Department of Physics

""Ground Zero"" Energy Surplus

Analysis and Discussion


Having first recognized the vast energy surplus accompanying the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11, and having then connected the dots on the evidence that points to widespread molecular dissociation at ""Ground Zero"", we now consider the possibility of the simplest and thus most likely potential source of the form of energy capable of accomplishing that feat: fissionless fusion energy, released from multiple very-low-yield thermonuclear devices.

PREFACE (skip ahead to physics discussion)

It is to the eternal shame of early-21st century physicists, engineers, scientists, and other supposed luminaries and intellectuals that the huge, physically impossible lies of 9/11 persisted. On 9/11, we witnessed an unprecedented display of highly unconventional technological destructive capability. The conventional explanation we were provided, by government and media, for a top-down highly destructive gravitational collapse, in near-free-fall times, is physically impossible, and is thus about as worthy of discussion as is the belief that the Earth is flat.

In our opinion, the deafening silence in confronting such an impossible lie amounts to a hugely dishonest lie of omission, and complicity in a monstrous crime against humanity. If our scientists and educators and political leaders and other authority figures and tax-exempt foundations and corporate sources of information can lie to us about this, what else might they be hiding?

Many of us know what we think about the otherwise-good German scientists and intellectuals and opinion-leaders who failed to confront Nazi lies in Germany 70 years ago, and the huge costs to mankind related to that failure, and like to think that we are wise enough to learn from history. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case. What we have in 2008 is ~ 75% who just keep their heads down, complicity silent; ~ 20% who (would like us to) believe that chemical explosives, in a kind of oversized but conventional controlled demolition, brought down the towers, and ~ 5% who claim that only exotic weaponry, typically Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), can account for the highly unconventional ""Ground Zero"" evidence.

We agree that only exotic weaponry can account for the ""Ground Zero"" damage, but consider the DEW claims unwarranted and gratuitously complex and vague, probably intentionally so (ie, noise), to not only stoke the enigma and stifle resolution but also to make any other discussion in any similar direction seem like the rantings of "yet another one" who seems intent on blurring the lines between reality and "science fiction".

DEW proponents seem to believe that it is no more of a problem to direct than to produce the enormous amount of energy necessary to mostly annihilate a large skyscraper in less than half a minute. We disagree, based upon general technological principles and also multiple reasons to believe that the destructive energy was released at ""Ground Zero"" by fissionless fusion devices, also known as tactical nuclear weapons, that had been placed inside the buildings -- a technologically simpler explanation which better fits the evidence.

We also note that the DEW proponents remain inconsistently and thus strangely mute regarding the best visual evidence in support of the use of DEWs at ""Ground Zero"": the incredibly brief bright burst of light which preceded/accompanied the intersection of an aircraft the government claims to have been Flight 11 with the North tower wall (1). For those DEW proponents to go out of their way to connect invisible dots while willfully blinding themselves to visible ones calls into question whether their behavior is truly motivated by an honest desire for full disclosure of all the lies of 9/11.


The first nuclear explosions (over New Mexico and Japan in 1945) were known as atom bombs, or A-bombs. Technically speaking, they were all fission devices, since the energy they released came from the fissioning, or splitting, of heavy unstable atoms such as uranium or plutonium. This unleashes a lot of energy, and also leaves behind a lot of radioactivity.

The second generation of nuclear explosions (many over atolls in the Pacific) were known as hydrogen bombs, or H-bombs. Technically speaking, they were all fusion devices, since the energy they released came from the fusing, or combining, of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms. This is how the Sun works. Fusion unleashes a tremendous amount of energy, without a lot of lingering radioactivity.

Fission and fusion reactions are difficult to get started. Just as a conventional explosive needs some kind of triggering event, so do nuclear detonations. It takes a special trigger to create the conditions necessary to get a fission chain reaction to commence. The threshold for starting a fusion reaction is even higher. In fact, for decades, hydrogen bombs used atom bombs for their triggers -- there simply was no other way of achieving the extremely high temperatures at which fusion occurs.

Obviously, then, the first H-bombs were significantly larger than A-bombs. They were capable of destroying entire cities. Their TNT-equivalences were measured in megatons rather than kilotons. And their fission triggers left behind plenty of radioactivity.


In 1989, from Utah, news broke in the mainstream media of an energy breakthrough that would change the world. It was called Cold Fusion. It was announced that scientists had discovered that it was possible for fusion to occur on a small, non-destructive scale, at room temperature. The long-standing promise of the nuclear power generating industry ("electricity too cheap to meter") might finally be realized.

Scientists were skeptical. Within months, a U.S. Department of Energy fusion expert authoritatively had denounced cold fusion as nothing more than bad science, a kind of fool's gold. On behalf of the U.S. DoE, he basically insisted that the media had been taken in, and had reported the existence of something which was impossible, and that therefore there was nothing to the cold fusion story.

The name of that U.S. DoE scientist was Steven E. Jones.

The media, friendly to the powers that be, retracted their stories about the potentially huge new energy breakthrough, and apologized to the public for its apparent mistake. And, for the most part, the story went away.


In the wake of the 9/11 attack, up sprang a 9/11 "truth movement". Back in 2003, its leading voice regarding the huge energy surplus at ""Ground Zero"" was Jim Hoffman. Hoffman published an analysis of the energy requirements to have driven the expansion of the spectacular pyroclastic flow (what he termed a "dust cloud") following the 'collapse' of the North Tower, and found it to be at least 10 times more than what the tower could have provided gravitationally, thus disproving and invalidating the government's and media's claims regarding the cause and "gravitational" nature of its destruction.

Despite the clarity and correctness (except for one large, energy-downplaying, assumption about the expansion ratio) of Hoffman's analysis, and despite the fact that he was embraced and promoted by the so-called 911truth 'movement', neither Hoffman nor the 'movement' ever did much with it.

Even more puzzling is the fact that even though Hoffman had proved that we could not blame the demise of the twin towers on airplanes (hijacked or otherwise), he insisted that we could all still take the government's and media's word for what hit the towers (and why). He went further, publishing web pages that, while they appeared to be critical of the government's and media's claims, actually supported the core lies about hijackers and hijacked airliners, even when that meant willfully omitting contradictory/exculpatory evidence. (2)

Is it honest to continue to blame 9/11 on hijackers even after we know that we
can not blame the too-rapid too-energetic demise of the twin towers on airplanes?

In retrospect, it appears that Hoffman's physics analysis was intended merely to imbue him with credibility and standing among 9/11 skeptics as a leading powerful critic of the government and media regarding 9/11, so he would be trusted (and not suspected, but followed) when he subsequently turned around and declined to denounce, and even defended, some of the related, more central, enemy-creating lies of 9/11.


Suddenly, in late 2005, a self-professed "good friend" of Jim Hoffman's appeared on the 9/11 scene (and even in the mainstream media). He was a PhD physics professor and fusion expert at BYU who'd decided that he could breathe new life into a stale old WTC "thermite" controlled demolition limited-hangout that had been kicked around the internet for years without ever gaining much popularity.

There were at least two problems with his approach: the highly-unconventional ""Ground Zero"" evidence clearly pointed to some kind of exotic weaponry or energy release, and, same as Hoffman, he continually sided with the government and media regarding what hit the towers, even as he insisted -- proved -- that airplanes (he repeatedly referred to "the planes") could not account for what had happened to the towers.

The name of that physicist is Steven E. Jones.

So then we had two very intelligent men, Hoffman and Jones, both well-promoted by the "truth movement", both behaving inconsistently (ie, selectively and/or intellectually dishonestly) regarding their opposition to the government's and media's lies of 9/11.

Further, Doctor Professor Jones has insisted that we can rule out all possibility of any kind of nuclear devices having been involved in the annihilation of the WTC skyscrapers due to the fact that no large radioactive signature had been detected at ""Ground Zero"". (3)

But the logic behind that is based upon the 50 year old truth that a (radioactively dirty) fission reaction is needed to trigger a (relatively clean) fusion reaction. However there is little reason to believe that nuclear technology had not, as of 2001, advanced beyond that of the 1950s. Nevertheless, that seems to be the basis for Jones' having told people that they can rule out all nuclear possibilities.

It is our opinion that this constitutes a pattern, a history, of deceit; of having falsely ruled out the possibility of fusion without fission, and Dr. Jones has been dishonest.


Physicists and well-informed individuals had been aware, since the 1990s, of the then-newfound possibility of achieving fusion without fission. It was not a secret, and some of that information remains in the public domain:

    Here is a publication of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) referring to high energy laser fusion developments from the mid-1990s. It concludes with, "several years of hard work lie ahead in exploring the fast-ignitor concept with the Petawatt. The overall goal, as it was with the development of Livermore's first generation of lasers, is to speed the arrival of laser fusion as a source of virtually inexhaustible energy for society."

    Here (archived) is a 2002 publication of the U.S. Navy. It refers to "a krypton-fluoride (KrF) laser to produce thermonuclear burn in small spherical pellets" as the energy source for a commercial fissionless fusion nuclear power plant.

    And here is an article about a high school student, Thiago Olson, having achieved 200 million degree (ie, certainly not cold) fusion, without fission, in his garage in 2006, using parts mostly found on eBay. Since then, that feat has been replicated by high school student Eric Foss (16 17 18) and 14-year-old Taylor Wilson, among others.

So, armed with this information, and the resulting knowledge, or at least belief, that Professor Jones was lying, we felt encouraged to consider the very possibility that Dr. Steven E. Jones, PhD, U.S. DoE fusion expert, had told us to pay no attention to.

Once the requirement (and tell-tale radioactive signature) of a fission trigger is eliminated, a fusion reaction needn't be large enough to destroy a city. Given that a high school student has non-destructively achieved a 200 million degree plasma ("star in a jar") in his garage, it is no longer impossible to imagine a fissionless fusion-based tactical nuclear "hand grenade" (or a modern, fission-free H-bomb trigger) whose thermal output is capable of turning to plasma everything within a 10 foot radius.


If you've ever lit a match or cigarette lighter, you're probably well aware that there is a big difference between having an 1800 degree flame in a room and having all the air in a room at 1800 degrees. In the case of the former, the closer you get to the flame, the hotter the air is. Or if you're soaking in a bathtub, and the water gets a little cool, you can add a little bit of very hot water to make the tub water warmer. You won't get burned by the very hot water unless you get too close to the hot water supply.

In other words, heat disperses. A high-intensity heat source dissipates energy -- by conduction, convection, radiation -- through its surroundings. Thermodynamics tells us that heat moves from hotter matter to colder matter. So a source of heat will cause a region of hotter temperatures, typically hottest at the center, where the source is.

Recall the problems with trying to use conventional causes (including chemical explosives) to account for the unconventional evidence at ""Ground Zero"":

  • Pyroclastic debris flows (4) => volcano-like energy amount (5)
  • Molecular dissociation (6) (7) => Sun-like energy intensity (8)
  • Enduring "hot spots" (9) (10) (11) => persistent energy release (12)

    The first two are a study in energy quantity versus energy intensity: a little more "star" (plasma) than can fit in a "jar" could contain as much energy as a volcanic eruption, by (initially) containing much higher temperatures in a much smaller region.

Few civilians had much experience observing the effects of a small thermonuclear detonation in an urban setting. So if they saw one, and were given some other explanation for its strange appearance, would they know they'd been deceived? How? What does a region of plasma look like, and how does it behave at the boundary between 2 regions, one where molecules exist and a more energetic one where they don't? And what does that boundary look like?


Taking the above data points, and the fissionless fusion possibility, into account, we have formulated a hypothesis of how the WTC skyscrapers were annihilated. We publish this not to engage in any distractive divisive conclusion-leaping competition among and between 9/11 researchers -- it is far more important for the American people to recognize that they've been tricked than to understand precisely how. But it does annoy us to see so-called leading 9/11 researchers acting to divide 9/11 truth seekers into various camps without addressing this possibility, just as it bothers us to see misleading politicians hyping wind and solar and other energy sources (and considering additional construction of old-fashioned, dirty, fission-based nuclear power plants) without this possibility even being mentioned.

In other words, it's not that we are eager to speculate on this possibility, but no one else (13) has, and we believe that democracy is dependent upon the free and open exchange of ideas and information. If fissionless thermonuclear devices were employed at ""Ground Zero"", it is likely that anyone who recognized their handiwork being misused against American civilians had previously been sworn to secrecy, so they are unlikely to speak up. Professors at colleges and universities are, for the most part, not imbeciles; they know that the money for their salaries and research grants and advanced research equipment has government and military-industrial complex strings attached to it. (Evidently the pull of social gravity and/or some other unseen force[s] somehow constrains the collective conscience, and otherwise-good individuals can be herded into going along with an impossible lie, even if only by their silence.)

Funding for Tactical Nuclear Weapons (14) has appeared in past Congressional budgets. TNW had seemed unimaginable -- a seemingly impossible contradiction in terms -- prior to 9/11. But now that we've seen such intense devastation -- annihilation -- in a confined region, let's consider and explore the possibility of their (mis)use on 9/11. Remember, without the requirement of a fission trigger, a fusion device can be made tiny -- just include less fusion fuel -- compared to the first H-bombs.

So when we see pictures of chunks of the walls of the towers trailing roiling plumes of particles behind as they fall after having been blown outward from the perimeter columns, we can draw conclusions from such observations. First of all, the pressure of the air (or plasma) inside the tower was undoubtedly much higher than that of the air outside the tower. Second, the exterior walls had suddenly become very hot, apparently on the order thousands of degrees or more.

Given how heat disperses, and the radial symmetry about the vertical axis to the destruction of the towers, it is therefore reasonable to deduce that temperatures along a thin line within the core of the towers (think of the lead inside a wood pencil) were very high indeed, probably very much higher than the tens of thousands of degrees at which molecular dissociation occurs.

How could a line (like the pencil lead) of extremely high temperatures have been achieved?

An extremely powerful lightning bolt might approach that, but how could a lightning bolt be created along that path, and, more puzzling, what would its source of energy be? (Note that Hoffman has speculated on the possibility of large banks of capacitors fed by the power station under WTC7, but that seems grossly insufficient.) And how could a lightning bolt, with its nearly instantaneous propagation time, be used to mimic a much slower gravitational collapse?

Like a string of pearls, a linear series of points approximates a line. And if each "pearl", in a vertical string, were to detonate at a controlled interval, after a small delay, that could be used to mimic the rate of a(n exceptionally rapid) gravitational collapse, by approximating the rate of a free-fall.

The inverse square law tells us how energy intensity diminishes with distance from a point source. But intensity diminishes less rapidly with distance from a line source. In fact, it diminishes linearly, rather than by the square of the distance. So an approximated vertical line, formed by a sequential string of point sources each with a 10 foot disintegration radius, could result in a vertical cylinder with up to a 100 foot disintegration radius, which approximates what occurred within the twin towers.

A vertical series of fusion point sources, placed every few floors (in other words, a vertical chain of about 35 such devices), could approximate a thin vertical cylinder of Sun-like temperatures. If such devices could be made directional (and point up), so that each detonation did not immediately destroy the device a few floors below it, which needed to survive a fraction of a second before it detonated (in order to come close to mimicking a gravitational collapse rate), this might be feasible. That would also help explain the initial upward trajectory of so much of the towers' mass during the 'collapses' as (supposedly only) gravity was pulling them down.

According to this graphic and web page, LLNL's unconventional, Fast-Ignitor laser triggered fusion energy output is not spherically symmetrical; it is directional:

So let's visualize a vertical chain of tiny, directional thermonuclear devices something like this (not to actual scale or speed):

Of course, that still means that dozens of such devices would need to be reliably triggered in a precise sequence in the proximity of small directional thermonuclear events. Is such a feat possible? It is our belief that such a feat was possible but not 100% reliable. If it approached, say, 95% reliability, that would still be sufficient to mostly disintegrate the skyscrapers (and eradicate asbestos molecules) while creating the illusion of a(n overly rapid) gravitational collapse. If 35 such devices were used per tower and perhaps another 20 in WTC7, that would mean that around 90 devices were employed.

It is part of our dot-connecting hypothesis that the sources of energy responsible for the hot spots reported in the media (molten (10) and yellow- (11) and red-hot (9) metal weeks after 9/11, "fires" which could not be extinguished for 99 days despite constant dousing with water 12) were some damaged small fissionless thermonuclear devices (IOW, the 5% that were duds) among the ruins, which released their energy slowly, at (tens of) thousands of degrees, instead of all at once, at (hundreds of) millions of degrees.

9/11 is an example of the darkest of
clouds having the most silvery of linings:

Ground Zero was a working demonstration
of a new energy paradigm -- one with the
potential of solving virtually all of our
civilization's energy, economic, and
ecological concerns!

The first televised videos of the 'collapse' events were aired uncut, and provide a continuous look at the top-to-bottom destruction of the towers and the rise and expansion of the monstrous, heavier-than-air pyroclastic flows of debris which immediately followed. It appears the ground-hugging pyroclastic flows began as the top-down destruction of the towers was nearly complete (as the leading edge of the shroud of falling debris was reaching ground level). The discrepancy between the timing of the end of the "collapse" event and beginning of the flow event is another indication that they occurred independently, and the expansions of the large pyroclastic flows (15) were driven by separate, significantly larger energy releases emanating from the basements, around the time the towers had come all the way down (or their height had been reduced to ground level, depending upon how one thinks of it).

The huge vertical particle plumes briefly left behind where the towers had stood moments earlier offer mute testimony to the fact that [solid] floors did not sequentially pancake downward -- that would have taken significantly longer, been far less destructive, and appeared far different than what was observed.

(DIS)PROVING THIS HYPOTHESIS - Video Evidence in Support

Clearly, this hypothesis -- that a sequenced vertical array of directional, low-yield thermonuclear devices was used to annihilate the WTC skyscrapers top-to-bottom -- is not an easy thing to prove. It should be easy to disprove if it is significantly off-base, yet it remains standing as the basis for the explanation which best accounts for all the most phenomenal ""Ground Zero"" evidence.

After this analysis was published, we noticed details in a video from 9/11 which seems to support this hypothesis. It is a video of the 2nd tower that was razed that day, the North tower (WTC1, the plume from which is shown above). It was aired by NBC television network on 9/11, and can be found 16 minutes into this VHS recording. 3 seconds into this 29 second clip the razing commences. At 8~9 seconds, towards the right edge of the frame, another discrete chunk of debris is ejected, trailing a roiling plume of particles. At 12~13 seconds, just after the chunk has fallen from view, another salvo of chunks, also trailing roiling plumes of particles, is ejected from a lower level than was the first chunk. This indicates a subsequent, separate outburst of extremely intense energy. Note also the trajectories of the chunks in this salvo: the first to appear, evidently from the outside wall of the tower, has a flatter trajectory than those, presumably ejected from closer to the core of the tower, which appear immediately following.

QT movie of sequenced hot ejections
Real video of sequenced hot ejections

Disclaimer: Even if every bit of speculation in this article turns out to be wrong, that still does not let our institutions off the hook for having utterly failed to consider the source of such a huge and then persistent release of intense energy; they would be remiss in that failure even if our species was not presently facing a global energy crunch.

Let the ideas and information flow...