Did Two Nuclear Reactors, not Nuclear Bombs, Destroy the WTC on 9/11?

Review of William Tahil’s Book, “Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the WTC”, and of his Reactor Hypothesis

by The Anonymous Physicist


Tahil’s book is now downloadable for free here: http://www.nucleardemolition.com. I welcome Tahil’s comments and corrections, if any, to this review and analysis of his work, via email to Spooked, who will forward to me. Tahil was one of the very first to write and publish on the nuclear demolition of the WTC on 9/11. Also, other than myself, he is the only other scientist, or person, to write about the China Syndrome aftermath. As my illness prevented me from writing on 9/11 until 2007, his 2006 book was the first to correctly attribute the great heat and molten metal that existed at the WTC for months afterwards, to the China Syndrome of still-fissioning material. While I discovered that independently, he was the first to demonstrate this in public writing. He deserves much credit for this. The Finnish military expert, Tahil, and myself, are the three people who have written proposed nuclear demolition schemes. My articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC are here http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com and my articles on the China Syndrome are here http://wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com. The Finn believes a single nuclear bomb was used on each tower, via a focused, nuclear shape charge in the basement. I have stated that numerous mini- or micro-nukes were employed in the towers, and in all the other WTC buildings. I have further highlighted that great redundancy was employed, and that numerous nukes either were sabotaged, fizzled on their own, or were impacted (without being triggered themselves), by other exploding nukes. And so many nukes did not go off as planned, and their unused fissile material later gave rise to the China Syndrome. My article on the early attempted nuking of WTC7, which failed, is good evidence of fizzled, or sabotaged nukes. Thus there were many nukes available, whose fissile material was not employed in the destruction, and which gave rise to the China Syndrome, in my hypothesis. Please read all my articles, including the one on "fratricided" nukes here.

Now Tahil is unique among the nuclear 9/11 proponents, in that he alone believes that two nuclear reactors-- not nuclear bombs-- were employed to demolish the two towers. While my 9/11 nuclear scenario is different from Tahil’s, and I have explained in lesser detail before why I think mine is correct, and his is incorrect, I have always stated (and still do) that his work should be read by all, as I could be wrong, and he could be right, or possibly there are elements of truth, where we may both be right. Looking at the different nuclear 9/11 scenarios, the Finn, and I, believe the evidence points to nuclear bombs. The Finn believes a single, fission-free, 4th generation thermonuclear device destroyed each tower. This is based on the govt’s Tritium finding. Tahil does not mention the Tritium evidence, and goes with pure fission at the WTC. I have written several things chronologically as the evidence, and my thinking evolved. First I went with both sets of evidence, namely that either fusion (tritium) enhanced fission bombs, or a fission-triggered fusion bombs, were employed. Later I noted the way the regime has total control of all scientific data, and could block release of the most damning data. I stated that it is possible that the Tritium finding was a red herring to divert people into looking for the fission-less fusion bomb, precisely because this would stop people from realizing there was a "China Syndrome" aftermath, at the WTC-- which the regime wishes to hide at all costs. (Presumably only fission can yield the China Syndrome.) So I have stated it is possible that all nukes employed on 9/11 were fission bombs, and the tritium data is spurious.

One of the nuclear 9/11 proponents, William Deagle, M.D., further lends support to my redundant nuclear bomb hypothesis with his direct knowledge of a Fort Collins U.S. Army Forensics Team member who was immediately sent in to the OKC bombing site in 1995. This man told Deagle (his physician) directly, that he and the team brought out two unexploded micro-nuclear bombs, and one unexploded C4 pineapple bomb, from the 10-story Murrah building, after its destruction. This Army man said that the nukes were emplaced by ATF and FBI personnel. He further stated that his Army team was under armed supervision by Wackenhut guards, who tested that they did not remove any radioactive evidence. We can see from this, that great redundancy (extra nuclear bomb emplacement) was employed at OKC. Remember that Murrah was only 10 stories tall, and nowhere near as wide as the towers or WTC7. Consider the total volume of the WTC towers, the 47 story WTC7, and all the other buildings, and you can see how dozens of redundant nukes may have been employed in the nuclear destruction of the entire WTC. If the matter is linear, given the relative volumes, we might even conclude that 50-100 micro-nukes were emplaced, and they gave rise to the China Syndrome, in my hypothesis.

For now, let’s examine what Tahil has to say particularly on the subjects of his nuclear reactor hypothesis, and the China Syndrome aftermath. Much of Tahil’s hypothesis rests on his interpretation of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Dust Analysis data here. Tahil seems to view the USGS data, and all govt data/studies at face value. He does not seem to realize the possibility, or likelihood, that errors of omission, or commission, were utilized in various Gov’t studies, whereas I have highlighted this in my articles. Tahil particularly mocks those who state that the Seismic records were doctored-- which includes me. I base my view on several things, including eyewitness testimony of those at Ground Zero, and a friend who lived a mile north, and who described books falling off shelves, at the moment of the first CGI “plane hit,”-- or WTC1 basement (nuclear) explosion. Also we know that the Gov’t actually asked one Seismic Lab to “re-do” their calculations.

Let’s get back to the USGS dust study that Tahil uses for much of his hypothesis. I have stated that this study is heavily flawed in many ways. Some of my criticisms, I will now list:

-- Did not test for (or report findings on) Plutonium.

-- Did not look for anything smaller than 2.5 microns, or did not delineate this, when labs had, for years prior, equipment that would have quantified dust down to 10 nanometer size.

-- Only looked at a small area, mostly within 0.5 Km from the towers, when the dust settled much further away, and

-- A good deal of the dust went up in smoke! Thus the smallest particles ended up far away. See my articles again.

-- Samples were taken 5-6 days later, after a rain/wind storm on day 2.

-- Did not differentiate differing isotopes of a given element. (Differing isotopes have the same number of protons, but differing numbers of neutrons in their nuclei. Isotopes behave very differently regarding nuclear processes including radiation release, and further fissioning.)

I have highlighted the reason the regime prevented, or perhaps more likely ALTERED the data on the smallest sized dust particles. It requires far greater energy (only nukes) to create the tiniest dust particle size.

Now Tahil concentrates on the USGS dust study, and in particular its findings regarding the elements Strontium, Barium, Zinc, and several others. He uses the 12-- out of 35-- sample sites that yielded Strontium. He has made some very good findings regarding the near total correlation of Strontium and Barium in the dust samples. This shows a common origin, he asserts, and is likely right. This, he says virtually proves fission occurred as Strontium and Barium are two common “daughter” elements in the fissioning of Uranium. This is likely correct as well. But he also states several things that are not correct. He makes these mistakes throughout the book. He only considers the buildings’ concrete or steel as sources of the dust. This is a serious flaw. The buildings’ entire contents-- from people to furniture, etc., etc.-- must be considered! He also at times, assumes one particular isotope for an element, e.g. Strontium 90, and not its other four naturally occurring isotopes, and its other 15 artificially created isotopes.

On page 24, Tahil states, “These elements [Barium and Strontium] simply should not be present in building rubble or building materials in even a valid trace amount, which would be less than 10 ppm…” In succeeding pages, he elaborates that very high levels of Strontium and Barium in the dust study could only have come from the fissile Uranium in two nuclear reactors, very deep underneath the two towers. But, we shall see that Strontium, Barium, and Zinc are NOT to be unexpectedly found in the vaporized rubble, as Tahil states. Thus their source need not be from massive amounts of fissioned Uranium, as Tahil claims. There are many common, known sources of Strontium. A Strontium compound can make up as much as 10% of the mass in toothpaste for “sensitive teeth.” Strontium is a normal component of everyone’s bones and teeth. And Tahil does not take into account the total vaporization of half of the nearly 3000 human victims, and partial vaporization of the others. Other Strontium sources include pottery, color TVs, aerosol paints, drugs for osteoporosis, and other sources. However there is one source of Strontium that has overarching importance here.

Tahil ignores the fact that Strontium occurs in Limestone. And Limestone is often the major component of concrete. How much Strontium might there be in the 100,000 tons of concrete in each WTC tower? Let us look at one type of limestone called oolite limestone.

Strontium in oolitic limestone can occur at up to 10,800 ppm (parts per million)! This study found a range from 230 to 10,800, with an average of 414 ppm. But is oolitic limestone used in very large structures? Some of the largest buildings ever built have indeed used oolitic limestone. This includes the Empire State Building and the Pentagon!

Then there is the issue of Barium. Wiki notes that Barium is a "getter" in vacuum tubes, is used in glassmaking, and is used in a coating for the electrodes in the ubiquitous fluorescent lamps. Furthermore, Wiki says, “Lithopone, a pigment that contains Barium Sulfate and Zinc Sulfide, is a permanent white that has good covering power…” Here wiki indicates that Lithopone may be commonly “used in interior paints and in some enamels.” Thus we see that if this pigment was used in the WTC, we have a Barium/Zinc linkage, without resorting to Uranium fission. But on page 30, Tahil shows that if one sample site were left out, Barium and Zinc have nearly a 100% (96%) correlation. Tahil speculates that this correlation could only be from nuclear fission, and in particular, lesser known “ternary fission.” He might be right, but you see from my Lithopene example, this one correlation could be explained without fission. The Lithopene example does not disprove fission, but it shows that any one of these correlations is not conclusive of anything. They have limitations.

Also Barium, some analysts assert, is one of the main ingredients in the ubiquitous, and notorious, Chemtrails. These trails have been seen in the skies for the last 15 years or more. As they stay up for great lengths of time, they may be nanoparticles. It’s even possible that by now, their contents have mixed with the atmosphere, and the entire Earth has been saturated with their contents. Of course, ongoing regions getting this “treatment” will have very high doses for some time. The Hair Mineral Analysis, done on people, has shown a great increase in the levels of Barium, over the last 10 years. This means that some Barium compound has gotten into people. Regarding the USGS dust samples, the relatively large percentage of Barium, in the USGS study, could even have come from the vaporized people, or from significant mixing of the WTC dust with atmospheric Barium, or from some local Chemtrail spraying within the 5-6 days of the WTC destruction, before the samples were collected. If the Barium were ubiquitous, say from the atmosphere--and its adherence to the smoke from the WTC, the WTC dust might come down with much Barium in it. Thus there may have been a significant base level of both Strontium and Barium from common, non-nuclear sources.

Zinc is also cited on page 143 when Tahil extrapolates and concludes that a massive amount of Uranium was fissioned on 9/11-- from two reactors. But Zinc is also not rare, as Tahil claims. Zinc is the major metal in pennies and is in batteries, steel, paint pigments, and many other sources.

But again Tahil may be right, because I have not proven that Lithopene was used at the WTC, unless it is/was ubiquitous. Nor have I proven what the level of Strontium in the limestone in the concrete was. However, Tahil’s body of evidence, in this book, which includes several correlations of daughter products of fission, his analysis of the dust from the girders whereby Tahil concludes that elements were blasted onto the girders, and were still fissioning when collected on the girders, and all his other findings, indicate that there was fission in the WTC on 9/11/01. But the amount of fissioned Uranium is impossible to find by extrapolation of the dust, because the amounts of Strontium, Barium and Zinc may have been large, in the WTC, as I have shown above. But thanks to Tahil, we can conclude that the search for the “holy grail” of fission-free fusion (as the Finnish Military Expert has done), is likely a fruitless hangout, or red herring, and should be abandoned. The proof of the fission is in the China Syndrome, and the sum of the findings in Tahil’s book. More strongly put, be wary of any alleged Nuclear-9/11 proponents who do not proclaim the China Syndrome Aftermath of 9/11! There are only four proponents of the China Syndrome: Tahil, myself (the “Anonymous Physicist”), Spooked, and recently Deagle.

The following is the crux of Tahil’s nuclear reactor hypothesis. On pages 144-145, Tahil claims that there were massive amounts of Strontium and Zinc as radioactive fallout, and that then indicates there was a massive amount of Uranium (nearly 500 tons) that had fissioned. And then that this claim of nearly 500 tons of fissioned Uranium implies to him that only a reactor or two could have been the source of the Uranium. All this rests on the USGS dust study, and Tahil’s extrapolations of its data. Now while I think his earlier near 100% correlation of Strontium and Barium, goes a long way toward proving nuclear fission occurred on 9/11, his calculations leading to 500 tons of Uranium-- and subsequent hypothesis that implies two massive reactors were sent critical is flawed. On page 144, Tahil-- via extrapolation of the amounts of these elements in the USGS dust study-- arrives at the estimates of 60 tons of Strontium and 100 tons of Zinc, per tower, in the fallout from the destruction of the WTC. From this, he further estimates that there must have been at least 470 tons of Uranium in each of two reactors deep underground in each tower, that was somehow sent critical, and exploded in nuclear fashion, and caused the destruction of each tower, and gave rise to the China Syndrome. While I, of course, agree with him that the HEAT GENERATION, of up to six months, at the WTC, leaves only the possibility of a China Syndrome, his assumptions and math need scrutiny.

1. I have already pointed out that the USGS is greatly flawed, and likely doctored with numerous errors of omission and commission. See above.

2. He apparently assumes all the Strontium was Strontium 90, and ignores the other isotopes of Strontium, while the USGS study did not differentiate isotopes.

3. He assumes the origin of daughter elements is Uranium, when they could have been fissioned from Plutonium, which was not tested for by the USGS--or else not published

4. He ignores non-nuclear sources for Strontium and Zinc, and assumes all Strontium and Zinc came from nuclear fission. See above where I have strongly disproved this.


So for all these reasons, we arrive at the conclusion that we cannot use the USGS data for a simple weight ratio analysis. Furthermore, Tahil compares his nuclear reactor hypothesis to only one micro-nuclear bomb per tower, and ignores the possibility/probability that

1. Many mini- or micro-nukes were used per tower

2. That the other buildings also were nuked

3. He incorrectly says that a fission nuke has all of its Uranium used up in its use. This is very curious since he cites Peter Vogel’s book, "The Last Wave From Port Chicago." And this book is one source that describes the efficiency of a fission bomb. On page 13-13 Vogel writes that the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb used only 1.14% of its contained fissile material. More recently, 6% efficiency for updated nuclear bombs is cited here. This means that instead of 100% of the U-235 being used up when it goes critical in a bomb, only 1-6% is used up, and thus 94-99% of its U-235 is left over for the China Syndrome!

4. Tahil does not realize other possibilities that I have made original hypotheses on; namely that many redundant nukes were also likely emplaced. And some, or many, of these may have been either sabotaged or fizzled because of various reasons.

5. The actual tower destruction scenario observed, fits the use of numerous small nukes much better than a deep underground set of two massive reactors.

6. Officially physicists have claimed that a fission reactor cannot even yield a nuclear explosion. (However, we must take this with a small grain of salt. If a nuclear reactor could yield a full nuclear explosion, like a fission bomb, the PTB would never let this be known.)

So from this last list, it is clear that not one, but numerous nukes per tower could have been employed, and the scenarios I have described, could have led to a large amount of still-fissioning Uranium or Plutonium fragments, “left” (after WTC destruction) both near the surface, and deep underground.

Now we must analyze the geometry and dynamics of the WTC destruction, to see what fits better: the use of a deep underground nuclear reactor per tower, or numerous small nukes. One problem is the early sub-basement explosions that were timed to go off at the same time as the alleged “plane hits” way above. I have written extensively and cited much evidence, that these were nuclear devices that were exploded and even that EMPs (Electromagnetic Pulses) were yielded at those times. Tahil agrees that these explosions were nuclear. He cites an article that I have cited numerous times written by WTC Engineer Mike Pecoraro. Pecoraro was below the sub-basement C level (presumably at the D level, but not described explicitly), when his colleague saw “flickering lights” (EMP?) and they ascended to the C level. He says, "There was nothing there but rubble, we're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press gone!" Pecoraro and a co-worker then “made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone…” As they then ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they “were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor. Now I have asserted, the only thing that could have done these things is neutron bombardment and/or million-degree temperatures, both from a nuke. Tahil says his nuclear reactors were well below the seven known sub-basement levels of the towers. And the reactors were sent critical at WTC destruct time. But he also says he believes the earlier “Pecoraro explosion” was nuclear.

Thus we have several problems with the nuclear reactor hypothesis:

1. How does a reactor go critical for the earlier Pecoraro basement, nuclear explosion, and still be capable of being used again--in any coherent fashion? And the destruction of the towers was very well controlled.

2. In this light, how can any reactor being melted down, and going critical, be used in such a controlled, coherent, relatively precise and symmetrical fashion, so many floors below what it is to destroy, when a reactor gone critical implies much chaos? As opposed to numerous, strategically placed small nukes.

3. How can Pecoraro have survived a nuclear explosion from a reactor below his level (and not know that that was what happened), and then go above him to two floors that were nuked? Unless small nuclear bomb(s) were utilized at those levels.

4. Now I can see how the observed deep underground flowing metal, weeks and months later, might possibly be from this deep underground reactor, but what about the hot rubble pile and its fissioning material not far from the surface?

5. What about the possibility of breaking through to the Hudson (if not directly underneath, then just a bit West of the WTC) if the reactor were so far down, and made to explode, nuclear-wise?


My “Many Nukes” hypothesis, which includes my “Many Nukes fizzled/sabotaged/impacted/fratricided” hypothesis, that I have authored-- remember the Finn said only one nuke per tower, which thus has some of these same flaws-- seems to fit all that happened to the WTC, on 9/11, better. Numerous redundant, fizzled or sabotaged nukes, higher up may have given rise to the large hot rubble pile. Larger nukes in the sub-basement gave rise to the flowing molten metal seen there months later. There may have been many nukes emplaced in the sub-basement that led to events that appear “reactor-like.” Why compare a reactor only to one nuke? And given that only 1-6% of a fission nuke’s fissile material is used in its explosion, and there were many nukes that did go off, this too allows for a China Syndrome at the WTC, even if there were not any redundant nukes present.

There are numerous other matters that are incorrect. On page 153, Tahil virtually states that Chernobyl was a nuclear explosion when it was not. It resulted from heat from nuclear fission causing steam expansion, which caused an explosion and the China Syndrome of blasted radioactive fragments releasing great heat where they landed. Earlier in the book, he has it right, that Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion, but not on page 153. Tahil apparently believes that the “Plane hits” were real, instead of the impossible CGI, they clearly are. He believes that the earlier 1993 WTC explosion was conventional, when I have highlighted the eyewitness testimony of engineer Phil Schneider who said he saw proof that it was nuclear-- I guess things like Pecoraro described. (See my articles.) Tahil often cites new, or hypothesized Physics for some of the phenomena, when this is precarious at best, and makes it look like the ludicrous DEW hangout. E.g., he states that Koenig’s sphere was involved in the WTC destruction as a “neutron reflector/focuser”. After seeing the documentary on Koenig’s sphere, and its maker, and its creation, and how it was moved, and is still there in a nearby public park, I seriously doubt this speculation, if not also on Physics grounds. His website cites a sewer steam explosion in NYC, miles North of WTC, several years after 9/11, as some proof of a massive nuclear reactor underneath Manhattan. But NYC has had such stream explosions for 150 years.

Tahil seems to want to think there were massive neutron fluxes all about the WTC during or after the destruction. He states that the strangely damaged cars are proof of large neutron fluxes at those spots. But I have amply demonstrated that the evidence fits EMPs, vastly better than anything else. These are the cars whose boundaries of doors caused only part of the car to have heated up, and caught fire. In my analysis of this, I revealed how only an EMP would cause part of a car to intercept the EMP, which becomes current, and then great heat. But this is only in metal, and the boundaries (air), between car doors, prevents said current from flowing across to the other car door. See especially my analyses of EMT Ondrovic’ experience of EMP causing a car door to explode onto her, and the flickering lights in WTC6, before it was nuked. Neutron fluxes would NOT have caused this, as neutron fluxes would not show a distinction with car door boundaries, as we see with several cars! So Tahil appears to try too hard to see neutrons all about, because he wants to fit this to massive reactors under the WTC, and that area of Manhattan.

I think his analysis of his Figure 52, on Page 123, is incorrect. This is not quite like a volcano. Look at the height of the smoke at top, compared to the height of the other extant tower. It has not shot way into the sky yet. Rather it shows that the top part of WTC1 was vaporized. So this could have been from a nuke at the top to start things off. He has, or had, some connection to Alex Jones. His website had said that if you can’t reach him via email, it was NSA interference, and to contact Alex Jones. I have no problem with the NSA inference, but Alex Jones? He has been vehemently anti-nuclear-911, and anti-NPT (the planes were merely CGI). Jones would never have Tahil’s work on his site. Jones was sent in to head the 911truth movement, after the regime assassinated true conspiracy expert Bill Cooper, within two months of 9/11. Why does/did a Nuclear-9/11 proponent have an anti-nuclear-911 person be his contact?

On the other hand, numerous things Tahil says are very intelligent and revealing, even bold. First credit goes to him for his finding of near 100% correlation between Strontium and Barium, on page 26. This indicates nuclear fission occurred at the WTC, but is not proof. His ignoring the Tritium finding may ultimately prove to be both bold and wise. While others, like the Finnish military expert, considered only a pure fusion bomb, this then could not have given rise to the China Syndrome of which the HEAT GENERATION evidence is massive and conclusive. I wrote that the Tritium finding-- or more correctly, its release may have been a red herring to get people to look only for nuclear devices that could not have caused the China Syndrome. So Tahil as I indicated, may be both bold and brilliant here. Tahil also reveals, on page 115, evidence of birth defects after 9/11, in NYC, that I have not seen before.

His motto on the cover is also good: Salus populi suprema lex esti or "The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law." Tahil, of course, asserts that the American regime has the opposite view. He asserts that there was massive radiation, at the WTC, and he makes the bold assertion that Manhattan should still be evacuated! If he is right, how many American cities may have reactors placed underneath them? Now I still think that if this is the goal--and it wouldn’t surprise me if you have read my “Ultimate Truths” series (anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com)--they could more easily just place nuclear bombs underneath edifices in big cities. Sadly, for reasons my readers may know, I think there is a fair possibility that this could be the case, as above-ground nukes are more easily gauged and intercepted by OTHERS. The Rockefeller owned or controlled WTC land area is far from their only land ownership in this country. Could the Rockefeller-donated United Nations land be next? In this light, and in cohesion with what I wrote above about the OKC bombing, I ask did a China Syndrome result there, if it was nuked? Deagle says his Army agent/patient said that Wackenhut guards measured and prevented anything radioactive from being removed. I trust that means that the regime’s agents removed all things radioactive. How many cancers have there been in OKC responders, or OKC residents, subsequently? How many more buildings or skyscrapers must be nuked before the People wake up?


Then Tahil’s analysis of this photo also appears to be very astute, as far as demonstrating the PTB’s desire to hide the China Syndrome. The photo is of the so-called Light Memorial. This was the extremely bright, double-blue lights, that were turned on for weeks, a few months after 9/11, from dusk to 11 P.M. Tahil surmises that this began when they finally reached the reactor remnant areas, or large areas of fissioning Uranium. And while they were doing something to it, or carting it away, its blue light of the Cherenkov radiation (from nuclear fission) would have been visible. I have written about this in regards to one photo that Steven Jones “orange-ified,” when responders were peering into something underground at the WTC. I related this to the blue light seen when nuclear fissioning elements (cored out sphere and cylindrical insert) were erroneously kept together for too long a time, during the “tickling the dragon’s tail experiments,” at Los Alamos, that killed two nuclear scientists. Tahil asserts that the reactor remnant was uncovered at that time, so they needed to do the light trick. I would say that large areas of fissioning fragments must have been uncovered, for them to do this. But need it have been a reactor, or its remnants? There could have been many nuclear bombs in the sub-basement area that led to a large area, with much fissioning going on. But perhaps this is one item of evidence where his reactor hypothesis may fit better than my many nukes hypotheses. Or could a much smaller reactor have been there, and elements of both hypotheses be true? The blue lights are strictly not proof of anything, we must remember. But this regime does almost everything it does, for a sinister reason. Another photo Tahil uniquely has (page 101) is that of a rescue dog with his responder master walking the WTC grounds. Even the dog is wearing protective boots because of the great heat there and then! Also on page 101, Tahil has a photo of the large congealed mass of bullets from WTC6. He states that 43 days after 9/11 the heat was still so intense, an injury to the face of a responder occurred when at least one of the bullets in the mass discharged. Here is more proof of this great heat weeks and months after 9/11, which the intel agents for “DEW” and the O.C.T. laughably continue to deny.


Thus I conclude this review of Tahil’s book and hypothesis with the following. Tahil deserves much credit for his statistical analysis chapter, which helps demonstrate the likelihood that nuclear fission took place on 9/11 at the WTC, and for first exposing the existence of the China Syndrome at the WTC. His hypothesis that this had to be from two massive, deep underground nuclear fission reactors that were sent critical, and exploded akin to a nuclear fission bomb, is much less compelling, and more evidence fits my “many nukes” hypothesis, with possibly one evidentiary exception. Therefore it is possible that he may still be right, at least in part. For that reason, and other things cited above, I recommend everyone who is not an intel agent, and wishes to know what might have occurred on 9/11, read his book, as well as all my articles. The case for two huge reactors that were made to undergo nuclear explosions has not been made. Neither can we completely rule out that the China Syndrome that existed at the WTC for several months after 9/11/01 was, in part, from a much smaller reactor present. I am not saying I believe this, but that it cannot be excluded. Furthermore, I can even perceive one reason why it would have been there. A breeder reactor could even have produced the fissile material for the coming nuclear bomb destruction of the WTC. Or there could have been both many micro-nukes used, and a fission reactor was also exploded with a micro-nuke at the end. I throw these ideas out for completeness. In conclusion I remain unconvinced that the evidence indicates a large nuclear fission reactor was underneath each of the towers, and suffered a nuclear explosion, as my “Many Nukes” hypothesis appears to better explain the details of the WTC destruction, and the China Syndrome aftermath. I welcome feedback and genuine criticism from Tahil on this review, or of my own nuclear-911 hypotheses, and also the same from any non-intel agent. As Tahil wrote, Salus populi suprema lex esti.