The information and research here is not about chemical reactions, but atomic level reactions. It includes patents, video proof, and debunks the misinformation being put out by others like ae911truth.org. The simplest explanation is usually the truth. There was no exotic thermite, jet fuel, explosives, etc that destroyed over 100 stories of steel, office furniture, huge concrete steel reinforced floors, etc. EVERTHING was turned to dust by simply striking the target with mass. That mass was neutrons produced by a 4th generation nuclear fusion reaction. No big explosions, no fire... simply the production of neutron's. The future energy was available years ago. The patents where created years ago. The tech was used on the towers.
https://twitter.com/paulmuaddib61/status/1187020428943990786
http://thereal911report.com/
view the rest of the comments →
[–] ACatIsFineToo 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Thank you. That makes far more sense to me now. I think for whatever reason the links on that site don't load properly - probably my noscript settings. Anyway.
Neutron induced failure of materials like steel and concrete is a very slow process. It mostly hardens and embrittles the materials leading to an ultimate fatigue failure. Also, neither concrete nor steel are going to contribute to a neutron chain reaction, so the neutrons would have to be produced entirely at the initial source. The "billiard ball" effect occurs in materials that are fissile/fusile, not in materials like iron (which is, nuclearly, the most stable known element.)
With regards to the cancer from the overhaul - modern construction materials are very carcinogenic in fires. Firefighters wear SCBA much more for protection from the long term effects of modern fire smoke than for preventing passing out from smoke inhalation.
At the distance videos were taken from, it's hard to tell dust from gravel, with regards to the material coming out of the building. Concrete which has already lost its structural integrity will crumble while falling. I can't find the video of the steel beams turning to dust, so I won't make any claims on that. Something falling from the top of the building would be going over 100mph by the time it hit the ground, so having concrete generate substantial dust clouds on impact isn't surprising.
In sum, I don't believe that a neutron based device could cause material failures seen at the WTC in such a short time period. Nor is something exotic required to produce the effects seen on 9/11. Any device which could generate a neutron flux large enough to cause rapid material failure, would cause extremely rapid death of any humans present. Such a device would be orders of magnitude more powerful and compact than any known technology of the sort.
Not saying "nothing to see here." Whatever specfic mechanism was used on 9/11, some derka derka in a cave was very unlikely the original cause of it. There are a lot of people and nations who benefited immensely from 9/11 and the wars it generated. I still think there's more utility to focusing on who than debating what was used to achieve it.
[–] justjakk [S] ago
Also in Paul's research, you can find that steel will actually provide a path for the neutron's to travel. They become trapped in it, bouncing around from compound to compound. BTW, people where vaporized(body is almost all water) upon impact. They simply disappeared in an instant.
[–] justjakk [S] ago
Re: "neutron chain reaction". I think you misunderstand. The weapon is producing neutrons, aka "MASS" traveling at high speed. When that MASS strikes other mass, there is NO atomic reaction(or like you said, "neutron chain reaction"). It's simply impacting other mass and causing any bonds that it may have, to be blown apart. The atomic bonds holding these elements like steel together can NOT withstand an impact from a freight train neutron striking the atoms that compose that steel. EVERYTHING was blown apart, except paper. The chances of a neutron particle striking the atoms that make up paper are slim to none. It's far to porous. The neutron's would miss the paper particles.
[–] ACatIsFineToo ago
That's not how radiation damage in crystalline materials works, though. It causes dislocations in the crystal lattice, hardening and embrittling the material. Neutron radiation doesn't blow apart metals, and the metallic bond structure in metals is actually great at absorbing impact and rebonding.
I will agree that a carbon based product like paper would absorb less radiation, but that's because the light elements have a lower "cross section" against radioactive particles.