There are 54 course comments:


At 07:54 on 11/02/08, Glenn Dormer from Uppsala, Sweden added:
    Whether it was small nuclear devices or Thermate is not as important as pointing out to the world that airplanes WERE NOT the cause of the three WTC buildings' collapse, and therefore the American government itself bought down the buildings in a false-flag operation to garner support to invade oil rich Muslim countries - Afghanistan and Iraq.

At 11:27 on 11/02/08, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:
    We agree that it is incredibly wrong-headed to try to blame the bizarre demise of the WTC skyscrapers on conventional causes, including "airplanes".

    Thermate, even if it was involved, is horse and buggy thinking -- it is so inadequate to account for the highly unconventional ""Ground Zero"" evidence that its promotion (especially by a U.S. DoE PhD fusion expert who keeps referring to "the planes" [sic]) must be considered technology-denying disinformation.

At 11:52 on 11/02/08, Jacques Marcille from Montreal, Quebec added:
    Personally, I have found no satisfactory explanation given up to now for the presence of the pyroclastic flows, and the asbsence of large chunks of concrete and other materials, other than steel beams.

    Assuming the use of vertical strings of small non-fission-ignited fusion devices exploding sequentially to mimic gravitational collapse, would the heat generated not have melted/vaporized the steel structure of the buildings in large part, or at least have left their signature upon the remaining steel structures?

At 12:44 on 11/02/08, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:
    "melted/vaporized" downplays what is revealed by the evidence, by indicating a lack of awareness (based upon the old-fashioned belief that there are only 3 states of matter, solid/liquid/gas) of the 4th state of matter, plasma. WTC solids were obliterated, disintegrated, annihilated (although, far enough away from the extreme heat sources, there was some vaporization and even melting). The nanoparticles (and all that 'dust' which blanketed all of lower Manhattan) are evidence of widespread molecular dissociation, caused by exposure to temperatures hotter than the surface of the Sun, which is why we rule out conventional causes. The surviving steel would indeed have shown the signature of exposure to extreme temperatures, which accounts for why, in order to conceal the truth, steel was illegally removed from the crime scene and destroyed without careful scientific examination and analysis.

    Please try to avoid relying upon terms such as "pulverized" and "vaporized" (and "melted"), for they give a false impression by seriously downplaying and distracting from what is revealed by the highly unconventional physical evidence of extreme energy intensity, and thus they are misleading. (Even the word "collapse" is misleading.)

At 02:45 on 11/10/08, Harold Saive from Gators 9/11 Truth added:
    The 9/11 U. anonymous author failed demonstrate how the nukes hypothesis fits better than the evidence of thermate found at the site and confirmed by NASA and eye-witnesses. I hope this work is not an attempt to distract the 9/11 Truth movement at a time when too many people will be happy to move away from activism to put all their hopes on the new Obama administration to restore a democracy.

At 03:22 on 11/10/08, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:
    Your concern that people's hopes surrounding this round of regime rotation will dampen their activism are valid, but the rest of your comment is backwards and thus misleading.

    It is 911truth.org and its tentacles which define and distract and divide any "movement", while they suppress awareness of case-breaking evidence (1 2 3) and meaningful truths regarding 9/11. Besides omitting (and thus helping the government to bury) good evidence, they also lead and sustain discussion over, and encourage people to argue over and thus some people to believe in, the impossible:

    "Thermate did it" is a pathetic limited-hangout disinfo campaign; chemical reactions/explosions cannot account for the widespread (evidence of) molecular dissociation at ""Ground Zero"". That evidence points to the [brief] presence of temperatures hotter than the surface of the Sun, and chemical-reaction-based weaponry, such as thermate, just can't do that. (IOW, the 911 truth movement's "thermate theory" is no less inadequate and insufficient to account for the GZ physical evidence than is the government+media's plane-based hijacker-blaming conspiracy theory of 9/11.)

At 03:45 on 11/10/08, Glenn Dormer from Uppsala, Sweden added:
    Questions:
    1) Why are you anonymous?
    2) WTC7 was a classical controlled demolition unlike WTC1+2. Why do you suggest thermonuclear devices in WTC7?
    Comment/Question:
    You have besmirched Steven Jones' name while withholding your own. Are you a coward?
    Glenn Dormer 911truth Uppsala, Sweden

At 03:55 on 11/10/08, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:
    1) This isn't about us. We don't ask or expect anyone to believe us or trust us based upon who we are or what our credentials are (or aren't). All we ask is that people fact-check us (at least just follow a few links).

    2) You are wrong: WTC7 was NOT "a classical controlled demolition", nor was WTC1 or WTC2. "controlled demolition" is among the recognized government/911truth limited-hangouts and disinformation campaigns. All 3 of the huge sudden building annihilations generated huge, ground-hugging pyroclastic debris flows, indicative of a volcano-sized energy release (such flows have only been observed accompanying volcanic eruptions and nuclear blasts, and there are no active volcanoes in lower Manhattan). No kind of classical conventional controlled demolition generates such debris flows.

    3) Please just read the text (and follow the LLNL and Navy and other links), and listen to what he said, and then look at the pictures, and then draw your own conclusion regarding the true nature of the contributions to public 9/11 physics awareness by former/fired BYU professor Steven E. Jones.

    Intellectual brilliance and lofty credentials and insider info+connections are no indicator (much less a guarantee) of a person's honesty or trustworthiness or truthfulness -- not even if they're wearing a lab coat or a suit and tie.

At 11:03 on 11/10/08, Mike from Santa Cruz added:
    Please consider, given all the evidence, that both thermate and fusion devices were used.

    Any analysis of the destruction that would conclude with the involvement of fusion devices would be a very difficult analysis for most people to make, though many have been looking for something along those lines for quite awhile, including myself.

    The evidence for thermite/thermate variations was easier to come by, and at this point is very difficult to refute, though it could never explain the extreme pulverization and the molten steel.

At 13:33 on 11/10/08, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:
    Of course thermite or other chemical reactions could have played some minor role, but what kind of person clings to (or, worse, promotes) simple but woefully inadequate 'explanations'?

    Why focus on a possible cause of "pulverization" (a misleading conventional term which downplays, and diverts attention from, the far more extreme and revealing evidence of highly unconventional disintegration) when we have such good evidence of molecular dissociation?? Why divert attention from the misuse of secret/exotic weaponry against U.S. civilians, unless one is trying to cover up huge horrible 9/11 (and larger) crimes?

    You claim that the supposed evidence of the use of thermite was easier to come by, which is not only incorrect (all of lower Manhattan was blanketed by that very special 'dust' laden with nanoparticles!) but it misses the point: thermite itself is very easy to come by (or even make one's self); as such its use, real or imagined, does not rule out any possible suspects (IOW, in terms of "who dunnit", it's basically an investigative wild goose chase and a dead end), while there very few entities with access to fissionless fusion devices...

    As an analogy, if a dead body was to show up with a small knife wound, 3 large abdominal holes made by powerful laser blasts, and a sprained eyelash, what kind of investigator would strictly focus on the cause of the sprained eyelash and knife wound while completely ignoring, and even diverting attention from, the highly unconventional evidence of fatal wounds that could only have been caused by someone with access to a highly unusual specialized powerful weapon?

At 14:47 on 12/06/08, A. Teacher from Indiana added:
    Thank you for shedding much light on this former paradox.

At 19:39 on 12/13/08, John from Chesterland OH added:
    Someone identified only as a Finnish Military Expert agrees that only small nuclear devices could explain the very fine particles. Such devices were in both Towers and in WTC7.

At 21:22 on 02/02/09, I. Newton from Missing Rubble, NoPancake, NZ added:
    What does it say about the American people (and people of the world) that the U.S. government's physically-impossible theory, of what happened to the towers, is still standing?

At 00:59 on 02/10/09, Russ Hallberg from Portland, Oregon added:
    You rock! Check out our draft of a House Bill: http://www.opednews.com/articles/8-House-Members-View-Draft-by-Barbara-Ellis-081018-925.html

At 15:24 on 02/20/09, Tony Stewart from Struthers, OH added:
    Thanks for providing a good deal of clarification for me on the thermate "wild goose chase" that perpetrators like Steve Jones and others have sent the 9/11 truth movement on.

At 17:39 on 07/18/09, 911 Skeptic from 911truthy.org added:
    THANK YOU for connecting the dots and publishing this information!

    I see that Dr. Steven E. Jones (and basically the entire "911truth movement") is now claiming that GZ evidence of nano-particles of iron and aluminum (which is entirely consistent with -- if not proof of -- the nuking of aluminum-clad steel skyscrapers) is somehow evidence of nano-thermite (a hypothesis which remains insufficient to account for what happened, part of the secret of triggering fissionless fusion, or total disinfo, take your pick).

At 04:24 on 09/09/09, js from 124.181.21.** added:
    Hey, this is all well and good but it doesn't explain why the powers that be would stage 911 to get their hands on arab oil if they had already discovered a source of "virtaully inexhaustable energy". It should be noted here I know nothing about physics.

At 23:22 on 10/01/09, Visiting Professor from a corrupt university added:

At 14:43 on 12/25/09, psikeyhackr from WTC MIToo Momentum Interference Test added:
    Skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. They must also sway in the wind. The people who design skyscrapers MUST figure out how much steel and how much concrete they are going to put on every level before they even dig the hole for the foundation.

    After EIGHT YEARS why don't we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTCs 1&2? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. That 10,000 page report is CRAP!

    Conspiracies are irrelevant.

At 01:07 on 03/05/10, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:
    Thank you for your comment, but isn't it time people moved beyond such inapplicable "momentum" arguments, which can falsely give the impression that a steel skyscraper might ever have "collapsed" top-to-bottom, already?

At 09:10 on 03/11/10, Regina Antares from 203.87.178.** added:
    Photographic evidence of steel beams blasting out 400 to 500 feet in all directions do evidence use of explosives. Did the pyroclastic flow do this. Seems like thermate was a decoy to divert attention away from the much more frightening molecular dissociation technology. True, mini-nukes could also have blasted out the steel beams. Your thoughts?

At 23:57 on 03/22/10, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:
    You're nearly on the right track, but still looking at it backwards:

    True, "explosives" could have blasted steel beams outward, but no conventional explosive (including thermite) could have caused the even more extreme pieces of evidence, including A)the pyro flows (indicative of a volcanic-eruption-like amount of energy), B)the nano-dust everywhere (indicative of widespread molecular dissociation, which requires Sun-like energy intensity), and C)the roiling plumes of particles trailing from the flying/falling metal (aluminum-clad perimeter structural steel dissociating from having been exposed to super-intense energy).

    It's not impossible that super-duper-nano-thermite was somehow involved in cleanly (ie, w/o the 'need' for radioactive nuclear fission) triggering a bunch of micro thermo-nuclear fusion devices, but clearly "thermite" is being used as a red herring, to throw people off the clean-nuclear scent.

    We have blatantly visually obvious spectacular pyro flows, which have only been known to accompany volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations, plus we have corroborated evidence of widespread molecular dissociation (nanoparticles all over lower Manhattan), which occurs at (and results from matter having been subjected to) Sun-like temperatures far hotter than any conventional explosives or volcanic eruption... So just ignore 911truth and S.E. Jones and R. Gage et al, and all that talk of "explosives" and (plain old regular) "controlled demolition", and the dots are ridiculously easy to connect!

At 00:24 on 05/30/10, JustnAmurrican from Las Bigass, NV added:
    I have no idea how to grasp the energy analysis from the photos alone but your explanation makes sense. If these facts about Dr S Jones are correct then it does point up obfuscation / diversionary tactics
    thanks

At 10:04 on 07/11/10, Nathanael Allen from Dallas/Ft Worth Texas added:
    The vertical string of fusion micro-nukes may have some merit in explaining the pyroclastic flows, ejection of debris and the lack of total debris for WTC 1 and 2. Fusion Micro-Nukes do not explain the damage signatures seen in WTC6 where the building was cored out apparently from top down and did not blow out the walls as seen in 1 and 2. The collapse of WTC 7 does not seem consistent with the damage signature of a vertical string of fusion micro nukes.

At 13:51 on 07/12/10, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:
    "may have some merit"? LOL!

    The hypothesis of fissionless fusion devices best explains what happened to the twin towers. As with their demise, WTC 7's generated a huge pyroclastic debris flow, the likes of which have only been seen accompanying volcanic eruptions and nuclear detontions.

    Your point that a vertical string of them is not required to have taken down building 7 seems diversionary, as does your point about building 6... (there is also no evidence that fissionless fusion devices were used at the Pentagon -- so what?)

At 09:10 on 08/19/10, NWOwned from Here to Eternity added:
    I agree, let's not STOP HERE and have this be the latest hangout wild goose chase den. Steven Jones downplaying the notion of nukes irks me.

    To me the 'Smoking Gun' is the Smoking Girders!! I mean WTF?! Mid-air disintegration and vapour trails.

    You think I was born yesterday?

    That's not right.

    I ain't no building demo expert but THAT ain't no Gravity 'Collapse'.

    No one else even tackles the 'Trailing Disintegration' thing nor attempts to explain it adequately.

At 23:48 on 11/22/10, Peter from Sydney added:
    I think it was a string of tried and proven W54 type sub kiloton warheads.The Pantex facility had stocks of the W54 pits in 2001 and may still have them.

At 16:07 on 03/09/11, Jeff Prager from Minneapolis, MN added:
    Proof that 911 was nuclear. Pages 21-42:

    DUST, the final version-

    Part 1 - Pages 1 to 109
    http://www.datafilehost.com/download-6b653c65.html

    Part 2 - Pages 110 to 199
    http://www.datafilehost.com/download-c8691ffa.html

    Part 3 - Pages 200 to 310
    http://www.datafilehost.com/download-cd8f0ba4.html

At 02:41 on 03/30/11, Mike from 216.255.101.** added:
    This article was definitely one of the most informative and investigative ones i have read on 9/11. I just have one issue because i have read Dr. Judy Wood's analysis and her info about hurricane erin and field effects and DEWs seems probable too... The big difference was she was not able to explain the exact mechanism, so I'm going to have to go with yours. Thank you for this.

At 02:55 on 03/30/11, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:

At 13:11 on 04/19/11, D Y from 911thology archive, Dimitri Khalezov added:
    Great working theory, stressing the correct priorities.

    I'll go one further. Dimitri Khalezov isn't merely a 'theorist' who is speculating, he claims to be a witness, and his explanation refutes Woods, Griffin, Jones, etc. in a manner rooted in knowledge, so he claims, circa 1/2010.

    I won't spoil the 5-10 punchlines contained in his 26 part video (see url)

    There are a few reasons why his explanation is the best-specific knowledge as a witness; simpler explanation re heat;
    but explosions heard not explained.
    His book has critical parts released for free-but full story yet unclear.

    Of course, your site very correctly states what is and isn't important, so I don't mean to get carried away on 'how'...

At 00:16 on 08/05/11, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:
    Sorry it's taken so long to respond, but Dmitri's video is more than 4 hours long, and after we downloaded it all, we watched it in segments, whenever we could get together to jointly view it with the CoDR. It's primarily presented in a 2-person interview format. Some parts of it really drag on...

    Khalezov claims that the twin towers and WTC7 were destroyed by underground old-fashioned atomic bombs (1 per building). He bases this primarily on his claimed knowledge of some supposed Soviet intelligence information regarding purported secret self-demolition capabilities built into U.S. skyscrapers. He strives to loosely fit the unconventional (ie, nuclear) aspects of the ""Ground Zero"" devastation to this supposed secret Soviet intelligence information. Parts of this he does worse than others, including by using conventional terms to refer to, and thus downplay, highly unconventional effects. Compared to the ludicrous nonsense spewed by Dr. S.E. Jones, Khalezov's views seem to require fewer leaps of faith, and violate fewer laws of physics, or at least violate them by fewer orders of magnitude. Still, both are nonsense. At least Khalezov's theory remains testable (fused bedrock would still be radioactive), if one can just obtain a coring sample from one of the right spots hundreds of feet below the WTC.

    Meanwhile, we do not believe it. For one thing, evidence of large chunks of exterior tower walls, trailing roilimg plumes of particles as they fell from great heights, while the exterior walls and support columns closer to the ground still remained intact, is consistent with extremely intense energy having been (first) released far above ground level, contrary to Khalezov's nebulous energy-transmitted-via-solids underground-A-bomb theory. For another, the critical WTC "tub", which kept (and still keeps) the below-sea-level portions of the WTC dry, would likely not have survived intact, if at all, 3 such underground detonations, which supposedly somehow "pulverized" [sic] the structures (and all the contents?) of the twin towers (and WTC7), to heights far above ground level...

    In terms of physics and overall content and its presentation, we find there to be a striking serious lack of coherence and credibility to the alternative-explanation 9/11 thoughts espoused in that Dimitri Khalezov video.

At 18:54 on 02/08/12, Ed Anderson from Portland, OR added:
    I've been trying to wrap my brain around the "thermate" and conventional demolition scenarios for years. Always thought nukes were too extreme(!). IMHO, your string-of-pearls scenario has one thing going for it that no one else seems to have covered: It accounts for the dearth of core steel column debris. Simplifies the set-up of the enterprise, as well. BTW,has anyone documented EMF disturbance at the time, and also has the 'dust' been tested for asbestos (or lack thereof)? Could be telling.

At 19:32 on 05/03/12, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:
    Actually, it has lots of things going for it that no other explanation or hypothesis does... As for believing that 'nukes' were "too extreme", We all long believed that. We were misled!

    All traditional accredited "universities" and most if not all PhD physicists (among many disciplines) have long omitted vital information, which is why there is a need for 911U, and why it exists. We wonder how many deeply-in-debt college graduates understand, for example, that thermonuclear devices can be made to be non-radioactive and relatively tiny (and are thus potentially extremely beneficial and useful for creating clean inexpensive energy, shhhhh!), or that there are 4 -- not just 3 -- states of matter, or...

At 08:44 on 03/10/12, Ed Ward, MD from Weblog of US Tyranny added:
    Concise Briefing: Past/Present Global Tyranny ~ Basic Proof, ID, and Remedy = Proven 9-11 Nukes + Included Links

    Proven 9-11 Nukes = US Government Involvement http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/proven-9-11-nukes-us-government-involvement/

At 19:35 on 05/03/12, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:
    Thanks stopping by, Dr. Ed. You have long published some valid as well as some unsupported non-scientific conspiratorial statements, and associated with known disinformers. However, we at 911 University do not believe in guilt by association. We also recognize that even a stopped clock is correct twice per day...

At 13:33 on 05/10/12, lb from Utah added:
    It all makes sense. There were questions still lingering after conventional destruction theories were explored. Micro nukes is a plausible answer. Very enlightening! The Dr. Jones revelation is disheartening. I had been deceived. Thank you.

At 13:06 on 03/20/13, Bhaktidev from USA added:
    This is the smartest article, discussion and forum on this topic I've found: thank you!

    I studied all Dimitri Khalezov's videos and read his book; I am going with "Physics Professor" on this one.

    Dr. Judy Wood's site has an amazing catalogue of photos of 9/11, and she has helped spread the understanding of the fact that the bulk of the mass of those buildings did indeed go "poof". The fact that she chooses not to comment at this site is telling.

    Thank you again for your stellar contributions to the spreading of truth and understanding of this oh-so-important topic. May truth prevail....

At 21:05 on 04/06/13, G Griffith from Encinitas,CA added:
    Just ran into your site today. I like your proposed scenario. The aerial photograph clearly shows pyroclastic flow.

At 01:45 on 04/07/13, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:

At 13:20 on 05/24/13, Jerry Russell from 911-Strike added:
    I think you're really on to something here! I was studying this back in 2002-2004, and danced around this without finding the proof.

    Thanks for the wonderful work....

At 21:26 on 07/19/13, Thomas Jefferson Adams from 173.70.24.** added:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/21/911-dust-by-jeff-prager-final-version/

At 20:14 on 08/30/13, Donald Stahl from The St. Louis 9/11 Questions Meetup Group added:
    You adduce the "trailing roiling plumes of particles" as evidence of nuclear activity (and include a photo of the above-ground part of an underground nuclear test explosion). But such trailing is seen in nonnuclear events as well, e.g. the Sandia airplane-on-a-rocket-sled crash. There was no nuclear activity involved in the Sandia test.

At 01:37 on 09/10/13, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:

At 05:10 on 01/13/14, Timothy Julian from Colchester added:
    How come no one got burned alive by the grey cloud that came down the street? The heat appears to be very short lived.

At 02:11 on 01/14/14, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:

At 12:50 on 05/23/14, Jim from Oregon added:
    Good work 911 U.

    A recent article I saw suggested the so-called "nano-thermite" supposedly found actually is a by-product of the nuclear detonations, themselves.

    Thus, the Jones angle becomes more clear:

    Take a significant piece of evidence for nuclear detonation, i.e., a nuclear detonation by-product, the so-called "nano-thermite", and relabel it as evidence of non-nuclear demolition, thus killing two birds with one stone: Hiding in plain sight a smoking gun of nuclear detonation and using the "nano-thermite" explosive claim as disinformation.

    Question, is the article's claim reasonably possible that the so-called "nano-thermite" is in actuality a by-product of nuclear detonation?

At 17:40 on 05/31/14, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:
    Good comment, Jim; thanks. This topic was mentioned, but never really covered, here years ago.

    Indeed, part of Jones' disinfo fog is to conflate causes and effects of (the significance of) nanoparticles.

    The most salient knowledge to recognizing what happened at ""Ground Zero"" is that, at temperatures hotter than the surface of the Sun, covalent molecular bonds fail, causing molecules to fall apart (iow, dissociate, disintegrate), resulting in (IOW, CAUSING) nanoparticles.

    The most incisive point is this: whenever an aluminum-clad steel skyscraper is nuked, finding nanoparticles of iron and aluminum left behind is to be expected!

    DoE/911truth disinformer Steven E. Jones does not want people to even consider the possibility that fissionless nuclear fusion devices could have caused such elevated temperatures.

    Speaking of hiding in plain sight: If (as Jones claims) nano-thermite caused the towers to have been (as Jones illogically denies) micro-nuked, then perhaps nano-thermite was involved -- in helping elevate the dozens of tiny fusion fuel pellets to a temperature (iow, energy level) near where fusion could commence, requiring the addition of only a well-timed well-aimed well-focused pulse from a relatively small laser in order to trigger a smallish directional detonation of nuclear fusion.

At 14:55 on 10/28/14, Lauren Peot from Englewood, CO added:
    I think this is absolutely fascinating and right on.

At 12:52 on 04/08/15, Homosaps from homosaps added:
    Can you please comment on JW's assertion that the seismic data rules out nuclear explosions regarding 911.

At 13:35 on 05/01/15, Scott McGillivray from Vancouver, BC added:
    Excellent work. The daisy-chain of smaller nukes makes more sense than the 150Kton big nuke in the basement. Sadly, we will probably never know what really happened, but it is clear that planes were not the cause of the 'collapse'. Keep the faith!

At 06:20 on 07/26/15, Mark from Oak Ridge, TN added:
    Homosaps - "nuclear explosion" is misleading:

    The term "thermonuclear" was invented for H-bombs (fusion devices), even though A-bombs (fission devices) were clearly both hot and nuclear. Fusion reactions can be SO intense that surrounding matter is annihilated, which means there's a deficit of remaining solid or liquid or even gaseous medium near the detonation to physically transmit a traditional explosion shock wave. The shock wave that does propagate is thus a faint shadow of a thermonuclear device's total energy output.

    A tiny fusion device will produce a tiny shock wave, even though it can emit a large amount of energy, by producing a tiny amount of extremely intense energy.

At 18:54 on 06/20/16, Al from NY, NY added:
    Based on the effects observed and the isotopes present in dust samples, I do not see any reason why completely fissonless devices need to be focused on here. More 'conventional' Fission-fusion 'Neutron' NDMs of extremely low explosive yield would probably do the trick. Since the W-54 is too 'dirty,' old and packs too much of an explosive whallop even at 0.01KT, for all intents and purposes we might as well call them W-x warheads. It is not unreasonable to postulate less exotic devices, with smaller fission 'primaries' being used. Keeping things as simple as possible is SOP and the more complex the operation being conducted, the simpler its components should be.

At 01:39 on 06/23/16, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:
    Actually, Al, (belief in the use of) fission is an unnecessary complication -- an antiquated, obviated, former necessity of the mid-20th century; the simplicity of using an intense laser to directionally trigger a specially-crafted pellet of fusion fuel is about as simple as it can get:

    Evidence that a fission component would have been an unnecessary complication is the fact that while nanoparticles were present in the down-wind particle plume for as long -- 99 days! -- as the ""Ground Zero"" hot spots persisted, radioactivity was not.

    Why are so many people so resistant to the evidence, and to 21st century thinking(/reality), regarding the possibility(/reality) of clean hot pure fusion nuclear energy?


54 comments displayed


Add a worthy comment of your own:

Name:
email address:
city/state/etc:
webpage name:
webpage URL:
Comment:
(600 chrs)