by The Anonymous Physicist

To sum up, there is much physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, and even some video evidence, for effects that could only have been caused by Electromagnetic Pulses from nuclear devices. This easily explains how cars and not people or paper were adversely affected. Do not be dissuaded by all the intel agents getting paid to lie and say “there was no evidence of EMP,” or that some “new phenomena” could explain any of this. The case for EMPs from nuclear bombs in the WTC buildings, on 9/11, has been proven. Please post this everywhere. The life you save may be your own.

There is a great need to highlight and summarize the evidence of EMPs, (from nuclear bombs) that occurred in the WTC buildings, on 9/11, from my articles and other sources. The MSM ignores this crucial EMP evidence, and all the intel assets on the web continue to lie and claim, “There’s no evidence of EMP.”Now a nuclear bomb will emit a great flux of gamma rays. These will ionize (expel electrons from) surrounding air molecules. The electrons’ behavior is such that a coherent electromagnetic wave front moves outward. This has been named an Electromagnetic Pulse, or EMP. An EMP will adversely affect any metallic objects that it intersects as it reaches them. A high voltage and current will be induced into the metal, which can cause circuitry, or any metallic parts to melt, catch fire, or explode. Just what an EMP will do to a metallic object is determined in part by the intensity of the EMP, distance to the object, angle, intervening shielding, and other factors. The intensity of an EMP from a nuke is determined by the strength/yield of the nuke, altitude of detonation, its type and design. In general, the smaller the nuke, the smaller the strength and effective range of the EMP it will produce. A multi-megaton nuke exploded in the upper atmosphere can cause a continent-wide EMP. A micro-nuke would yield an EMP of only some fraction of a mile. Possibly only a couple of blocks depending on where it was detonated, shielding etc. In my articles, I have repeatedly highlighted eyewitness accounts of phenomena that appear to ONLY be explainable via EMPs. Note this article on EMP effects states, "The ensuing massive sparking of cable jackets, their contact to frame and the ground, and breakdowns in connectors put the equipment out of action and lead to fires and explosions." For the record, I note that for decades now, first beginning with the military, it has been known how to “harden” planes and helicopters so as to block an EMP’s effects on their electronics.Perhaps the most remarkable are the statements of 9/11 responder, EMT Patricia Ondrovic. She reached the WTC area shortly before tower 1 and WTC 5, 6 (right near her at the time) would be destroyed. She tried to enter WTC6, but was forbidden by guards. But as she looked into the lobby of WTC6 she “saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that chase in pattern." This is best explained by one or more EMPs passing through that area and causing wires or lighting fixtures to “pop.” Furthermore, at that same time, she reports that cars near her, and right outside WTC6, caught fire for no apparent reason. As she started to flee, a car door exploded off a car and hit her and knocked her down and injured her ribs. All this happened as WTC 5, 6 and Tower 1 began to explode. The exploding car door is again only explainable via EMP. As I have explained here, “As the nuke(s)' concomitant EMP(s) (Electromagnetic Pulse) passed through her immediate vicinity, it intercepted the cars near her. The intense electromagnetic wave induces a great current in metal (and not in “people or paper”). The current becomes great heat, resulting in rapid expansion of said metal. A given car door can only expand so much before its boundary is reached and there is nowhere for the heat or expansion to go, which results in doors or handles (if they are metallic), etc. exploding off. This is why you will see some cars with only their paint vaporized (intercepted only low level EMP due to distance, angle, shielding etc.), and other cars will show a burnt front, but the back half is virtually "normal." The Electromagnetic Field and subsequent current is stopped at the boundaries of the doors.”Ondrovic’ statements also indicate that WTC6 likely was itself destroyed by a micro-nuke which is further evidenced by its one large spherical hole. Note that Ondrovic’ interview with the WTC Commission is heavily redacted. I have noted that by the time it began its interviewing of 503 9/11 surviving responders, traitors from the CIA had been brought in, including former CIA Director, Woolsey. Her interviews are here and here The statements made by WTC1 engineer, Mike Pecoraro here and in my article here also indicated that he witnessed the effects of a nuclear bomb going off in the sub-basement where he was working. He wrote that he first knew something was wrong after his co-worker tapped him on the shoulder to alert him that he had just seen “the lights flicker”-- as did Ondrovic in the lobby of WTC6. Pecoraro then went up to the C level to assay damage, and I have asserted he has provided some of the strongest statements proving a nuclear blast went off in the sub-basement of tower 1, at the time of the first (CGI) “plane hit” explosion above (used as cover for a sub-basement nuke). Pecoraro stated he saw “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 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." To sum up, it appears that Pecoraro’s co-worker first saw the light-flickering effects of an EMP, from a nuke, going off above them, and this was verified by the unique damage they observed at the upper basement levels. The shriveled up, foil-like, former massive steel and concrete door is easily explained to occur from intense neutron bombardment, from a nuclear bomb.The reason Pecoraro’s statements look so different, and more powerful than most others can be explained, as follows. Nearly all eyewitness accounts are in some government commission or investigation body’s reports. All the intel agents in control heavily censor all these. Similarly, the MSM wouldn’t disseminate such an eyewitness account either. Instead of being independent watchdogs, all the MSM have, for many years, been just a branch of the regime. The MSM is controlled by its worst elements: chronologically, first military “intelligence”, then the FBI, then the CIA and the NSA. Pecoraro’s statement appears in the online newsletter of his own Chief Engineers Association, a fraternal or union-like organization. It has apparently not (yet) been infiltrated and controlled by any of the Gestapo agencies. You might want to archive his statements before they disappear.Similarly to Ondrovic’ report of cars catching fire for no apparent reason, is the account of 9/11 responder, Paramedic Robert Ruiz.In my article here , I noted Ruiz’ utter incredulity at watching a car completely catch on fire for no discernible reason. His full statement to the WTC Commission is here . Ruiz just barely escaped WTC2 being destroyed. First he describes the ground near him shaking BEFORE the “collapse” starts. This could be evidence of an underground nuclear bomb going off before the top was brought down. He says, the ground shakes, then WTC2 starts to come down, and he runs and survives under a nearby doorway. Ruiz then states, "I was trapped there. Like things weren't bad enough already, the car that's parked right on that corner catches on fire. I don't mean a little fire, the entire thing. Don't ask me how. The entire car caught on fire. You would think maybe just a motor part or just the engine part. But this entire car just goes up in fire."An EMP’s explosive effect on electronic components is demonstrated by an NYPD officer who has only revealed his (supposedly) first name-- Craig. Former NYPD officer “Craig” is now disabled with Pulmonary Fibrosis after working for a month at the WTC site. He was driving in the vicinity of the towers at the moment of the first “plane hit.” He says, "The next thing I remember was a sound, not unlike a serious car accident, just one block west of me on Church Street. My radio exploded just then.” In my article here , I cited the remarkable interview of 9/11 responder, Dr. Michael Guttenberg, of the NYFD’s Office of Medical Affairs. His full WTC Commission interview is here The following is from his interview. Just after the second “plane hit” explosion, and before any tower “collapse”, he noted:Guttenberg: “…on the EMS radio, there was absolute silence for probably 10 or 15 seconds …”Questioner: “We were told that the air was so thick with debris that radio waves weren't able to travel.”Guttenberg: “That was after the towers came down.”From my article above: “Note two things, the radios went dead—likely a sign of EMP. And see how the questioner attempts to confuse the issue with a double lie. One, that this happened after a tower was destroyed, when instead, this is after the second WTC2 “plane hit” explosion, and BEFORE any tower “collapse” as Dr. Guttenberg corrects him. And two, that radio waves would have been blocked by a conventional explosion, when they wouldn’t have been. And note also that this radio blackout occurred after the second “plane hit” explosion. My previous articles contained evidence, and my hypothesis, that the WTC1 “plane hit” explosion was used as cover for a nearly simultaneous basement nuclear bomb explosion that vaporized a 50 ton steel press, and a garage level, and also caused phone outage. So we learn now that electronic communications also were affected after the second “plane hit”, which may indicates that they also nuked the basement of WTC2 at that time. I hypothesized that this was done in case the planned, subsequent, intricate, top-down demolition failed.”The 911Eyewitness video-- especially the short film entitled “WMD at the WTC” which was never made into a feature length video, though this was promised for September 2007-- shows EMP effects on the video camera at the onset of destruction of a tower.Even Wood and Reynolds had a brief intersection with the truth when they wrote here that "Electrical outage over a wide area with repairs taking over three months, suggesting EM pulses."In this article I cited how a woman emerging from a nearby subway exit just after WTC1 “plane impact” had tried to use nearby phones and said they did not work at that time. Again the most likely cause is a nearby EMP. The original URL is here . The link to Sun News goes to a 2006 article in the Sun News, a Cleveland newspaper, and appears to no longer work at this time.Engineer Ted Twietmeyer has written here about the EMP damage to cars on 9/11. His explanation of the shielding effect, and also his simple vector analysis indicates EMP effects originated from above ground locations. This jives with my complete WTC destruction scenario that states a single sub-basement nuke was set off in each tower, in near simultaneity to the bogus “plane hits.” Then during WTC destruction, numerous top-bottom smaller nukes were set off in the towers, and in WTC5, 6 and WTC7--whose nukes fizzled, and had to be nuked with (brought in) new nukes, some 5 hours later.For completeness now, I discuss the totality of the matter of damage to cars, and other vehicles, at or near the WTC. There appears to be much misinformation or disinformation in this regard. Many things happened to vehicles near the WTC on 9/11. Some of this is easily explained by conventional forces; but some of this is again only explained by EMPs, or other nuclear phenomena. Some vehicles were likely damaged by fiery debris falling onto them leading to fires and destruction of these vehicles. Similarly, non-fiery, falling debris could have caused gas explosions and/or fires in these vehicles. The explosive blast winds created during nuclear destruction of the WTC were reported to be so intense, by some responders, that they upended vehicles, even firetrucks. Fires and explosions could have ensued from this. This would likely be only a close-by effect.Then there were the pyroclastic clouds--created during the very hot nuclear destruction of the WTC buildings--which could have engulfed numerous vehicles near the WTC. This would have caused “whole vehicle” damage-- perhaps causing complete browning of these vehicles. But like the blast effects just noted, this would likely be a close-by effect only. This is because the physics of these pyroclastic clouds would dictate that they would cool down rapidly in terms of distance and time. These clouds cool off quickly as they expand. Within a block or two of their creation, their heat likely killed people, and caused fires or explosions in vehicles, via high temperature. But within a short distance of another block or two, the rapid expansion/cooling effect may have lessened their temperatures so that they would no longer be fatal to people or cause fires, etc. in vehicles. This rapid cooling-off effect is similar to the hypocenter of a nuke itself, which goes from one million degrees to 10,000 degrees in one millisecond (one thousandth of a second). Due to the nukes being only micro-nukes, and the matter of altitude and shielding, their EMPs likely also were significant for only 1-several blocks.Thus I conclude that the ejecta from the destruction of the towers allows for damage to vehicles at the greatest distance, as compared to the other possible factors above. This is even verified by Ondrovic in her interviews. She reports that when she was taken to the hospital, in an ambulance, WTC2 was being destroyed; and her ambulance was pelted with small debris perhaps a mile away. So larger chunks could have been exploded outward that could have impacted vehicles, say within a half-mile from the WTC. Such larger chunks could have had enough energy to cause a fire or explosion if it hit the vehicle in the right place.But the type of damage to vehicles is the key to noting EMP-caused fires in, or on, these vehicles. When we observe that the only damage is to PART of the vehicle (as opposed to the entire vehicle as would occur in an engulfment by say a pyroclastic cloud), we can conclude that EMP was likely involved. When we observe that only part of a vehicle has had its paint burned off, we can conclude that that part of the vehicle was intercepted by a low level EMP. The current induced was only strong enough to lead to a temperature that was able to burn some paint, and not cause parts of the vehicle to catch fire, or have a door explode off. When we see that great damage and/or fire has occurred again to only part of the vehicle, like this:perhaps a stronger EMP is the most likely culprit. Note the back half looks “pristine.” Cars observed only after towing to a distant parking lot, should not enter this (unless a chain of evidence can be proven), as we can’t be sure of anything about these vehicles. But we don’t need ludicrous, evidence-free theories to explain the damage seen on these vehicles. Both conventional forces, and EMP, or blast, from nukes explain all the types of vehicle damage observed.