. She noted that it was one way that they were getting rid of the ash.

This isn't the OJ trial where the "custody chain of evidence" is that important. I doubt if it ever will get that important.

I beg to differ. Your source book is wrong. The tallest building brought down by controlled demolition is one of the world trade center towers. I thijnk one was slightly taller than the other but I don't recall which one.