You are here:

Nuclear Power/Nukes at WTC on 9/11?

Advertisement


Question
QUESTION: Hello Dr. Kadiroglu:

On May 1, 2013, an article by Don Fox, Ed Ward, M.D., and Jeff Prager entitled "Mystery solved: the WTC was nuked on September 11" was published at the Veterans Today website. The core of the article is an analysis of dust samples from the WTC. The authors claim that the contents of these dust samples represent evidence of fission and fusion.  To my basically untutored eye: although the samples do look like something very odd has been going on, I can't agree that it's a typical thermonuclear reaction.

Back in 2007, Dr. Steven Jones published a letter in the Journal of 911 Studies entitled "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers". And indeed, that letter seemed pretty conclusive: among other things, Jones demonstrated a complete lack of the highly radioactive fission products and neutron-activated fusion products that you would expect from micro-nukes.

So how can this contradiction be resolved? My suggestion is that perhaps research directed towards "fourth generation" fission-free nuclear weapons has come to fruition, and that this is a purely aneutronic fusion bomb. If that's the case, the energy from such a reaction would have been released primarily as electrons and gamma radiation, which I think might leave very low residues of radioisotopes.

Could you take a look at the data, and tell me if you think I'm on the right track?

Veterans Today article:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/

Jones letter:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypoth

ANSWER: Hi Jerry,

This is a very interesting topic. Being a Turkish national, I never believed that a bunch of Arabs could pull a heist like 911. (Turks ruled Arabs for half a millennium) Also, I have never heard of collapsing skyscrapers after being hit by an  airplane. This is why I became a member and follower of ae911truth organization. This is the first time I hear about nukes. I know that Americans love conspiracy tales but this seems bit far fetched. I did enjoy reading the literature you have referred to but one needs to spend a lot of time to review them. I will not indulge into conspiracy theories but I feel that the truth is not out and there may be a cover-up of some sort or other. I do not find myself qualified to comment on this matter since I am not  a US citizen. Nevertheless, I recommend a documentary http://avaxho.me/video/Experts-Speak-Out.html on this subject. Now, let's talk nuclear.

In the Sun hydrogen-hydrogen (p-p) fusion takes place and after few steps He is produced. (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/fusionsteps.html) To obtain a nuclear reaction of this sort one has to bring two protons very close so that the electric repulsion is overcome by nuclear attractive forces. In terms of temperature this means more than 14 millions K. It is very hard to achieve this so another easier nuclear fusion is considered. It is the tritium deuterium (t-d) fusion and needs a temperature 1/10 of d-d fusion. Also, the probability of fusion, referred as the cross section is important. Higher the cross section better the chance to have a fusion reaction. T-d fusion reaction has the highest cross section at around 100 keV. ( 1 eV = 11400 K) For these reasons, T-d  is the only feasible fusion reaction that can happen on the earth. (Please see: http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-856264-0.pdf)

One has to overcome the Coulomb force and bring t and d close together and this can only be achieved by huge pressures. Gravity in the Sun creates such pressures thus heating up the medium. The other mean is by increasing the temperature. Such huge temperatures can only be achieved by nuclear reactions or radiation heating. This is why an A bomb is used as a trigger for a H bomb. Gamma rays from the A bomb push t and d nuclei toward each other. Similar effect can be achieved by lasers.  One needs to have a large machinery to produce laser beams, but a small fission device is much better.  ( http://rense.com/political/nearfusion3.htm )   So, I do not see any possible scenario where one can squeeze t d nuclei so tightly to produce fusion in such small equipment other than a nuclear fission trigger. One has to put energy into the bomb and the most concentrated energy is nuclear energy.

If the data presented in the Veterans Today article are valid then either the earlier article is not complete, which I suspect, or new evidence came out. In both cases a new and complete investigation is necessary but, it is not appropriate for me to comment on it, it is a national decision for the Americans to take.   

Best Regards



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hello Dr. Kadiroglu,

Thank you very much for your reply to my question. As a followup, I would like to call your attention to US patent application 20080008286 (link below.) This patent application describes three methods for achieving pure fusion reactions "which have a relatively low cost and compact size."

The first method is related to beam-target fusion, which is said to be a well-known method of achieving D-T fusion, provided that the particles are accelerated to an energy above 0.1 MeV per particle. However, the reaction rate is low, and energy break-even cannot be achieved, because of the extremely small effective collision cross-section of the nuclei.  The patent proposes using an interferometer similar to a Mach-Zehner interferometer,  to aim a beam of nuclear reactants with very high (sub-nanometer) precision. Each reactant  atom within the beam is aimed to strike a target atom at its exact location, overcoming the problem of the extremely small effective cross-section of the nuclei of the atoms.

The second method is related to muon-catalyzed fusion, another well-known method. A muon is a charged particle similar in some ways to an electron, but much more massive. Deuterium or tritium atoms with muons in place of electrons have much smaller radius, so that fusion can occur at room temperature by quantum tunneling across the coulomb barrier. Each muon can catalyze many such reactions, but unfortunately the muon sticks to an alpha particle from time to time. Muons are expensive to make, so this "alpha sticking" problem limits the energy return of the process. The patent application suggests that the alpha-sticking problem can be resolved by adding x-ray photons to the reaction.

The third method is most intriguing to me. The patent suggests that in an ensemble of atoms, an electromagnetic field can be used to align the electrons so that they form a coupled set, or a superposition of their quantum states which could be described by a single effective Hamiltonian. As such, the deBroglie wavelength of the electrons would be reduced, and similarly the effective Bohr radius would also be reduced, and fusion could proceed in a manner similar to muon-catalyzed fusion. The phenomenon of reduced deBroglie wavelength in coupled systems is well known for atomic nuclei (clusters of protons and neutrons) and has recently been demonstrated experimentally for clusters of photons.

My question: do you think any of this make sense from a fundamental physics point of view?  Do you think any of it could be a suitable basis for a funded research & development project?

Here is the patent application:

http://www.google.com/patents/US20080008286

Warm regards,

-Jerry

Answer
Dear Jerry,

I would like to ask your forgiveness for my long delay in replying to your question. I have to cope with unplanned health emergencies of my relatives. A 90 year old relative of mine is in ICU for more than a month and I had to travel to places where I had no Internet connections. Thanking for your patience, I will try to comment on your question.

Patents and real life are in two different dimension, sometimes they cross paths. There are patents for nuclear powered aircraft and rockets but we do not see them around. True, there are ways to bring p, d or t close to each other. All we need is enough energy to pass the Coulomb barrier and drop the particles into the nuclear potential well. In principle patented procedures may work but they are either very inefficient or expensive. I tried to answer your previous question as an engineer. I personally can not see any feasible solutions for achieving fusion in a plasma other than inertial or magnetic confinements at this point of time. That is why I find nuclear explosives hypothesis for WTC unrealistic.   On the other hand for future research all possible avenues should be investigated. As a peace loving, naive foreigner, I would propose that US stops destroying millions of lives and spending billions of dollars in military expenditures overseas and after taking care of its nations urgent needs and spends  the rest of the money on science and technology to improve human needs.

Best Regards

Nuclear Power

All Answers


Answers by Expert:


Ask Experts

Volunteer


Osman Kemal Kadiroglu

Expertise

Nuclear Engineering, Nuclear Engineering Education, Nuclear Reactors, Pebble Bed Modular Reactors, Engineering Education

Experience

Has been teaching Nuclear Engineering for more than 20 years and been in this field for more than 30 years

Organizations belong to
American Nuclear Society
Society of Nucelar Engineers of Turkey
Emeritus Prof. Nuclear Engineering Department, Hacettepe University Ankara Turkey

Extra-ordinary Prof. Nuclear Engineering Department, North-West Uni. Potchefstroom South Africa

Education/Credentials
(Mak. Y. Müh.) MS in Mech. Eng. Istanbul Technical University '68
MS in Nuclear Eng. MIT'72
Sc.D. in Nuclear Eng. MIT'76

©2016 About.com. All rights reserved.