Playback speed
Share post
Share post at current time

9/11 nuclear destruction of the towers: molecular dissociation, tritium, barium, and strontium

Does the fact politicians and media continuously cover this up tell you anything about the architects? (Updated 5/12/24)

The video above features researcher Ace Baker discussing compelling evidence the Twin Towers were disintegrated by nuclear energy on September 11, 2001.

The mechanism was not nuclear blasts, say physicists, but controlled fission reactions emitting neutrons from reactors through water boosters (filters) under the towers.

In the 2021 interview below, nuclear physicist Heinz Pommer PhD describes these principles, forming his Ground Zero model for destruction of the World Trade Center.

Summary of key points

  • Research and Proposition: Ace Baker and Heinz Pommer propose that the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled nuclear fission reactions, not by airplane impacts or conventional explosives. This theory contradicts the official government and AE911 Truth stories, suggesting a more complex and covert mechanism involving neutron emissions from underground nuclear reactions.

  • Mechanism: Reactors were placed under the towers, using water as a filter to manage the emission of neutrons without causing a massive explosive effect. This controlled reaction is posited to have caused the structural disintegration observed.

  • Physical Evidence and Analysis: Pommer points out the abnormal longevity of heat within the WTC rubble, which remained for over three months despite external cooling efforts. He argues this is inexplicable by traditional fire-based theories — including jet fuel and thermite — and suggests a nuclear reaction as the source. By analyzing the energy output and comparing it to known chemical reactions, he concludes that only a nuclear source could provide the necessary energy.

  • Verification and Implications: The presence of nuclear reactions could be verified through 75 meter-deep soil samples, looking for specific isotopic signatures. The discussion raises implications about who controls internal U.S. operations, and it challenges the official narrative of 9/11, suggesting hidden agendas and manipulations involving nuclear technology.

Interview transcript

According to the findings of physicist Heinz Pommer, the destruction of the World Trade Center was not caused by the impact of two aeroplanes, but by nuclear explosive devices.

Now listen to how he arrives at this thesis and what parallels there are to the current corona crisis.


Mr Pommer, you are a physicist and have dealt extensively with the subject of 9/11. It's nice that you are here today, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center.

Many people are still convinced that the Twin Towers and the WTC-7 building - three buildings in total - were destroyed by the kerosene from the impact of two planes and the fire that broke out.

Your working group, Mr Pommer, consists of four physicists and you have studied the events at Ground Zero and have actually come to the conclusion that it must have been a blast or a nuclear triggered destruction. At first glance, it seems somewhere very unbelievable. How do you arrive at this thesis?


Well, many people were very surprised from the start to see how easily these three steel towers were swept away by an unknown force. They just dissolved into a fountain of dust, especially the north tower, and physicists are faced with at least two puzzles.

So it is not only the dynamics that we need to understand, how these towers disintegrated, why they disappeared in a fountain. But in particular, the afterglow of the rubble pile is a mystery. This pile of rubble remained hot for over three months, even though it was winter and even though many millions of litres of water were brought in. If you have a pile of rubble that doesn't want to get cool, then there must be a reason for it.

So if you approach it as a physicist, first of all you have an energy problem with the World Trade Center. For example, we know from experience that a cup of tea at 95 degrees Celsius gets cold within 15 minutes.

If the rubble pile at peak temperatures of around 700 degrees Celsius gets cold in three days, everything would be fine. But if it still gives off heat slightly after three months, especially when the rubble has been cleared away, then the question really does arise: Where does this energy come from?

James Hill MD’s Newsletter relies on your support. Become a paid subscriber now.


Didn't the soil possibly store the heat?


The question is how much energy must be absorbed by the soil in total so that it can radiate for three months. The infrared cameras show that the radiation is uniform and the resulting energy value can be estimated or calculated.

According to two different models, we arrive at the same value of 1 x 10^15 joules, which is a petajoule or, expressed in kilotons, 240 kilotons. This value is very, very high and you have to imagine that this corresponds to about 100,000 tonnes or 100,000 pallets of coal that should have burned, slowly burned, piled up about two metres high on the WTC site for three months.

Then the energy equations would be in order. But since the pile of rubble consisted only of steaming scrap iron, there is no way for us to explain that this energy could have been generated chemically in any way and must therefore logically have been nuclear. According to the energy theorems, there is no other possibility.

This means that one arrives at this result either by calculating the radiation values or by calculating in which zones the water actually evaporated and how large the corresponding underground heat zones would have to be. Then you arrive at about 80 kilotons per sphere, or in a sum of three spheres - 240 kilotons, which is a very, very high value that seems incredible at first.


But isn't such a nuclear process somewhere then also relatively easy to detect?


Yes, that's the good thing, the beauty of this thesis - it's easily verifiable.

You only have to take a soil sample at a depth of 75 metres. At a depth of 75 metres, this nuclear process must have taken place that led to the formation of what I call an eruptive egg - that is, a gas pressure chamber.

Incidentally, this destruction principle was first presented by Dimitri Khalezov more than ten years ago, but [his theory] is based on detonation of an atomic bomb at a depth of 50 metres.

Kla. TV:

Well, now you can of course object, if your thesis is correct, that the dust on the surface should at least have been radioactive somewhere, or that you can then simply really prove that these nuclear processes took place there.


In principle, yes, so as soon as this radioactive dust escapes, it is immediately detectable on the surface. But imagine a process that works with many filter layers, that is, with multiple, effective filter layers, so that the top layer dissolves, explodes, while the radioactive melt remains molten in the ground.

Kla. TV:

But that means there is some kind of filter?


There has to be a very effective filter so that the melt stays inside the granite, yes.

Kla. TV:

Is it possible to build such a filter?


The simplest solution for such a filter would simply be water. Water already prevents neutron activation (neutron activation = process in which materials become radioactive through neutron radiation). and thus contamination (contamination = radioactive contamination) of the environment can already be avoided. However, this filter that was applied here was so ingeniously designed that many people actually assume the application of a science fiction weapon.

We - our working group - do not believe that. We assume a very dirty, i.e. highly radioactive process that took place at a depth of 75 metres. And we have summarised our results, our considerations about this filter in a book - "The Ground Zero Model" - or "GZM" for short.

And we describe not only how this filter works, but also, for example, how the shock waves are reduced, so that no crater forms in the case of the World Trade Center, which one would naively expect.

Our working group assumes an active reactor, i.e. a nuclear reactor that burns into the granite for an hour. This involves a contaminated uranium-thorium mixture that only becomes supercritical after about an hour through the evaporation of the foreign metal.

And when the explosion - the relatively slow explosion - occurs in this system, simply because the neutron back radiation is not as efficient as in a real bomb and the system is also liquid and gaseous, part of the melt is catapulted upwards through the water-filled borehole, so it shoots upwards.

Now it's like this: In this borehole - filled with water, as I said - frictional forces develop on the wall. When this melt has, let's say, 4,000 degrees, 3,000 degrees, it is very strongly cooled by these frictional forces and solidifies after a few metres, after a few 10, 20 metres of ascent.

That is, this whole eruptive egg that has already started moving is suddenly stopped abruptly. And then this filtering process begins, the burning through. It's like a “Newton’s cradle“ pendulum.

When the atomic nuclei rush into another atomic nucleus with a high kinetic energy (kinetic energy = energy of motion), the energy is transferred - the momentum energy, and so the contaminated melt remains at the bottom.

And through these impulse shocks, only the energy travels very quickly upwards within a few seconds until it reaches this very melting drop, eats its way beyond it, so to speak, and then the eruption can start, which then tears the tower apart.

Kla. TV:

But shouldn't the tower have been torn apart at the base, at the foundation?


Ah, the construction plans give the explanation. In the very centre - if you take the square ground plan of this tower, which is 64 by 64 metres - there is a freight lift, the "Freight Elevator 50". This is a shaft that goes about six metres deep into the granite soil. So when we say that there was an additional borehole here, this is the predefined eruption channel that then ensures that this can rise very steeply upwards, like in a fountain, so it can splash up, so to speak. So a focused eruption.

In addition, and this is a result of the blueprints, interestingly enough the zero point of all these blueprints is 75 metres deep in granite, which we see as the "zero point," the necessary explosion point. And that of course makes it much easier for us to determine the height, because we simply start from a zero point and the tower is about 500 metres high from this zero point.

The eruption then starts. And this narrowly focused eruption displaces the air inside, and a cushion of air forms in the upper segment of the tower, and this cushion of air prevents a kick-back - it prevents the material from shooting through the ceiling due to the recoil. So again, the material shoots up tightly focused, an air cushion forms in the upper segment. This air cushion prevents the material from shooting through the ceiling through recoil.

Kla. TV:

Okay, and according to your model - what happens then? What is the next step, so to speak?


The next step is exactly what has been observed, because the towers then begin to eruptively collapse. That means that this material, if it shoots upwards at a speed of say 100 metres per second, it can rise to a maximum of 500 metres and then it masses together, up there. This means that there is an accumulation of this pyroclastic flow (pyroclastic = formed from volcanic ejecta).

At the same time, this eruption channel burns itself free, and with the same delivery volume, the speed of this pyroclastic flow, which shoots up from below, then decreases.

That means you have more and more material at the top and less and less speed at the bottom. This system tilts over after a few seconds and all the material starts to fall. And at the contact surface between the rising current and the falling current, the material shoots out and tears the tower apart with an unimaginable force.

Kla. TV:

And that then also explains these large, unbelievable amounts of dust that actually fell on the whole city.


Exactly, that is, this pryoclastic stream, that is pulverised granite, and of course the tower remains, that is, iron vapour, iron pellets that have solidified again and particles that made up the tower.

Kla. TV:

Let's assume that your model is correct. That would mean that 20 years ago it wasn't the Taliban who set the World Trade Center on fire, but actually you say that the Americans did it themselves. And they did it with dirty nuclear explosives.


Yes, that leads us to the question: What, who actually are the Americans and ultimately who actually leads or controls America? I think America has long since become the plaything of the super-rich oligarchs and the money industry.

And in the meantime, the cat is really out of the bag: someone wants world domination, because the buzzwords we have been hearing since Corona are "global governance," "global leadership," "global shapers," "young global shapers" and the "open society" - the dissolution of nations.

So the dream of world domination is to become reality, and for this the peoples must be put into a state of fear, be it by the terrorists or be it by the death virus, the pneumonic plague, which we are currently experiencing.

Kla. TV:

You talk about the "Great Reset," the big new start, as recommended by the World Economic Forum.


Yes, I think the whole thing is a set-up to undermine democracy, to undermine it by semi-legal means and to replace it with a modern corporate dictatorship with social responsibility. However, if we look at the methods used for this social responsibility - it is not only lies and deception, but also quite clearly the use of armed force, nuclear and biological weapons and, in addition, the deprivation of liberty, coercion and compulsory vaccination, all of which we are currently experiencing.

Kla. TV:

Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "In politics, nothing happens by chance. When something happens, it is planned." You assume that these events were planned down to the last detail?


Well, I actually believe that much more is staged than we can imagine. Of course, there is always a certain amount of leeway, but there is also a great deal of staging. Now, for example, just on the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, the United States suddenly leaves Kabul, the Taliban overrun the city, American citizens have to flee.

Clearly, a trauma is activated, and this trauma is then used for further warlike developments and processes. And if you look at all the individual steps that led to the Taliban's victory, you have to conclude: First of all, the United States announced that they were leaving the country, then they invoked local soldiers, 300,000 soldiers - most of whom, as we have learned in the meantime, only exist on paper - and then they left the weapons caches to the Taliban.

So this is not punishable carelessness, this is a play we are witnessing here. And if we don't see through this, then we will soon have to deal with the "evil, all-powerful" terrorists again, with some other biological abomination viruses, or even a meteorite as a death threat from space, which could also be simulated well in the meantime with nuclear weapons.

Kla. TV:

Okay, your conclusion on this, where do you see the way out of what you have just now?


Well, I think people have to realise that people would actually like to believe the authorities and science. And out of this comfort, an uncritical and obedient compliance develops.

And I believe that the way out of the system is, as Kant said, to free ourselves from this self-inflicted immaturity, to show initiative, to network and to do things that the system does not expect of the individual.

Kla. TV:

Good. Mr Pommer, thank you very much. Thank you very much for your explanations, thank you very much for giving us such insights into your studies, into your work. And we can only wish you that you will also shed light on the darkness in the future, and yes, just keep on pushing these things, that we simply hear more about it. Thank you very much for that.


It’s my pleasure. Thank you too.

(YouTube video link.)

Please consider supporting this work.