Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War. He is a disabled veteran and has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades.

Gordon Duff is an accredited diplomat and is generally accepted as one of the top global intelligence specialists. He manages the world's largest private intelligence organization and regularly consults with governments challenged by security issues.

Gordon Duff has traveled extensively, is published around the world and is a regular guest on TV and radio in more than "several" countries. He is also a trained chef, wine enthusiast, avid motorcyclist and gunsmith specializing in historical weapons and restoration. Business experience and interests are in energy and defense technology.

He is co-host of the popular VT Radio show Jim and Gordie Show.

Visit Gordon Duff's YouTube Channel

View Latest Posts >>>





Two years ago, the 9/11 Truth movement was unheard of by most Americans.  Reviled by the mainstream press, insulted by politicians and looked on as a fringe group by many, it lived in a virtual backwater, powerless, frustrated and brimming over with righteous indignation.

That is no longer the case.  Today, with 4 of 5 Americans turning to the alternative media, having lost all confidence in the phony “right v. left” dialog espoused by the media giants, 9/11 doubters are mainstream.

With polls typically showing “Truther” backing at between 60 and 80 percent worldwide, the mainstream media now appears as it should, a source for press releases from governments that have begun to crumble around the world, even in America as we are now seeing in Wisconsin and Ohio.

The most disturbing aspect of this shift in perspective is that influence over public opinion has fallen to those who don’t understand “the game.”  Alternative media fought for attention through exploiting mistrust in government and the “sex” of conspiracies, real and provable and, too often, insubstantial distractions.

The spotlight fell on those unprepared.

The pseudo-alternative media giant, Huffington Post, demonstrated by its merger with mainstream giant AOL, that telling the truth is both lonely and unrewarding.  Huffington had shed itself of “truth tellers” long ago.

The “corporate” media, during the “post Cronkite generation” had been lulled into trading complicity for access, alternatively receiving press releases and selling them as “journalism” or peddling misdirection as “leaks” and investigative journalism.

The press had become as complicit as the kidnappers and torturers they kowtowed to.

People were looking for answers.  The corporate press didn’t have them.  It was tasked with selling ‘status quo’ beliefs that didn’t explain the economic devastation, the endless scandals, the purposeless wars and the eventual debunking of the very foundations of government and society.  The magic 80% that looked to the alternative media knew, and very rightly so, that the plots were real and the villains more dastardly than any TV bad guy.

Three individuals brought down “the system.”

  1. David Ray Griffin
  2. Christopher Bollyn
  3. Richard Gage

One individual utterly discredited the mainstream media, more through his own duplicity and deception than anything else.  History is about results, not intentions and toward that end, our next name, though ineptitude alone, helped change the world.

  1. Julian Assange

In a just world, these three and maybe a dozen more would wear the Medal of Freedom.  Few people since the crucifixion of Christ have suffered as these three.  In the end, our age will carry the marks of these four more than any Bush or Obama.  One name will be added here, one few know.

  1. Dimitri Khalezov


Khalezov is a former Soviet Army officer who worked in the highly secretive world of nuclear detection.  The doors he opens threaten our view of the last decades, revealing a secret world of deception too devastating for most to accept.  However, as bizarre as his stories may seem, of everyone discussing 9/11, only Dimitri Khalezov has the resume that places him at the forefront.

The rest of us talk about 9/11, profess our theories and connect “dots,” real or imagined, moving the public toward a truth that may well be what the public wishes to believe than what is real.

That has been the trap.

Only Dimitri can testify, not “connect.”  When Dimitri tells us that Mossad Operations Chief Mike Harari admitted planning 9/11, it is because Dimitri was there.  This is testimony, not conjecture, backed by a willingness to take a lie detector test.

No other 9/11 evidence carries this weight.  Science shouldn’t be subjective, but we all know better.  After 9/11, the National Institute of Standards produced a lengthy document, thousands of pages, filled with junk science and ludicrous conjecture.  The 9/11 Commission went even further than that, although most members now admit such, to their credit.

Khalezov says, “Arrest that man, he did it and I will testify.”

This is why his name is listed.

Khalezov also states, backed by an offer of a lie detector test, that, while a Soviet Officer in their nuclear services, he was briefed on the placement of large nuclear demolition charges under the WTC and Sears Tower.

Thus, Khalezov brings two things to the table, admissible testimony in a criminal conspiracy trial that includes Israeli intelligence in the planning and execution of 9/11 and the presence of nuclear demolition devices as known to the Soviet government in accordance with treaties between the two states.

Please not that these “demolition charges” are thermonuclear, buried many meters under the sub-basement and virtually radiation free.

These were not, are not “micro-nukes.”

I have sat trough hours of debriefings of Dimitri which included American nuclear weapons specialists.  Mostly I learned of my own ignorance.  So much of what I believed about weapons and radiation was very wrong and I am not entirely unfamiliar with such things.

Below is a 2002 article from USA today.  There are many such articles that are “out there” which some should wish were not.

In this article, dots are connected that lead many places, some support Dimitri Khalezov and some support Richard Gage, both of whom espouse different scientific theories for the purposeful destruction of the World Trade Center by something other than ‘terrorism.”

Richard Gage proved that jet fuel can never weaken or melt steel.  Debunkers attempt to show how forms of thermite would be difficult to apply.

Those same “debunkers” are a “piece of work.”  If thermite or “nanothermite” is, as “they” claim, unable to destroy the massive structural steel beams that resist thousands of degrees of heat, how could a relatively cool kerosene fire (jet fuel is kerosene) that would have trouble burning a steak on a grill, be so much more powerful?

By the same measure, if a diesel car caught fire, it might just melt through to the center of the earth, according to the wild conjecture represented by the National Institute of Standards in their report on 9/11.  Junk science, nothing more.  Ever hear of a kerosene torch used in welding?

End of story!

Read the censored story below.  See if you can figure why it has been hidden so long.  What deadly errors are exposed in it?  Look for the mistakes and the lies meant to cover them up.

Some World Trade Center victims were ‘vaporized’

01/15/2002 – Updated 08:28 PM ET USA Today

NEW YORK (AP) — Three months after the World Trade Center attack, victims’ families are being forced to face the ghastly possibility that many of the dead were “vaporized,” as the medical examiner put it, and may never be identified. So far, fewer than 500 victims have been positively identified out of the roughly 3,000 feared dead.

Sixty were identified solely through DNA. The city and state have allowed victims’ families to obtain death certificates without proof of a body, but many families place great importance on an ID based on actual remains. “Until you have something tangible, you just keep hoping — maybe there’ll be some sort of miracle,” said Jeanne Maurer, whose 31-year-old daughter, Jill Campbell, is presumed dead. “You can’t accept it until you have something. “I still say, ‘My daughter’s missing,”‘ Maurer said. Many victims will undoubtedly be identified. Nearly 10,000 body parts have been pulled from the mountains of mangled metal and matchstick-size splinters at ground zero.

But Dr. Charles Hirsch, the chief medical examiner, triggered an angry response two weeks ago when he told grieving relatives that many bodies — no one is sure how many — had been “vaporized” and were beyond identification. Hirsch declined to be interviewed.

But spokeswoman Ellen Borakove said he meant that bodies were consumed by blazing fuel from the two crashed airliners, or “rendered into dust” when the 1,100-foot skyscrapers collapsed, one concrete slab floor onto another. Dr. Michael Baden, the state’s chief forensic pathologist and a top expert in the field, said in September that most bodies should be identifiable because the fires — while hot enough to melt steel — did not reach the 3,200-degree, 30-minute level necessary to incinerate a body.

(Editor’s note:  Steel melts at 2800 degrees Fahrenheit , reached in sustained immersion during a smelting process.    Crematoriums typically reach a temperature of 1600 degrees Fahrenheit.  Jet fuel fires are unable to sustain temperatures in excess of 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.  Aluminum melts at 1200 degrees Fahrenheit and aircraft aluminum turns to vapor long before steel would begin to weaken from heat.   Please check on this yourselves.)

Borakove said her office agrees with Baden’s calculation — as applied to a full body. “But when the planes hit the buildings, the bodies that were in the planes as well as some of the bodies that were in the buildings were fragmented upon impact, and those fragments burn more quickly,” she said.

The combination of fire and compression from tons of rubble could reduce a human body to a small amount of tissue and bone, said Dr. Cyril Wecht, a top forensic pathologist in Pittsburgh. And finding such small samples of DNA in 1.2 million tons of rubble spread over 16 acres is a difficult proposition. “There are pieces,” he said. “But how do you identify and extract it from other similarly appearing pieces at the site — bricks, mortar, rubble?”

Marian Fontana, president of the Sept. 11 Widows and Victims’ Families Association, said: “My fear is that financial incentives will cause the city to clean up the site quickly, rather than to treat it as a retrieval site and do things in a dignified way.” Her firefighter husband, Dave, is among the missing. In particular, families are worried that remains will end up at the Staten Island landfill where trade center debris is taken and sorted.

“The remains shouldn’t end up in the garbage heap,” Maurer said. Forensic pathologists are trying to match the DNA of tissue taken from ground zero with the DNA of known victims. Victims’ families have supplied clothes, hairbrushes and other personal items from which DNA could be lifted for comparison. Hirsch’s task is unprecedented in size.

After the Oklahoma City bombing, all 168 people killed were eventually identified. But even after four years, some of the recovered tissue and bone were never linked to any of the victims.

Borakove said recently developed computer software enables more efficient DNA identification. In the meantime, some families, like the Maurers, are waiting to schedule services. “We’re not ready really for a memorial,” said her father, Joseph Maurer. “We’ll do a funeral with remains — if we find them.”


Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on February 19, 2011, With 2298 Reads Filed under 9/11, WarZone. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

FaceBook Comments


  1. hareli  February 21, 2011 at 5:54 am


  2. Ross  February 21, 2011 at 5:01 am

    Congratulations to all the people who posted opinions based on their logic and good judgement on this topic.I can see that many of you will not be deceived by the lies that constantly eminates from our Govts.

    The object of ae911truth is not to reach conclusions or judgement about by whom or why 911 was perpetrated,but to present the scientific evidence which unequivocally debunks the Govts official version.

  3. Ross  February 20, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    My advice to all is too remain skeptical.Too many things just don’t add up.Dimitri is saying that a team of 10 international scientists are not telling the truth about nano-thermite.They have left the door open saying other devices may have been used but Dimitri discounts all of that.

    Dimitri by his own admition is not a scientist and is asking us to discount the professional opinions of 1400 Architects and Engineers,400+ Professors and Prof Harritt’s team of 10 scientists proficient in their fields.As I’ve said previously ,I’ve met Harrit Jones and Legge.They are all very cautious about their claims and I did not detect any body language to tell me that they were on the course of deception.Why would the Govt set up http://ae911truth.org/ an organisation totally debunking their official theory?

    I can see though, a reason to set up another theory debunking all others and then reveal this to be a lie,causing confusion and divsion within the truth movement.The planes did exist and so did the nano-thermite.Harritt and Gage say that there could have been other devices.Dimitri is saying Gage, Harritt and Jones are wrong.

    There has been too many lies and deception perpetrated upon us.We should only look at the cold hard scientific facts.This is what has made Richard Gage and his team so successful and therefore has attracted the ire of the establishment.They have stuck to the science,are very cautious and make no value judgements of who was responsible.This is why they are calling for a proper inquiry into 911;to end all the speculation.

    • emikel  February 20, 2011 at 10:30 pm

      Don’t be surprised if the particular nanothermite used was manufactured by ElBit in Israel. The Open Physics Chemical Journal reported the energy content of the particular nanothermite used was 10W/cubic cm. and a report from Lawrence Livermore just the year before advertised their most advanced SolGel thermite at 5W per cubic cm! State of the art stuff! On the other hand, it’s quite possible that the substance was made at the navy’s Indian Head facility, a directed energy weapons research facility, since it’s painfully obvious that nine one one was a gov’t affair, with the help of the world’s foremost, and most experienced, terrorist bombers – the Mossad.

  4. Budreaux  February 20, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    Lots of good info here complete with links to documentation.

    The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs – Domestic – WTC
    By Ed Ward, MD


  5. Kelli  February 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    Didn’t make the list, huh? Your jealousy shows!

  6. J.F.E.  February 20, 2011 at 11:53 am

    Bohemian Rove:

    I don’t question there are “new developments”. The recent FOIA releases (after court battles) have produced more visual & audio evidence.

    What are those new developments and what are the most significant new developments in your opinion?

  7. jo  February 20, 2011 at 11:44 am

    You cant discredit Dimitri becasue he believes in no planes. Dimitri has written that he respects Simon Shack’s work. There is a large site called 911docs (.net) which seems to have EVERY 911 documentary you can think of, check it out. Oh, except September Clues and Dimitri’s film. Now, the same site used to have a link to register your vote against a mosque at ground zero. (??)It’s sacred ground! connect the dots- it’s a perp controlled site, and September Clues (which never mentions Zionists or Jews) IS exactly what they do not want YOU to see. Many ‘truther’ sites have a complete ban on ‘no planes’ DISCUSSION! Why? who cares, the buildings are gone. conclusion? the ‘truth movement’ is perp controlled- there were no planes. since 911 there was a MSM blackout on all 911 discussion and alternate theories. Why? their business is the investigation of news? Conclusion, MSM owners are perps and complicit in 911. No planes also explains the ABSOLUTE disregard of all hijack procedures of interception, shoot down etc .

    • jo  February 20, 2011 at 10:59 pm

      thanks for clearing things up, planes, 19 arabs, have you read ‘the pet goat’

    • jo  February 21, 2011 at 3:53 pm

      Here’s an old article about 911 TV fakery, some of his links are dead, but the Jim Friedl audio mp3s at the bottom of the page work.

    • Penumbra  February 20, 2011 at 11:51 pm

      You should see the relief atop on the of columns at St John the Divine Cathedral in NYC. It was of course carved and dedicated by Freemasons and depicts the destruction of the WTC, well before any such event occurred.

      See sinister sites for a pictorial.

  8. J.F.E.  February 20, 2011 at 11:42 am

    Of course, reports of “vaporizing” people is intriguing. But the site’s other content combined with the lame excuse offered by its author why he didn’t have a name for the witness… “oh, I have it in my files…somewhere,” tags the story as having dubious authenticity.

  9. Steve C.  February 20, 2011 at 10:18 am

    “No planes, no thermite, etc., etc.” And some people are taking this guy seriously? ‘S just another Zio-Mossad mind-fluck op.

    • Steve C.  February 20, 2011 at 11:51 am

      Nay, allow me to restate that: it’s very CLEARLY whatever ‘t is that I just said.

    • Garibaldi  February 21, 2011 at 12:56 am

      …”Dimitri Khalezov’s real value is his direct observations of the Mossad agent admitting he planned & carried out 911. It’s called direct evidence.”

      I’ve been waiting patiently for someone, anyone, other than myself, to make this observation, because I tend to agree with your overall sentiment concerning the superseding value of Mr. Khalezov’s “direct observations of the Mossad agent”, Mike Harari, as I’ve already remarked toward the end of an earlier comment here-


      Having listened in on the recent Kevin Barrett interview of Khalezov, I seem to recall his giving Dmitri a fairly tough grilling on this issue, insisting in essence that hearsay did not constitute “direct evidence”, and to the general effect that he should at least be able to furnish something in the form of DOCUMENTARY evidence, (photographs, letters, for example) of their initial encounter, long friendship and ensuing intrigues. Unfortunately in response, Dmitri sounded as if he might be rather hard put at this late date to furnish any semblance of same.

      I could only devoutly wish Mr. Khalezov had poured even half as much mammoth energy into some form of documentary biography of his Mossad adventures in Bangkok as he already expended on attempting to circumscribe the near inscrutable physics of 911, and that much further elucidation of his vital connection to Harari will soon be forthcoming.

      (If it ever comes out in book form, and at least half of it turns out to be true, I bet he’ll sell more copies than Victor Ostrovsky’s “By Way of Deception”)

    • hareli  February 21, 2011 at 7:36 pm

      the general effect that he should at least be able to furnish something in the form of DOCUMENTARY evidence, (photographs, letters, for example) of their initial encounter,

      Here ya’ go, Popeye:

  10. brilmusic  February 20, 2011 at 8:32 am

    Much of Bollyn’s research relies on Dr. Jones’ , maybe he should interview Khalezov and spend some time on that. What do ya’ll think? I rather dig Bollyn’s book.

    • Dimitri Khalezov  February 20, 2011 at 10:19 am

      Please, get and carefully review these photos of the deep underground cavities under the WTC buildings. Don’t fail to notice their depths and the fact that they reveal molten rock (now set). The photos could be downloaded in zip-archives from here:
      Low resolution photos, but a small archive:
      Highest quality photos, but a big archive:
      (credits to Larry Silverstein, since it is his photos, taken from his web
      And you can ask Jones what he could say about these cavities? Were they made by so-called “nano-thermite”? Or the job was separated? The steel was melted into dust by “nano-thermite”, while cavities with moten rock were because of an “ancient glaciers”(3ps)? I am dying to know what will he answer you when you show him these pictures.

    • AS  February 20, 2011 at 11:21 am

      Watching these holes… I am thinking how did they calculate the right amount needed to vaporise the towers or dustified them… in 1970-80s it should have beeen an estimated amount as you mention only 85 % was dusted… israelis probably used nano-thermites as cover up material like semtex or C4 is used to cover the use of SADM or micro nukes…

      you did not answered my points with the next 911 radio muclear in Europe… do you know anything ?

    • hareli  February 21, 2011 at 5:48 am

      You’re an idiot. Watch the 26 videos and read what detail is available, and stop posing stupid questions.

    • STeve C.  February 20, 2011 at 1:55 pm

      Yeah, so? We ALL agree that bombs were used. You are the one making outrageous claims (“no planes, no thermite, the French were behind it, etc.”). “Credits to Larry Silverman”? Yeah, that’s your game.

    • Gordon Duff  February 20, 2011 at 1:57 pm

      been at the funny weed have we?

    • Steve C.  February 20, 2011 at 2:53 pm

      “I guess we have”, make that. Your endorsement of this clown speaks volumes.

  11. Greg Bacon  February 20, 2011 at 7:26 am

    Khalezov also states, backed by an offer of a lie detector test, that, while a Soviet Officer in their nuclear services, he was briefed on the placement of large nuclear demolition charges under the WTC and Sears Tower.

    The ‘Sears Tower’ is now called the Willis Tower and the usual suspects are setting up the USA AGAIN for another FALSE FLAG/INSIDE JOB.

    9/11 planned for Chicago? Silverstein now owns the Sears Tower and Kroll’s providing security

    And who’s moving out of the Sears Tower in 2011?

    Goldman Sachs.

    All that’s needed know is for their MOSSAD agent, Rahm Emanuel, to be ‘elected’ Mayor and the final piece will be in place.


  12. AR  February 20, 2011 at 7:15 am

    You know perfectly well why no one has arrested those assholes yet Gordon.

    Don’t be so naive.

    By the way you should replace all the people mentioned in your article with Jesse Ventura. He carries a lot more credibility than these guys don’t you think?

    • Fedge  February 20, 2011 at 9:32 am

      He’s credible but he wouldn’t have been onto any of this on his own.

  13. Greg Bacon  February 20, 2011 at 7:13 am

    Huffington had shed itself of “truth tellers” long ago

    And for that. Arianna PUFFington was rewarded over 300 million when she sold her rag.

    There was another atomic blast where victims were vaporized…. Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    A nuke in the basement and thermite charges on selected steel beams so the ‘Twins’ would fall into their foundations.

    Couldn’t take a chance on one falling over and hitting the Zionists ‘Temples of Greed,’ the NYSE, the NY branch of the Federal Reserve and those ‘Too Big to Fail’ Wall Street bankster gangsters, all needed to pull off the greatest heist in American history, hidden behind tales of ‘al CIA Duh’ Muslim boogiemen, hiding behind every BUSH, ready to leap out and list our throats.

    And give the corrupt, craven Israeli lap-dogs in the WH and Congress the excuse needed to ‘Shock and Awe’ ME and SW Asia nations Israel doesn’t like, which is pretty much all of them.

  14. Ingrid B  February 20, 2011 at 5:31 am

    How: ask the suspects..
    Why: greed? power? control? just for the hell of it?
    Who: after analyzing the evidence, carefully, I have reached the conclusion that “the butler did it!!”

  15. J.F.E.  February 20, 2011 at 1:58 am

    The following youtube presents recorded video interviews of several witnesses who were in the WTC 1 basement when the first plane hit and reported an explosion in the basement and that they saw other people with “hanging” skin”:


    Hanging skin is indicative of being exposed to radiation from a nuclear device. Many survivors of Hiroshima were reported as having “hanging” skin.

    Witness statements are clear that a bomb (s) detonated in the basement, but, also, at 6:58 in the video, a live remote T. V. video feed from the morning of 911 is presented. You hear the first plane approaching, but an instant before the first plane hits, there is a “boom” type noise, but more important, an electromagnetic distortion briefly disrupts the video image, then the next instant the plane can be heard hitting WTC 1.

    A plane hit at the top of the building would not cause an electromagnetic distortion on a remote live video, but a micro-nuke could.

    This electro-magnetic distortion is possible evidence of an Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP)caused by a nuclear detonation. Evidence of an initial nuclear detonation caught on a live video tape.

    At 4:44 of the video, the witness describes a person with “hanging” skin in the basement (and hearing & feeling an explosion below him and then another more distant explosion above him). Another witness in the basement also reports a person with “hanging” skin.

    There was evidence for molten pools of metal in the footprints of all three WTC buildings. Also, there were burned cars including whole parking lots of burned cars away from WTC 1 and 2. Mechanical gravity collapse would not cause temperatures high enough to burn cars away from WTC 1 and 2.

    Cars were burned in unusual patterns: Half the car burned, and cars burned from the inside out, and engine compartments where burned out. This suggests the possibility electromagnetic plasma (free electrons & ions) were present within the pyroclastic flows causing electrical “shorts” upon contact with the metal components of the cars and potential eddy electric currents due to changing magnetic fields within the pyroclasitic flows. The magnetic fields changing due to changes in flows of charged particles present in electromagnetic plasma.

    Mechanical gravity collapse would not cause currents of electrically charged particles to flow throughout the pyroclastic dust clouds.

    The live video feed with the plane heard approaching, then an electromagnetic distortion with a simultaneous “boom”, begs for an explaination from those who believe there were no nuclear devices; so, also, do the witness accounts of people in the basement with “hanging” skin.

    • Ross  February 20, 2011 at 4:19 am

      JFE.This is not scientific proof.This is heresay.

  16. Too many red flags ...  February 20, 2011 at 1:48 am

    While there are red flags everywhere on 911, 6 stand above the rest.

    1. Supposedly cell phone calls were supposedly made in flight on 911. This technology did NOT EXIST then. One supposed caller says, “hi mom, this is first name last name”. Who ever says their last name to their family?

    2. The firefightes remarked hearing bombs. I will repeat that: BOMBS.

    3. Compare the fires in Tower 7 with video of the Madrid skyscraper months later that was literally an inferno. One had “small, little fires” and imploded within a couple hours. One had its entire structure engulfed in flames for 30+ HOURS and DID NOT FALL.

    4. On 9-10-11, it was revealed that $2.3 TRILLION dollars had gone missing. Whatever hit the Pentagon (I personally saw the aftermath with my own eyes and it didn’t look like a plane crash) coincidentally hit the accountants and bookkeepers on 911 in the only place that had not been reinforced. These were the very people who would have been investigating the missing $.

    The other key factor besides the Pentagon and the accountants in the Pentagon was Tower 7. It served as a base of operations not only for the tower complex but also was a storage warehouse of intelligence especially terrorism counter-intelligence. A by-product of this led to the weather balloon WMD debacle by house boy sycophant Colin Powell lying to the UN using Israeli supplied bogus intel. Tower 7 had to come down.

    There was a 3rd key factor with Tower 7 and that was Zionist Larry Silverstein. He is on record saying “PULL” Tower 7. Pull means to implode. Silverstein murderded people on 911.

    I do not believe in the accidental theory of history. In fact, whenever strange things happen, I always fall back on FDR’s ingenious remark:

    “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

    Bombs in 1 = bombs in all.

  17. Dimitri Khalezov  February 20, 2011 at 1:19 am

    P.S. a newly composed information. After yesterday’s show of mine with Gordon Duff and Kevin Barrett, Kevin received some response which he forwarded to me. I think may be community will be interested in my answers. My answers are separated by —————- from the actual “debunking” points below:

    Conclusion and a challenge The hard physical evidence presented is strongly against the hypothesis that mini-nukes destroyed the WTC Towers: ——————– I have never claimed that the WTC was destroyed by “mini-nukes”. I claimed it was destroyed by 150-kiloton thermonuclear (aka ‘hydrogene’) charges exploded deep underground.

    1. Observation of tritium (an important component of hydrogen-bomb fuel) at WTC sites at the few nano-curie level only. This is strong evidence against the mini-nuke hypothesis. —————————— I am not sure about “nano-curie level”, because I am not a scientist and I haven’t participate in sampling and analyzing, but I could say that the 55x times or so elevated levels of Tritium were found DESPITE the fact that firefighters CONTINUOUSLY, FOR MANY DAYS poured HUGE amounts of waters into the WTC cavities thus causing a GREAT DEAL OF DISSOLVING of the disputed substances. And yes, I agree that elevated levels of a thermonuclear fuel is the primary indication that thermonuclear charges were used. And this is exactly what I claim.

    2. The fact that radioactive iodine concentrations were actually lower in the upper/WTC debris-filled layers. ————————— of course, it is logical to presume so. Because the actual nuclear reaction happened deep underground. So, it is logical to presume that the lower you go the higher radioactivity levels you encounter and the vice-versa. This perfectly matches my actual claims.

    3. Radioactive hot-spots in NYC were found to be due to radium, which is traceable to industrial uses (not bombs). This in itself does not rule out mini-nukes, but these data certainly do not support the mini-nuke hypothesis. —————————- total garbage. Absolutely unsubstantiated claim tantamount to a claim that “there is a life on the Mars” or that “Timothy McVeigh was indeed put to death and not just given a new identity” (since nobody is going to verify it anyway). First of all, why the admitted “radioactive hot-spots” were found whatsoever? If it were kerosene or so-called “nano-thermite” that did the actual demolition job? Was kerosene radioactive? Or was the so-called “nano-thermite” radioactive?

    Radioactivity “hot-spots” were due to thermonuclear explosions underground and not to “industrial uses (not bombs)”. And it was not “Radium”, found at ground zero, but Barium, Strontium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum, Yttrium – all those classical radio-nuclides that are typically left by nuclear explosions. Plus Trititum that is typically left by thermonuclear explosions.

    4. Lioy et al. report that radioactivity from thorium, uranium, actinium series and other radionuclides is at or near the background level for WTC dust. ——————– but why should it be in the WTC dust? When dust was created well above the spot of the actual underground nuclear explosions? The WTC dust owes its existence to merely mechanical processes – it was created by the pressure wave. The WTC dust has nothing to do with radioactivity, indeed. But the method proposed by Lioy at. al should not dupe you. They shamelessly exploit your supposed ignorance. The radioactivity was concentrated inside deep underground cavities and was gradually released with vapors, and not with dust.

    5. Nuclear activation or residual “fall-out” radioactivity (above background) was NOT observed, in tests performed by the author on actual WTC samples. This result is consistent with the low Iodine-131 measured by independent researchers (point 2 above) and the low radionuclide counts (point 4 above) —————————– lie. Blatant lie. These shameless guys take a good use of the fact that the actual radioactivity measurements were classified by the US Government. It should not dupe you into believing them.

    and again provides compelling evidence against the mini-nuke-at-Towers hypothesis. ———————- I have never claimed the “mini-nukes” hypothesis. I claimed that 3×150 kiloton thermonuclear charges (8 times the Hiroshima bomb each) were used to destroy the three WTC buildings.

    6. No fatalities due to radiation “burning” were reported near ground zero. —————— yes, because the “radiation burning” (aka “beta-burning”) results from being subjected to an instant flow of fast electrons (aka “beta-radiation”) flying to every direction from a hypocenter of a nuclear explosion. Since in that case the actual explosions occurred deep underground all their primary radiations (X-, beta- and gamma- inclusive) were stopped by the surrounding rock and could not reach the surface. However, it does not mean that there were “no radiation poisoning” on account of the most dangerous alpha-radiation. The alpha-particles were carried by vapors ascending from the deep underground cavities beneath the debris and the gullible ground zero responders (who did not bother to open a pre-9/11 dictionary and to check what ‘ground zero’ did mean in the pre-9/11 English language) were freely inhaling these alpha-particles. And now all of them developed classical chronic radiation sickness. Many of them died from leukemia and other kinds of radiation-related cancers. And many are dying right now.

    William Rodriguez survived the North Tower collapse. ————————- as far as I can recollect William Rodriguez survived not the nuclear explosion that actually collapsed the Tower, but he survived a so-far unexplained explosion in the basement that coincided in time with the explosion on the upper floors (aka the “plane’s impact”). Rodriguez got out of the Tower well before the Tower was demolished. Because if not, only microscopic dust would remain of poor Willy’s mortal body.

    7. No observed melting of glass due to the collapse-process of the Towers. ——————— the “pre-collapse process” took not more than a few milliseconds. Considering that waves generally travel in metals at a speed of roughly 4 kilometers per second while the Twin Towers were ~350 meters (I mean their pulverized parts; the entire Towers were ~415 meters high), we could conclude that the entire “pre-collapse process” took about 0.086 second only. Why should any “melting of glass” occur? Especially considering that it was a “cold” process – effects of the “pressure wave” that had nothing to do with high temperatures? This argument is taken out of the blue. It is the same if I ask why do you believe that the United States are located on the American continent, while crocodiles do not live in Siberian rivers?

    8. One more: The mini-nuke idea fails completely for WTC 7 where vertically-directed plumes of dust were absent during the collapse, and the building fell quite neatly onto its own footprint. (Molten metal was observed under the WTC7 rubble as well.) ————————– as I have said many times I have never claimed any “mini-nukes” were used. I claimed that three huge 150 kiloton thermonuclear charges were used. The WTC-7 was much shorter than the WTC Twin Towers and as such it was “dustified” in its entirety, without any heavy undamaged tops that could pressure downwards (such as in the case with the Twins). That is why the WTC-7 was instantly transformed into a compressed pile of dust that was about to disintegrate under its own weight. And it indeed happened. It started to crumble from its lowest parts (that logically sustained the heaviest pressure compare to the upper parts of that “dustified” structure). And so the former building went down. But it went down too fast, so some dust from the upper parts of the WTC-7 could not catch up with it and so it was “delaying”. It is clearly visible on available movies showing the WTC-7 collapse. There are clearly visible two different sources of dust – ascending dust from beneath and “delaying” dust left by the falling WTC-7’s top that went down too fast. Thus your claim that what you call “vertically-directed plumes of dust” allegedly did not exist is not true. Something of this kind is clearly visible on the WTC-7 collapse’s videos.

    Sincerely yours,
    Dimitri Khalezov.

    • Ross  February 20, 2011 at 4:07 am

      Dimitri,I suggest you get a team of scientists together like Prof Neils Harritt and publish a peer reviewed paper.They found unexploded nano-thermite/reacted thermite and steel micro spheres right thoughout the dust.

      Why do you deny the use of nano-thermite and the aircraft that many witnesses saw crash into the towers ?

      How was a single nuke able to cause the rippling effect of mutliple explosions down the towers? How do you explain the squibs or mistimed explosions way below the major destruction zone?

      What caused the streams of molten steel to pour out just before the collapse?

      How did the towers collapse from the top down when you assert that a single nuke under each building was the sole cause? Surely the energy would have been greatest nearest the explosion.

      Why did WTC 7 collapse in the reverse fashion when you say the same device was used?

      3 x 150 kilotonne nukes would surely displace the foundations of all surrounding buildings.Why would they risk destroying the entire area?

      There is a piece of concrete and melted steel called the “Meteorite”.This should be full of evidence to support your theory.

      You need to publish a peer reviewed scientific paper.

    • Dimitri Khalezov  February 20, 2011 at 11:29 am

      Dimitri,I suggest you get a team of scientists together like Prof Neils Harritt and publish a peer reviewed paper. They found unexploded nano-thermite/reacted thermite and steel micro spheres right thoughout the dust. ———————- the mere fact that they “found” the so-called “nano-thermite”, moreover “unexploded” (despite the apparent fact that thermite is not an explosive, but incendiary) points that these guys are shills at the service of the US Government. I have nothing to do with the shills. The rest of their “findings” are irrelevant in the view of the first “find” – the so-called “nano-thermite”. If someone is a prove liar, it does not matter what else he “found”. You can’t afford such a luxury as to believe his claims. I am sorry, I am brutal, but this is the only way to deal with the shills.

      Why do you deny the use of nano-thermite —————————- because I was not informed while in the Soviet Special Control Service that the WTC emergency demolition scheme was based on so-called “nano-thermite”. I was informed it was based on the underground thermonuclear charges. Moreover, as just a former military officer I could promise you that so-called “nano-thermite” does not exist in reality. It exists only in sick imaginations of the governmental shills who want to cheat you in that way and to distract your attention from the fact that the WTC was destroyed by nuclear explosions.

      and the aircraft that many witnesses saw crash into the towers ? ——————— as many witnesses did not see any planes. If you don’t believe me – go to my YouTube channel here: http://www.youtube.com/DimitriKhalezov#g/u and you will find at least 8 video clips where eye-witnesses did not see any planes, but only explosions. Why would I believe the bogus “witnesses” planted by the Freemasons if I know first of all that aluminum can not penetrate steel by definition and the Boeings-767 can not fly at thief full cruse speed at the claimed altitude? I am a reasonable man, after all, friendly with the common sense. And if you go to my YouTube channel and watch the clips you will see that my claims are also supported by real eye-witnesses.

      How was a single nuke able to cause the rippling effect of mutliple explosions down the towers? ————————— I do not see any “multiple explosions down the towers”. I see only the tower’s tops crashing dust under themselves while falling down at the free-falls speed.

      How do you explain the squibs or mistimed explosions way below the major destruction zone? —————————- by the same way as the otherwise cheating NIST report explains them (I agree with the NIST report only on this point alone, don’t accuse me of being the NIST’s supporter). Namely: these were merely pockets of air pressed out by the pressure of the falling tops. They were by no means “explosions”.

      What caused the streams of molten steel to pour out just before the collapse? ————————- I did not see any “streams of molten steel pouring”. All I saw was a strange sparkling (most probably of aluminum coating, and not of steel) in only a single spot, or maximum in a two single spots. Perhaps, it was a type of thermitic-type reaction which has nonetheless nothing to do either with thermite, or with so-called “nano-thermite”. It is merely the way aluminum could burn in certain conditions. Considering it was only in one (maximum two) isolated spots this in any case could not add anything to the towers collapses. Don’t cheat yourselves trying to exaggerate an alleged importance of this fact. It is clearly irrelevant considering the Towers’ actual size, length and the total areas of the 4 facades of two Towers. These two small isolated spots of sparkling of the very low intensity can not be counted as anything really important that could contribute to the Towers’ collapse.

      How did the towers collapse from the top down when you assert that a single nuke under each building was the sole cause? —————————- read my explanation above (I have to big posts above). Otherwise it is a bit impolite – not to even bother to read what I have said above before asking this question. I have already explained it.

      Surely the energy would have been greatest nearest the explosion. ——————– and it was. The highest temperatures were in the underground cavities. Don’t even doubt it.

      Why did WTC 7 collapse in the reverse fashion when you say the same device was used? ——————– again. Explained above. Read my posts above. Don’t force me to repeat myself.

      3 x 150 kilotonne nukes would surely displace the foundations of all surrounding buildings. —————— based upon what grounds do you state this? Are you a mathematician who has an experience in calculating underground nuclear explosions? Your statement is apparently based on your intuition, and not on any knowledge. But in this case the intuition badly cheats you. Don’t believe it. Believe the mathematics.

      Why would they risk destroying the entire area? ——————————- I don’t know what to answer. Because it was not me who created such a scheme and not me who put it to the actual use on 9/11. Address this question to Controlled Demolition Inc. Or to the Department of Buildings of New York.

      There is a piece of concrete and melted steel called the “Meteorite”. This should be full of evidence to support your theory. ——————————— yes, I guess it is. The so-called “nano-thermite” (even if imagine unimaginable and presume that it exists in reality) could not melt rock, concrete and steel into one piece. Apparently. I would like to state that my claims are not “theory”, though. They have a very different legal status: they are witness’ testimony. See the difference?

      You need to publish a peer reviewed scientific paper. ——————————- I am not a scientist. I am an eye-witness. But if you find scientists who are not shills and who will agree to publish my claims, I will do it with pleasure.

    • Bink  February 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm

      Sorry Demitri. These squibs don’t look like compressed air.


      You don’t seem to have done through research, which puts your entire theory into question.

      I’m not discounting your theory that some nuclear charge may have been used but think your characterizations of people such as Neils Harritt are laughable. You know every product produced by intelligence agencies ? That’s somewhat unlikely.
      It was the Freemasons ? I’ve seen the Da Vinci Code too, but think this theory maybe off base as well.
      Were they behind the “New Pearl Harbor” document ?

    • Brian  February 20, 2011 at 4:19 pm

      To Dimitri and others:

      I have a hard time believing the no planes theory. Over the years most of my research has been focused on the evidence that 911 was a Mossad operation and not how they brought down the twin towers. I strongly suggest Dimitri and others look at this web page. It shows numerous photographs of the plane wreckage at the WTC area and gives eyewitness testimony of firefighters who saw the plane wreckage. http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/aircraftpartsnyc911

      There are other websites that also show plane wreckage.

      It’s hard for me to believe the false flag plan included lying to the world that two planes hit the Twin Towers.

      The no planes theory implies the false flag planners were not concerned that:

      New York City would be full of eyewitnesses that day.

      Some of the witnesses would have cell phones and cameras to capture images of the planes.

      Convince numerous eyewitnesses, including fire fighters, to lie about seeing aircraft wreckage in the vicinity of the WTC or risk being seen planting air craft wreckage at the scene.

      Use explosives to try and mimic the whole of an aircraft in each of the twin towers.

      Getting caught presenting false DNA of airplane passenger victims.

      Too me it’s a terrible plan. I don’t believe such a plan would have been approved.

    • Brian  February 20, 2011 at 4:27 pm

      Here’s some of the eyewitness testimony by firefighters who saw plane wreckage at the WTC area. Are they all lying? Are they shills for the government? Were they bribed or blackmailed? Are these fake names? Presenting false eyewitness testimony by firefighters seems like a terrible plan. I don’t think this plan would have been approved.

      Church and Vesey. We were coming across and we walked down. We had to go down to the command center. We carried all our tools, the bottles, everything, and as we’re walking down, part of the plane engine was sitting right in the street, still burning. I said, look, this is the plane. FDNY firefighter Paul Hyland

      Once we started taking off, I guess 30 feet in front of us, there was a lady on the ground by the curb and she was just waving her arms. That’s all she could wave. Her legs were crushed. Apparently she got hit by part of the landing gear, one of the tires of the airplane. There was a large tire next to her. FDNY EMT Orlando Martinez

      …we started making our way to NYU Downtown Hospital, Beekman, to drop off our first set of patients when we got flagged down for another lady who got hit by the landing gear of the first plane. FDNY EMT Frank Puma

      We just passed a compact car where the engine was running and the door was open, which looked to me like the driver had escaped, but from the back seat to the trunk was crushed by a jet engine. We started going up West Street. I believe that’s when Smitty ran over the part of the plane, but he did that to avoid the bodies because there were obviously bodies in the street. FDNY firefighter Michael Hazel

      There was a car that we drove by that the driver’s door and the passenger door were open, and there was a plane motor on the back half of the car. Two inches more, and both these guys would have been dead too. That was their ticket. It was amazing. The car was actually cut right in half with this motor, right there back of the front seat. I sat there in amazement. FDNY firefighter Richard Saulle

      “A section of the landing gear proved to me that this was a commercial airliner.” PAPD Det. Sgt. Raymond Dilena Source

      A tremendous fireball, flaming debris, pieces of the airplane, fuselage, landing gear, pieces of the building. …We started running down one of the little side streets, Courtlandt or Dey. There were people dead in the street that obviously you couldn’t help them. There was flaming debris coming down all over. It was just a matter of who got hit with the debris. FDNY Captain Michael Donovan

      Right behind us on the southeast corner of West and Rector was a landing gear assembly from an aircraft lying against the curb and some scaffolding. PAPD Det. Edward Rapp Source

      As we approached West Broadway, a NYPD lieutenant told us we could not proceed due to aircraft parts blocking the road. PAPD Det. Robert Fuchs Source

      People coming out of the buildings half burned, the fuel must have spewed down and hit some people. A lot of burns literally down through the skin to the bone. I had two patients on my ambulance, vehicle 111. FBI Agents were telling us to move our vehicle from the corner of Vessey and West, cause there was debris from the airplane which they needed for evidence. I guess it was NTSB, they wanted the area secured. There was nowhere for us to move the vehicle, cause there was debris everywhere. FDNY EMT Alwish Monchery

      After that, an FBI agent came down the block. He identified some landing gear that was in front of our rig, asked me to make sure no pedestrians came down the block to interfere with any type of metals and debris that were there, because they were trying to identify to put the pieces back together for the plane. FDNY firefighter Sidney Parris

      Vesey and Church, Vesey and Church right there. We stepped off the rig, and there were plane engine parts and people yelling and screaming. FDNY firefighter Bertram Springstead

      Walking around, we came out to Rector Street. We saw one of the landing gears from the airplane. FDNY EMT Benjamin Badillo

      Various pieces of the plane were falling on the street. As we went down the street you could see parts of aircraft with stencil numbers on it and things like that. There was a wheel, or like a wheel housing or something else there in the street. FDNY Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick

      I continued down Liberty, just west of 10 and 10. As I got down a little farther, there was what looked to be a piece of the cabin of the airplane, I guess. It looked like a piece of it about maybe six foot long. It looked like the windows. FDNY Battalion Chief Brian Dixon

      I parked the rig on Church right at Fulton, directly in front of the World Trade north plaza. My officer told us we’re going to go into the north tower lobby. We proceeded down to Vesey. Walking down Vesey, we noticed large pieces of what looked like possibly the fuselage from the

      plane. There was a caravan of motorcycle police coming up. We stopped them and we cleared the path of big O rings and pieces of fuselage of the plane. We threw it to the side, and we told the guys to go on. Fire Patrolman Paul Curran

      …it was Dey or Cortlandt Street. We walked down that block. It was littered with airplane parts…. FDNY Chief Ray Goldbach

      Captain Nahmod and I were running down Vesey Street stepping over airplane pieces, several bodies and whatnot. There was what looked like the front wheel assembly of an airplane. Unknown the size of the plane that had hit, it just looked like it was one pair of wheels on an assembly, pieces of metal with rivets in them, a few body parts scattered around. FDNY EMT Richard Zarillo

      Michael Sheehan, a broker working on the 55th floor of 2 World Trade Center, moved to the stairwell when he realized a plane had crashed into 1 World Trade Center. By the time he reached the 25th floor, he could smell the fumes of fuel that had begun to filter through the ventilation systems of the two buildings.

      Like I remember walking by with the chief, and I remember seeing the airplane engine. FDNY EMT Robert Kimball

      We came up, tried to find our way into the courtyard area and we hugged the side of the buildings and it was an overhang that we stayed under. We noticed metal that looked like it came from the plane, in retrospect. FDNY Assistant Commissioner Thomas McDonald

      So we ran back to the car and laying right in back of my car was a large object which I thought was probably part of one of the aircraft turbines. FDNY Chief of Safety Albert Turi.

      We did see part of — I didn’t see it, but Jeff Johnson told me later on he did see part of the landing gear actually fell right through the roof and it was in one of the Jacuzzis in another room. FDNY firefighter John Breen, in the Marriott Vista hotel (WTC 3)

      By the time I started to pass by in front of (firehouse) 10 and 10. As I got down a little farther, there was what looked to be a piece of the cabin of the airplane, I guess. It looked like a piece of it about maybe six foot long. It looked like the windows. FDNY firefighter Brian Dixon

      The other thing that was actually evident, though, is what appeared to be some plane parts, like some circular pieces of a plane, the walk down Vesey Street. FDNY EMS Dr. Michael Guttenberg

      We were driving out of the tunnel up West Street and we’re seeing body parts in the street, torsos, chunks of flesh, parts of the airplane landing gear, car fires everywhere. It was like a war zone. FDNY firefighter Steve Piccerill

      I passed over some pieces of what appeared to be aircraft wreckage, fuselage, whatever, some body parts and bodies in various states, either people from the building or the airplanes. You couldn’t tell. They weren’t intact. FDNY EMS Division Chief John Peruggia

      Then actually when I found my car, I found my car like later, later on in the day, but I left it there, because it was not able to be moved because it was covered. There was an airplane tire about 10 feet away from it. FDNY EMS Captain Frank D’Amato, at the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel & West Street

      The landing gear of the aircraft was in that parking lot there. It was right near us. FDNY firefighter Dean Coutsouros

      There were a number of airplane parts throughout the street, littering the streets. FDNY firefighter Robert Norris

      I remember at one point seeing what looked like piece of an airplane. That piece looked like it crushed half that car. FDNY firefighter Kevin McCabe

      …our initial response was seeing body parts and airplane parts all over the west side. FDNY EMT Stephen Hess

      You heard the explosion and everything, but I saw the big fire ball. The stuff was coming down across the street. It looked like a meteor came flying across the street. They said it was the engine. FDNY firefighter Peter Fallucca

      As we were riding in, we must have ran over some debris from the plane. We saw debris all over the floor. We saw a wheel. There was cars that were flattened. It was obvious that heavy things had fallen on them. FDNY firefighter Joseph Sullivan

      That was before we got to the south pedestrian bridge, before Liberty Street . You could see airplane parts just littered across the street, across the highway. FDNY firefighter Craig Monahan

      You could see airplane parts on the ground and although I didn’t realize it at the time, I later realized there were body parts, both on the concourse and on the street. (some of these might have been jumpers) I now made a left on Vesey and walked down the street on the 7 World Trade Center side, where I could see more airplane debris. FDNY Assistant Commissioner James Drury

      There was jumpers everywhere, there was bodies everywhere, pieces of plane everywhere. FDNY firefighter Kevin Murray

      We walked down Vesey Street, and it was like total silence, nothing. It was eerie. There were police cars all parked on angles, metal going through their hoods. There was a tire of a plane on top of one. FDNY firefighter Arthur Riccio

      It’s interesting because, as we were there, there was a police car, I guess, on Vesey, on the corner there, and some debris comes down from whatever this explosion was, at the time we really didn’t know, and it just crushes it, I mean, crushes the top front of the police car, which really scared me at that point.

      Q.Could you tell if it was airplane parts?

      A. It looked like an airplane part afterward, yes, it did. It looked like part of an engine. It was pretty big. It was probably the size of the hood because it kind of hit it, bounced, and then rolled off. FDNY paramedic Manuel Delgado

      Well, we had problems securing some tie- back cables to the setback roof and I had to go to the upper roof to see if we could run the cables up there. I had my camera and headed for the upper roof and I couldn’t believe what I saw. There was a large piece of a landing gear and pieces of airplane parts all over the roof. I took many pictures and quickly left he roof. Louis, aka “Scaffoldrider” Took photos of aircraft parts on Federal Building Source

      In my zeal to get close, I had not noticed the falling bodies. Then I nearly stepped into a puddle of blood that was congealing beside what looked like the titanium gear of a pulverized airliner. Andrew Jacobs

      One security officer reported that while the engine of the first plane had landed in the [Marriot] swimming pool, everyone in the health club was fine, and all were being brought to the lobby. Another officer radioed that the room-by-room evacuation was proceeding and that all guests were being brought down to the first floor. Source


    • Gordon Duff  February 20, 2011 at 4:47 pm

      Unless you personally saw a plane…keep an open mind.
      I keep thinking about the harley guy….almost giddy with joy
      nobody noticed

    • Brian  February 20, 2011 at 6:36 pm


      Well fair enough, but besides all the eyewitnesses seeing the two planes in the sky and striking the buildings, the photographs of the plane wreckage in the link I provided are compelling and need a logical explanation by the “no plane crowd”. I don’t think the photographs have been altered via Photoshop.

      Dimitri is a smart guy, perhaps he can offer an explanation regarding the firefighters’ testimony and the photographs. I am interested in his thoughts on the topic.

    • tom  February 21, 2011 at 10:06 am

      Brian: Dimitri do not say that there were no planes. He says:
      1) No plane could ever ever penetrate the towers;
      2) The video footage showing the planes penetrating the towers (instead of disintegrating on their surface as physics/strenght of materials would impose) must be fake.

    • Shallel  February 22, 2011 at 3:10 pm

      Fake Videos Alters Eyewitness Accounts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zomj19OjXUs&feature=related

      Researchers at the University of Warwick have found that fake video evidence can dramatically alter people’s perceptions of events, even convincing them to testify as an eyewitness to an event that never happened. (09/15/09)


      Complete original study here.

    • Tom  February 20, 2011 at 7:59 am

      Hi Dimitri,
      Your reconstruction of the WTC collapses seems the most plausible to me, but I have other problems with your story. Here is a couple of them:

      1) The Pentagon missile: you say that it was a missile stolen from the sinken Kursk Russian submarine, and that it was not launched from a US gov’t entity. But then it would have required a suitable platform with a lot of technology and extremely skilled operators. This sounds quite unplausible. Who then? And why?

      2) You speak quite vaguely about who and why commissioned the attack referring to “masons” and NWO. What is your take on the extremely detailed reconstruction by E.P. Heidner, “collateral damage” that you can find here (in 2 parts):



      Many thanks

    • Dimitri Khalezov  February 20, 2011 at 10:39 am

      To answer your 1st question. I don’t’ think it is really difficult to launch a missile. Missile in general is quite an autonomous thing and all you need is to set it to a right direction and to a certain angle of elevation before it’s launch. Basically, you can launch a missile that is just leaned against a pile of wood. Skilled operators are required, but the Freemasons have these operators, don’t worry. When it comes to the Pentagon as a target loaded into the missile’s guidance system it was no problem at all. The Pentagon as being the Defense Ministry of the Main Adversary of the former USSR was pre-loaded (I mean its coordinates were pre-loaded) and in the list of targets by their priority it occupied the very first position). So the “extremely skilled operators” didn’t even need to bother to enter the Pentagon’s coordinates – they were there from the beginning. Just point the missile to ther right direction, lean it against something to obtain the right angle of elevation and make it to fly. Some relatively minor difficulties could have been easily settled in this sense. So, what kind of “suitable platform” you are talking about? Any surface ship with primitive launch-tube positioned below the water surface (to imitate submarine’s launch conditions) would suffice.

      2) I speak quite vaguely as to who pressed the button to launch the missile. It is because I was not there and I don’t know who did it. I can confirm to you that: a) it was a Granit missile; b) it was stolen by the Freemasons from the sunken Kursk submarine (and not by “Merchant of Death” Victor Bout from the Ukrainian warehouse of the Black Sea fleet as alleged); c) it was with its usual half-megaton thermonuclear warhead; d) it was launched from the Atlantic (see the fact that the first bunch of the jets was sent over the Atlantic in response to the Pentagon attack for confirmation of this fact); e) the detonator of the thermonuclear warhead was intentionally broken as not to cause the actual half-megaton explosion; f) NORAD detected the missile at minimum 6 minutes before it hit the wall of the Pentagon (perhaps even 7 minutes), and it managed to ring the atomic alert and scramble the Doomsday plane (as a result of the alert Cheney and Rice were quickly taken into an anti-atomic bunker under the White House – this is well-known fact, while the acting commander of the NORAD has departed from his peace-time command post to the protected command post and ordered to close its anti-atomic doors for the first time in the US history).

      This is all I know. But you demand from me to tell you who launched the missile? I don’t know. I only can tell you it was surely the Freemasons, but who of the Freemasons personally pressed the button or what was the type of the ship that fired the missile I don’t know. I was not there. Hope you realize it.

    • Tom  February 20, 2011 at 10:52 am

      No, I was not asking for who pressed the button, but for who were the final beneficiaries of 9/11, or who decided it. Most of the evidence and theories point to the US gov’t with Israeli zionists, more specifically the poppy Bush’ Iran-Contra gang (E.P. Heidner cited above), but you seem to suggest other foreign involvement.
      That is what I was asking you to clarify.

      Thanks again.

    • Penumbra  February 20, 2011 at 4:27 pm

      B’nai B’rith IS a freemason sect and one created by and for the interests and advancement of Zionism. This would be in full keeping with Dmitiri’s assertion.

      However, one should not overlook further detailed testimony of the role of BENS and the NSA in the orchestration and execution of the day’s events. This was a plan of a close-knit highly placed cabal from across a range of corporate/intelligence/administrative/military entities.

    • Brian  February 20, 2011 at 7:04 pm

      Penumbra said: This was a plan of a close-knit highly placed cabal from across a range of corporate/intelligence/administrative/military entities.

      It’s possible but the more people/organizations involved the more likely the team is exposed for their evil deeds. I believe it was a Mossad Operation. I don’t think the operation was too sophisticated for them. They could have done it with help from some highly placed traitors in the U.S. government.

      Who asked the Mossad to do it? Probably top Israeli government leaders. Do the top Israeli government leaders take orders from someone outside of their government? It’s hard to say.

      The Israeli government has benefited enormously from 911.

      The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.

      “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Ma’ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.”

      Former Mossad agents will make a fortune on the TAPI pipeline, soon to be constructed in Afghanistan. There’s a plan to train Afghan soldiers to protect the pipeline. Yes, the Afghanistan government will also make some money from the pipeline.

      The TAPI pipeline is one of the primary reasons the Mossad chose Osama bin Laden to be the patsy for 911. They needed an excuse to get their puppet the USA to attack Afghanistan.

      From a Christopher Bollyn article:

      Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, Israeli agents sought to gain control of the strategic assets of the newly independent Soviet republics. In mineral-rich Turkmenistan, a Mossad agent named Yosef A. Maiman was very successful in gaining control of the republic’s immense resources of natural gas.

      Yosef Maiman, born in Germany in 1946, grew up in Peru and studied in the United States before becoming an Israeli citizen in 1971. As an agent of Israeli intelligence, Maiman heads a network of Mossad-controlled companies that serve Israeli interests. As the chief executive of the Merhav Group, Maiman has controlled the development of Turmenistan’s gas resources. Maiman’s key colleagues at Merhav are the former head of the Mossad, Shabtai Shavit, and Nimrod Novik, chief adviser to Shimon Peres, the current president of Israel.

      Maiman was described as “a leading miner” of Central Asian gas fields by the Jerusalem Post in 2004. Given their control of the immense gas resources of Turkmenistan, Maiman, Merhav, and the Mossad would all profit if and when the U.S.-led coalition were able to “pacify” and control Afghanistan so that the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline could be built allowing the gas of Turkmenistan to be sold to energy-hungry India. The TAPI pipeline project would bring billions of dollars into Mossad coffers every year. This is the real reason for the war in Afghanistan and why the Zionist-controlled Obama administration has increased the war effort in Central Asia. It has nothing to do with terrorism or 9-11.

      The false-flag terror attacks of 9/11 were part of a strategic Israeli operation to bring the U.S. military into Afghanistan on a long-term mission on behalf of Israel’s Turkmen gas enterprise. The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline is the real reason that U.S. soldiers are fighting and dying in the southwestern Afghan provinces of Helmand and Kandahar. 9/11 was just the cover story for this pre-planned war of aggression – and it is nothing but a complete hoax.

      Construction of pipeline will be completed by 2014 (note this is the new end-date given for the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan, but don’t believe it)

      1,680 kilometer gas pipeline will supply 3.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day (much of this gas will come from Israeli/Mossad-owned gas fields in Turkmenistan, meaning immense profits for the Mossadniks who pulled of 9/11)


    • Penumbra  February 21, 2011 at 12:04 am

      Untrue Brian. Only a small inner circle of culprits can represent a wide variety of entities within the power matrix. The people were handed a bogus line that 19 hijackers directed by folks in caves were capable of such a stunt.

      It is therefore more than plausible for AT LEAST as many KEY conspirators right here at home all linked through the revolving door nexus of DC-NYC to have collaborated on aspects of the day ranging from the technical/military attack aspect (a focus in itself) and the post event paradigm establishment and reinforcement (another operation in itself).

      Those operating at this level of the power political game do NOT tell tales out of school because they each know that the others will ensure their silence by force if any suspicion arises concerning their loyalty to the agenda. The fact that such types can willfully conceive of such action in the first place, with its wanton disreagrd for human life, marks them as utterly sociopathic anyways.

      This was not conducted ONLY by the Mossad, however central to the events they were that day. Too many elements before, during and after to account for one source. It was clearly a multi-party effort.

    • Gordon Duff  February 22, 2011 at 12:22 pm

      I have caught the “thermite” crowd…Jones..in some serious ethical problems…purposeful “misstatements”
      Then again…how do we get a cavern under the WTC….melted granite exactly as Khalezov predicts.
      Explain the ruins…worse than Hiroshima…and the cavern…exactly like an underground nuclear test
      then supply evidence of sufficent energy from ‘nanothermite’ to do this..
      remember..if we used conventional weapons for this, it would have taken 500 2,000 pound bombs to do this damage.
      …not an airplane for sure…an aluminum tin can filled with heating oil
      no building in hiroshima or berlin or dresden was as strong as the wtc

    • Shallel  February 24, 2011 at 2:59 pm

      You say thermite, I say termite!

      It’s the blind pulling teeth in the termite movement when scientific method is dictated by popular opinion talking points not ALL of the evidence:


    • AS  February 20, 2011 at 9:05 am

      how deep do you think these nuke charge were pre-placed, I believe that they built a concrete podle to make sure to ‘channelize’ the flux of the explosion upside and make it looks like a tectonic movement, like in the tusnami effect in 2006…

      Leukemia and malformations would be the most evidence that a nuclear explosion went off during 911… water and soil is contaminated… easy to trace it to the origin of the explosion…

      Telle us more about the french section … are they involved in the next operation, did they transfer russian nukes in Europe, 6 differents team… and wanted to blame chechens living in south of france bizarrely beside the russian zionist jewsih mafia, in Nice, Corse etc… what do you know about thiss did Harari spoke about these operations ?

      Why Putin rushed in the artic sea affair… netherlands, britain, and germany are known to sell russian nuclear material in the black market, they got it form the russian jewish mafia based in london and hungary, this is well known world wide… why you russian are not outspoken about these facts… are you waiting for 1 millions deaths to move or are some parts of the russian khazars part of this operation… ?

    • DR.NUR  February 20, 2011 at 1:06 pm


    • Budreaux  February 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm

      Ditto Dr.N! No one seems to want to do the work themselves. The answer to your 1st queston A.S. is 77 meters below the lowest basement level.

  18. MG  February 20, 2011 at 12:26 am

    9/11 Truth

  19. Dimitri Khalezov  February 19, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    Hi to everyone. First of all I would like to thank Gordon Duff for mentioning my humble person in such a flattering manner.

    Secondly I would like to briefly answer some doubts expressed above. Sorry, I could be rude in some statements of mine here, but when you defend the Truth you can’t afford to be friendly with its enemies.

    Someone told above that the pattern of the Twin Towers’ collapse did not match expected effects of an underground nuclear explosion. This statement reveals that this person has neither read my book (its 2nd free edition available here: http://www.911-truth.net/Dimitri_Khalezov_Book_Third_Truth_911_free_11chapters_v2.pdf ), nor watched my video presentation (26+1 parts available here: http://www.911-truth.net/ and the optional +1 part (that should be watched first, before the 26 parts) is particularly here: http://www.911-truth.net/1963_why_use_dynamite_when_can_use_atomic_bomb_47-kiloton.mp4 ). This question is answered in both – the book and the video presentation – precisely. But I will answer it here briefly for those who have no time to watch and to read what is proposed. The problem is that nuclear explosion deep underground will send a so-called “crushing wave” (that was the actual cause of the steel Tower’s body “dustification”) and this wave will travel upwards. Due to the fact that the power of a nuclear explosion is limited (even a huge 150 kilotons one is still limited) the power of the “crushing wave” is limited too. In case of the shorter WTC-7 the crushing wave managed to reach the very top of the building. However, in the much taller Twins the crushing wave was able to reach only till about 85% or so of the entire Towers’ lengths. Thus the very top of the Twin Towers (the farthest point from the hypocenter of the underground nuclear explosion) was left unaffected by the crashing wave. That is why the Tower’s tops remained solid and heavy, while under them everything was “dustified”. Understandably, under gravitational forces the heavy Tower’s tops began to press down and crush the dustified structures under them. That is exactly what everyone could see in all available videos showing the WTC collapse. That is why the pattern of the Twin Towers collapse perfectly matches the expected effects of a huge, deep underground nuclear explosion. All you have to do is to watch my video presentation – it is all there.

    Regarding the “mini-nukes” theory. The “mini-nukes” theory can not be true because of technical reasons. The power of a “mini-nuke” exploded at its full yield (1 kiloton) at the Tower’s basement would not be enough to pulverize ~85% of the 415 meters of the structural steel. However, it would be enough to “undercut” the Tower, severing it from its foundations. The next you will see in this case – the entire Tower length will crash to a side in its entirety without any disintegration/dustification/pulverization, since the actual Tower was very rigid structure. Theory of a few mini-nukes can not be true as well. Because atmospheric nuclear explosions would never miss your attention. You will hear their sound, you will see their white flash (that will also overexpose all photo materials), you will see orange fireballs (that will burn everyone around with thermal radiation), and, finally, the Electromagnetic Pulse (aka EMP) produced by atmospheric nuclear explosion will at once damage beyond repair all electric and electronic devices around – starting with electronic wrist-watches, mobile phones and digital photo cameras and ending with car ignition system, power lines and transformer booths. All of them will be at once reduced to an irreparable state and Manhattan would resemble a Stone Age (or a futuristic scene a-la Mad Max). However, it is not true when it comes to the deep underground nuclear explosion – there the EMP will not be produced (at least it will not produce any visible effects about the earth’s surface) because its electrons flow will be stopped by surrounding rock – along with the entire spectrum of its primary radiation.

    Regarding the so-called “nano-thermite”. Most of you are military men here. Have any of you, military guys, ever heard of the existence of this alleged mysterious substance such as “a military-grade nano-thermite”? No? Neither have I. The other point is this: all of us, military men, know that the there are two distinctly different groups of materials: “explosives” and “incendiaries”. As far as I can recollect the “explosives” are dynamite, TNT, C4, RDX/hexogen, and the like. While “incendiaries” are: thermite, phosphor, napalm, pyrogel, etc. Have you ever read about claims of the “truthers” in regard to the so-called “nano-thermite”? Do you know what they actually state? They state: “nano-thermite” is a “high-explosive”. Sounds funny, hah? My charge is this: the so-called “nano-thermite” does not exist. It was invented by desperate US Governmental spin-doctors and it “exists” only in sick imaginations of Prof Steven Jones and his followers.
    If it were true that the alleged “traces” of the so-called “nano-thermite” were “found” in the WTC dust as claimed by Prof Steven Jones and his desperate colleagues then it would be logical to presume that this “find” if theirs should occur around 2002, latest 2003, isn’t it? However, strangely, the alleged “traces” of the so-called “nano-thermite” were “found” only in 2007. Why? What Steven Jones was doing in between 2002 and 2007? Searching for his microscope?

    I suggest anyone reading this brief pdf document where there is my argument with one of the “debunkers” that belongs to the “nano-thermitters” variety of the “truthers”. The document is here: http://www.911-truth.net/!_Debunking_the_debunkers-_famous_physicist_Jan_Zeman_vs_infamous_impostor_Dimitri_Khalezov.pdf

    And, finally, it seems that none of you have seen the actual underground cavities under the three WTC buildings destroyed on 9/11. However, you must not miss this most incriminating pieces of the 9/11 evidence. The cavities size perfectly matches that of over 100 kilotons thermonuclear charges and not of laughable mini-nukes. And don’t miss to notice molten rock at the walls of the cavities that the US spin-doctors try desperately to pass for an “ancient glacier”. The photos could be downloaded in zip-archives from here:
    Low resolution photos, but a small archive:
    Highest quality photos, but a big archive:
    (credits to Larry Silverstein, since it is his photos, taken from his web sites, original links inside the archives).

    Hope once you see these deep huge underground cavities you will realize that they had anything to do with either kerosene, mini-nukes or so-called “nano-thermite”.

    And yet another interesting point you might like to consider is the legal pre-9/11 definition of ‘ground zero’ which you can find in this article on Veterans Today: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/02/15/dimitri-khalezov-ground-zero/

    Sincerely yours,
    Dimitri Khalezov.

    • Budreaux  February 20, 2011 at 2:53 pm

      Welcome to VT Dimitri, and thank you for coming forward with your knowledge and input.

    • hareli  February 21, 2011 at 5:28 am

      Where can I buy your book? The whole thing?

    • hareli  February 21, 2011 at 5:58 am

      Mr. Khalezov, is your mention of Hariri in your book or in another video (that I can’t find)?

    • Shallel  February 22, 2011 at 12:27 am

      Dimitri, thanks for your work. Are you aware that the towers’ steel columns became progressively thinner with the height of the buildings? The small amount of steel left was not from the top, but from the lowest floors with inches thick columns as shown in your book. The top potions were much thinner steel which transitioned from box columns to H-beams at the top ten floors.
      The tops of the buildings were completely dustified, but the lower sections of 3- 5 inch steel box columns had macroscopic remnants. If the tops fell, especially in the South Tower, it would have destroyed the “bathtub” keeping the East River from flooding lower Manhattans train tunnels and we did not see this happen. Indeed the plans for nuclear demolition could have existed as you state first hand knowledge of, however our “black budget” folks have spent trillions and many decades developing secret weapons and technology; who is to say they didn’t develop something much better that nuclear weapons to turn only buildings with a WTC prefix into ash, without damaging large portions of the city, and closing our precious Wall Street for a long time?

  20. Steve C.  February 19, 2011 at 11:18 pm

    While I cannot discount the use of “mini-nukes” (in some capacity), and would not dispute that Mike Harari was possibly (or probably) involved; to speak plainly, I believe that you being taken. Dhimitri strikes me as a Mossad op / israeli. But, like I said, what do I know?

  21. NadePaulKuciGravMcKi  February 19, 2011 at 11:04 pm

    John Wheeler III
    his home was intensively searched AGAIN last week

  22. Bink  February 19, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    I think it’s rather pointless to speculate how the towers were exploded. Unless there’s provable facts like the nano-themite and Fifth grade physics – the moon’s a balloon. How about a real investigation ?
    And in other news
    Anyone catch the Bill Maher show last night ? The week before he criticized the Truth Movement, and he was on his usual shtick demonizing Muslims when this happened.


    Was a breath of fresh air.

  23. DR.NUR  February 19, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    IRAKI ARMY REPORT” ..The infamous battle of the Baghdad airport took place in the first week of April 2003. It was the final battle of the “official” conquest of Iraq. Even the Iraqi army admitted it was the deathblow. We call it the Battle of al-Hawasim (“the finals”). The same phrase, since then, is used to refer to any thug, thief, or criminal in the chaos of life after Saddam.

    Our entire army was concentrated in the south of Baghdad waiting for the American troops to come on land. But the American 101st Division of air-transported vehicles landed at the airport west of Baghdad and surprised Saddam’s army. The Iraqi response was to send the entire National Guard (the equivalent of the US Special Forces in training and skill) and all of Saddam’s freedom fighters directly to the scene. Many Arab men also voluntarily joined up to meet a certain death.

    Very few Iraqis survived the airport battle, which made it a myth on the tongues of the entire country. Rumors swirled around, mixed with stories from the few survivors, about the epic fight that took place at Saddam’s international airport. But now even the earth cannot tell us the truth about what happened—the land was completely burned by mysterious American weapons. After the war, the American army brought many bulldozers filled with new soil to cover the evidence before the eyes of thousands of Iraqis and to bury the thousands of stories that took place on the famous airport road, aka the Highway of Death. CONTINUE TO http://www.viceland.com/int/v14n3/htdocs/weapon.php?country=us

  24. DR.NUR  February 19, 2011 at 7:28 pm


    I wrote this as a comment on another page on this topic:”The DU debate is a totally false debate as long as the issue of real nukes being used daily as micronukes by Israel and US and bigger nukes such as used in the Battle of Baghdad is not addressed (the 3000 US soldiers whose deaths were classified “secret” were nuked as “friendly fire”with the 20000 iraki national guard heros who blocked the airport passage. The US survivors have a blog at http://www.ghosttroop.net ). To me as a medical doctor the DU “sickness”in veterans shows al signs of regular alpha (for plutonium) radiation illness and they should wake up and sue for it as it is and stop believing the lies they have been fed. For more info go to Gordon Duff and JB-Campbell articles on former soviet-army nuclear intelligence expert Col. Dimitri Khalezov and read my links in comments there… It is time to shake the monster and wake up! Yes,you have been fighting to enrich the liar-criminals of the military-ziocon-plunder-murder-narcopetrol-talmudic-farce-and-fraud-complex! You’ve been had as a canon fodder!”.

    CAPTAIN ERIC MAY/BATTLE OF BAGHDAD:“My most certain and most radical conclusion is that the American Public has been lied-to about the reality of the Battle of Baghdad, which began with an Iraqi attack (as promised by Saddam) against the U.S. 3/7 Cavalry Squadron, the advance unit for the 3rd Infantry Division, on the morning of April 5, at the Baghdad airport. The battle lasted three days, and the media conveniently covered the Private Jessica hoax to keep from telling the public something sure to suppress its war lust: that hundreds of U.S. soldiers were dead.

    Since the Battle of Baghdad, there has been a concerted policy by Army public affairs and the media to suppress any reference to the battle, as well as a consistent effort to suppress the number of reported U.S. casualties.

    CAPTAIN ERIC MAY “..However, according to news sources overseas, including American military operatives and various investigators, all was not what it seemed at Baghdad Airport. They claim that the Battle of Baghdad was largely covered up as something the American public should not see, with U.S. news coverage instead focusing on a staged photo-op rescue of captive Private Jessica Lynch and later the pulling down of the Saddam Hussein statue, as symbolic of an easy victory.

    “The biggest story of the war became a non-event when the truth of the matter was that it was simply too bloody an event to report.” Captain Eric H. May, a former intelligence and public affairs officer in the military, was quoted.

    “The bogus rescue of Private Lynch was merely a distraction from the truth,” said May. “And the staged photo-op of the pulling down of Saddam Hussein’s statue was nothing more than a way to cement into people’s minds that it was an easy victory. But what about the hundreds of soldiers who gave their lives on the battlefield? Their story was not told. Theirs was the real truth of this segment of the war.

    The truth is that the battle started April 5, the night that Baghdad Bob said that they had counterattacked us at the Baghdad Airport and there was a sustained fight that went on for several hours. The best evidence from international sources, scientific sources, is that US position was becoming untenable at the Baghdad Airport and they used a neutron warhead, at least one. That is the big secret of Baghdad Airport.

    If one looks into international data, there are reportings of enhanced radiation of some livestock, and of human metabolic effects – death and disease. It explains why, after the Battle of Baghdad, we got fragmentary stories of things like truckloads of dirt being moved out and moved in. It made no particular sense at the time, until one puts it into perspective, as a decontamination operation. Again, that part of the Battle of Baghdad, the fact that we went nuclear, explains a lot of things that came out afterwards and also explains why it is that it had to be covered up. You can’t go to a country to try to make sure that nobody tries to start a war with WMDs against you and WMD ’em. It’s a highly embarrassing position to be in.

    Baghdad laid bare that USA really wasn’t going into a limited war at all, it was going into a world war, and prepared to use nukes. Incidentally, since the nuking of Baghdad Airport, the Bush Administration has retrofitted our military doctrine to allow for the use of tactical nukes in that sort of situation.

    From a strictly tactical point of view, using a neutron warhead killed the Iraqis who were in the open, while giving U.S. forces, who were inside armor, a chance at survival. Had I been one of the commanders on the battlefield at Baghdad Airport, one would have preferred the neutron option to being overrun and destroyed by the Iraqi forces. But war is never simply tactical. As Clausewitz, the Prussian military philosopher, puts it, “War is a continuation of politics by other means.” It’s on the political level that the nuking of Baghdad Airport was a disastrous decision.

    Unlike the nuking of Japan, which was admitted to the American people, the nuking of Baghdad was kept from them, meaning that we had decided to keep them in the dark about the conduct of the war. Further, the Arab world knows very well what we did in Baghdad,.. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Q0wZ34nukj4J:www.irishrepublican.net/forum/showthread.php%3F27774-Battle-of-Baghdad-Propaganda-routed+ERICMAY+BAGHDAD+NUKE&cd=8&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.fr

    Mr. Hooper, every point I have made above has been confirmed by U.S. officers, reporters and editors since I began my inquiries at the end of the Battle of Baghdad (marked by the contrived pulling down of Saddam’s statue for the cameras, April 8).

    I have attached:

    My two op-eds from the Houston Chronicle opposing intervention in Iraq (and predicting disaster if we did intervene).

    My two essays (which no one is willing to publish) about the Battle of Baghdad.

    My last published op-ed (July 8) continuing my gloomy prognosis for the war and questioning the motives that led us to it.

    Iraqi Resistance Report IV, which I discovered in August, but which confirmed my real-time analysis of April about the Battle of Baghdad.

    My most recent letter to Thom Shanker, New York Times Reporter, who plays word games in English and will talk truth about matters only in Russian (a language he and I share) because of fear for his career.

    A list of media indicators from the days of the Battle of Baghdad implying the existence and severity of the battle.

    Again, thank you for hearing me out both last month and this morning. I know that the material I’ve attached is about two newspaper pages of reading, but I promise you that you will read no more informative two pages in the United States today – or for the last year. Please call me at your convenience to discuss these matters further, and please feel free to distribute the material in any manner you deem fit. Not a word that I have written is derived from secret information, nor am I (now a civilian) in any way impeded from the free expression of my conclusions. I believe that if the truth about the subversion of our First Amendment to prolong a hazardous war (perhaps destined to become a world war) were understood beyond the current silent circles of compromised information professionals, our “crusade” would soon end.

    With respect,

    Eric May http://www.ghosttroop.net/islamicorgs.htm


    FOR IRAKI SIDE: http://www.viceland.com/int/v14n3/htdocs/weapon.php?country=us

    FOR OTHER INFO LINKS SEARCH DR.NUR: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/02/10/gordon-duff-nuclear-terror-the-khalezov-effect-video/comment-page-1/#comments AND http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/02/08/jb-campbell-dimitri-khalezov-on-9-11/

    • DR.NUR  February 20, 2011 at 9:49 pm


  25. William  February 19, 2011 at 7:15 pm

    When the highest levels of government are involved in a swindle of this size , They are “too big to Fail” as we have heard from their own words. A republican in Government,Can Not be TRUSTED to do what is best for the citizens of these United States.The Working Men & Women of This Country, Made This Country Great. All that It Took,To Try To Ruin Our Way Of Life, Was a Daddys’ Boy (who never worked a day in his life) Being Elected. bush jr. was able to bring about a financial downfall, Hoped for by his daddys’ new world order. The other Thing That bush jr. was able to accomplish while President, was his daddys’ call for a new “Pearl Harbor” to bring about billion$ for the Defense Dept., and the Control of the general population.bush sr. did Run the Worlds most secretive organizations before becoming President.bush jr. did Steal an election, to become President, Remember.Sad, Sad, Sad, facts for the U.S.A. – God Bless America, The Land That I Love –

  26. Brian  February 19, 2011 at 6:47 pm

    Over the years, most of my 911 research has been focused on the Mossad. What the Mossad used to bring down the Twin Towers is an intriguing subject.

    I have never been a fan of the nuke theory but I am open minded on the topic. Here is a very interesting hypothesis. They could have use a combination of nukes and nano-thermite:

    Hightower explained the phenomenon, which would have been similar to the Chernobyl meltdown. “If nukes were used to disintegrate the World Trade Center’s immense inner core, only a small percentage actually reacted when these devices were detonated. The leftover materials subsequently continued to react, and therefore kept producing tremendous amounts of heat. This continual source of energy explains the molten steel discovered beneath ground level weeks after 9-11.”

    A point of contention arises over this concept. Nano-thermites may explain how the towers were pulverized in midair and largely turned to dust prior to ever impacting the ground. But the possible vaporization (as opposed to mere melting) of these massive internal metal columns required something intense, on the level of a nuclear reaction.

    Some skeptics—some of them establishment supporters—question the possibility of molten steel beneath each tower, yet its existence has been confirmed by a number of people, including: journalist William Langewiesche, WTC structural designer Leslie Robertson, paramedic Lee Turner and construction company president Steve Tully, in addition to firefighters, health advisers, Air National Guard members and sanitation workers who removed the debris.

    Further evidence of energy sources magnitudes beyond typical cutting charges can be found in reports from NASA and an article in GCN (Government Computer News). In the weeks and months following 9-11, both described “hot spots” that exceeded 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit. Hightower commented on their findings. “These heat signature images recorded from space couldn’t be produced by simple detonations.”

    Hightower provided a theory: “Regular detonators and nano-thermites were potentially used as incendiary devices to cut through metal on the WTC’s exterior sections. But if mini-nukes were located at the building’s core and shielded from view, no one would have seen their extremely bright flashes and superheated explosions. The release was so energetic that it may have momentarily reached millions of degrees.”

    Imagine, it took NewYork City’s finest a full 100 days to extinguish all the fires at ground zero. A 50-ton press in the WTC’s basement wasn’t found crushed; it was found melted. Ground zero chaplain Herb Trimpe may have provided the most riveting firsthand account. “The fires burned up to 2,000 degrees [Fahrenheit] underground before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off. I talked to many contractors, and they saw trapped molten metal. Beams had totally been melted because of the heat.”

    Were “only” simple cutting charges and conventional explosives used, or something more ominous?

    Hightower: aerospace and chemical engineer T. Mark Hightower. As a member and petition signer of
    Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, Hightower has studied the works of military explosives experts, investigators from Finland, the UK and Russia, along with various physicists, both named and anonymous.


    It’s obvious to me the Mossad did 911. If Mike Hariri did indeed plan 911 perhaps he will discuss it in his memoirs. He is over 80 years old.

    • Brian  February 19, 2011 at 7:41 pm

      There are those that refute the nukes theory. I don’t have the scientific background to analyze the evidence.

      I’m wondering if Dimitri would respond to this excerpt by Dr. Steven E. Jones: called Testing the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers:

      • Empirical Facts: All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided, and much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades.

      • I have studied fusion for decades, and have made frequent measurements of neutrons (as well as charged particles).

      • Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples and a solidified metal sample for radioactivity using a Geiger counter: I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY. This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since neutron activation levels were zero.

      • I also tested some sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison – and the Geiger counter showed hundreds of counts per minute. This also shows the long life of the radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs – the sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast.

      • Note that concrete pulverization is often achieved in controlled demolitions with chemical explosives, e.g., the Seattle Kingdome demolition.

      • Mini-nukes are not needed for pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers.

      Promoters of the mini-nukes idea have also supported their claim with news stories of nuclear contamination in landfills near New York City, ignoring the fact that the stories were about radium contamination from industrial equipment.
      A simple disproof of the idea that nuclear weapons were used to destroy the Towers is that all such weapons generate intense electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. Onlookers would have been blinded had any such devices been used.

      Despite the scientific refutation of the mini-nukes idea by Jones and others using simple scientific arguments, James Fetzer continued to promote the idea on the ScholarsFor911Truth.org website — a site that purports to represent the group of scholars that includes co-founder Steven Jones.


      Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist. For most of his career, Jones was known mainly for his work on muon-catalyzed fusion.

      Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Laboratory, in Arco, Idaho where, from 1979 to 1985, he was a senior engineering specialist. He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones studied fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium under U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute sponsorship. Jones also collaborated in experiments at other physics labs, including TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University.


    • Brian  February 19, 2011 at 7:43 pm

      There are those that refute the nukes theory. I don’t have the scientific background to analyze the evidence.

      I’m wondering if Dimitri would respond to this excerpt by Dr. Steven E. Jones: called Testing the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers:

      • Empirical Facts: All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided, and much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades.

      • I have studied fusion for decades, and have made frequent measurements of neutrons (as well as charged particles).

      • Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples and a solidified metal sample for radioactivity using a Geiger counter: I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY. This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since neutron activation levels were zero.

      • I also tested some sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison – and the Geiger counter showed hundreds of counts per minute. This also shows the long life of the radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs – the sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast.

      • Note that concrete pulverization is often achieved in controlled demolitions with chemical explosives, e.g., the Seattle Kingdome demolition.

      • Mini-nukes are not needed for pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers.

      Promoters of the mini-nukes idea have also supported their claim with news stories of nuclear contamination in landfills near New York City, ignoring the fact that the stories were about radium contamination from industrial equipment.
      A simple disproof of the idea that nuclear weapons were used to destroy the Towers is that all such weapons generate intense electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. Onlookers would have been blinded had any such devices been used.

      Despite the scientific refutation of the mini-nukes idea by Jones and others using simple scientific arguments, James Fetzer continued to promote the idea on the ScholarsFor911Truth.org website — a site that purports to represent the group of scholars that includes co-founder Steven Jones.


      Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist. For most of his career, Jones was known mainly for his work on muon-catalyzed fusion.

    • Brian  February 19, 2011 at 7:44 pm

      Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Laboratory, in Arco, Idaho where, from 1979 to 1985, he was a senior engineering specialist. He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones studied fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium under U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute sponsorship. Jones also collaborated in experiments at other physics labs, including TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University.


  27. wolf  February 19, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    Excuse me…but did the article just state that Khalezov had been briefed on the placement of large nuclear demolition charges not only under the WTC but also under the SEARS TOWER?????

    hmmm….some interesting coincidences there, like:

    -Lucky Larry Silverstein ownership

    -110 stories like the WTC towers, currently tallest bldg in USA

    -There was a previous “terror plot” (2006) on it, just like the towers

    -the tower is losing money through vacancies and is full of asbestos

    -A company named Kroll is is the company tasked with providing security for the Sears Tower. After 9/11, Kroll purchased Convair, the very company that was responsible for recovering data from WTC hard drives. Kroll also managed the bunker in the WTC and is known to have had a hand in the London 7/7 bombings.

    -the building is located in zip code 60606!! (I sht you not)

    Now throw in Rahm Emanuel as mayor….and…ruh-oh!

    • HP  February 19, 2011 at 6:55 pm

      The Soviet Union Officially ended in ’91. So, the nuke in the WTC basement about which Khalezov was briefed while in uniform must have been there for the truck bombing event in the underground garage in ’93. Uncoordinated or independent attempts?

    • J.F.E.  February 19, 2011 at 7:36 pm

      Any nuclear device planted in the basement since the buildings were constructed would have to be provided regular maintenance to keep it capable of functioning (unattended nuclear bombs tend to go “stale”, as I understand it).

      I may mis-remember, but I recall in some other Khalezov statement that he doesn’t claim that the nuclear demolition devices were there from the initial construction, only that the buildings were constructed with pre-approved plans for demolition that included nuclear demolition and that the Soviets were aware of these plans.

    • Budreaux  February 19, 2011 at 9:23 pm

      You guys need to listen to the entire two + hours of Dimitri’s interviews. Your questions aare answered there. Very long but well worth yhe time.

    • bf  February 19, 2011 at 7:43 pm

      So, Rahm Emanuel will soon pose as our savior? Was wondering why he’d leave a job with such wide reaching power for a city mayor post.

    • Gordon Duff  February 20, 2011 at 12:15 pm

      wonderful insight

  28. GaryL  February 19, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    I too feel convinced that highly sophisticated nano-thermate was used in the progressive, downward collapse of all three structures; however, in addition, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to entertain the idea of sub-basement level thermonuclear charges used to shear the 47 extremely thick central core columns, especially in light of the pools of molten metal present in the base for days afterward. The two aren’t mutually exclusive theories.

    • Gordon Duff  February 19, 2011 at 5:56 pm

      best explanation so far

    • J.F.E.  February 19, 2011 at 6:58 pm

      GaryL: You could be right, but you must account for the vaporization of the concrete, steel, and, sadly, people, in the upper reaches of the towers, along with toilets, and sinks, and, whatever office paraphernalia, was there. The evidence suggests that almost everything was vaporized in the upper reaches of the towers. Yet, if Mr. Khalezov’s theory is correct, that would be were the least vaporization would have happened, due to distance from the site of the nuclear explosion deep in the basement.

      That’s the stunning thing, almost nothing recognizable was found from the upper reaches of the two towers, including the massive core colums and mechanicals that ran up the core, such as water pipes, elevator cables, and so on.

      Also, as the collapse proceeded down the buildings, the point of progressive collapse, the moving explosion, if you will, had a spherical shape, consistent with micro-nukes going off in succession.

      Would a single deep-basement nuke, 150 kilotons, cause a “moving explosion” down the buildings as they collapsed, particularly WTC 1?

    • Penumbra  February 20, 2011 at 2:32 pm

      Being no engineer, might I inquire as to whether some sort of chimney effect of the radioactive discharge upwards through the central shaft of the building might have accounted for both the containment of any mushroom cloud effect (mixing at the upper levels with the billows of black smoke to conceal its true nature) and the incremental pulverization of the upper story construction, in tandem with nano-thermite cutters (to account for the later “chain” explosions (or popping sounds as testified to by first responders))?

      Just something that springs to mind to tie it all together.

    • J.F.E.  February 20, 2011 at 4:52 pm

      Penumbra wrote: “…chimney effect of the radioactive discharge upwards through the central shaft…”

      That is another problem or objection to Mr. Khalezov’s theory. While there was a core with 47 steel core columns, there wasn’t really a “shaft” conducive to a “chemney effect”.

      The elevators mostly were stacked, and were limited to “local” service, there were a couple of elevator shafts that did go all the way up the building. The “shock wave” Mr. Khalezov describes would have been blocked, at least partially, by every floor “pan” and heavy structure in the sub-basements, with thick marble resting on concrete underlay at the lobby level. Remember the lobby in WTC 1 were all the glass on one side was blown out and the marble slabs were knocked off the wall?

      There was a bomb explosion in the basement, multiple witnesses describes bombs going off in the basement. Why conventionally bomb the basement, attracting attention, when the plan according to Mr. Khalezov was to detonate a 150 kiloton nuclear demolition device in the super-deep basement somewhere around an hour later?

    • Gordon Duff  February 20, 2011 at 4:55 pm

      Melted granite.
      and, of course….the WTC is a perfect chimney
      a double chimney
      elevators are not an issue
      nor, in fact, is a chimney an issue either
      no chimney needed, no chimney effect stated, no chimney effect involved

    • J.F.E.  February 20, 2011 at 4:36 pm

      Be careful, if the buildings were fully occupied, then there could have been a possible 50,000 in the buildings at the time of the initial explosions. That observation does not challenge the figure that 3000 innocent victims were murdered on 911.

      I hold utmost sympathy for the families of 911 victims… their suffering… it’s palpable.

      What is intriguing is the amount of unoccupied floors in WTC 1 & 2.

      The more unoccupied floora, the easier to move around undetected and to work freely. Some reports of TWC occupants claim to have observed “unusual dust” on the floors, this is by memory, I could be mistaken, I’ll check that.

    • AS  February 20, 2011 at 8:41 am

      a combination of the two is the most reasonible explanation

  29. Ross  February 19, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    I still have serious misgivings about Khalezov.I have met Richard Gage ,Prof Niels Harritt,Dr Frank Legge and Prof Steven Jones.

    Dimitri totally discounts the nano thermite theory which a team of 9 international scientists under the leadership of Niels Harritt produced a peer reviewed paper which proves the use of nano-thermite.This paper released in April 2009 remains unchallenged.Richard Gage and others say there may have been other explosive devices used.

    Dimitri says the planes did not exist,that they were the result of digital enhancement,but eye witnesses have testified to their existance.Dimitri says that aluminium planes cannot breach this steel netting but the video reveals something attached to the fuselage of these planes.Also there is a flash just before they impact and this could be the explosive device that breaches the steel outer structure.

    Dimitri says that the towers were rigged with nuke devices at the time of their construction.Did they have the technology then of limited nuke devices? Who in their right mind would live and work in these buildings for 30 yrs knowing that they could explode.Many officials would have had to know.Workers would also know something.

    Dimitri espouses that the shockwave via the nuke, pulverised concrete and melted steel.The energy wave would have been greatest at the base.Why then did both towers explode into pieces in rapid succession from the top down? This was the furtherest distance from the underground explosion where the energy would have been least.WTC 7 collapsed from the base up in a classic demo style and so this would explain a ground device.We can see on slow motion the towers exploding in rapid succession with squibs or mistimed explosions happening well below the main destruction zone.How does Dimitri explain the molten metal pouring out profusely before the onset of explosions and the collapse? How does a single nuke device achieve all these variations?

    People at the base of the Towers heard explosions before the planes impacted.So this part of Dimitri’s theory is substanciated.The particular device type has not been scientifically identified.

    This notion of pre-rigging the Towers with an explosive device I heard 12 mths ago.It convienently directs the blame back to the builders of the Towers and not those who planned and executed it.

    I think the intent of this new theory is to gain noteriety,become widely accepted as truth,and then blow the whole theory apart because I see the the flaws already.This will have the effect of making all scientific theories look ridiculus and thus give creedence to the official Govt lies.

    Dimitri has some explaining to do.

    • J.F.E.  February 19, 2011 at 7:52 pm

      Ross: The problem is that there is significant evidence of nuclear demolition, from Strontium, Barium, and Tritium in elevated levels beyond background and physical evidence that thermite “only” does not explain: Burning cars well away from the footprints of the twin towers, the China syndrome molten metal in the footprints, evidence of EMP, with individuals in the basement with “hanging” skin as reported by multiple other witnesses.

      Thermite would not account for vaporization down to 2.5 microns and total vaporization in the upper reaches of the towers.

      The folks you mention don’t address those facts & evidence. It simply is unacceptable to ignore facts & evidence in the scientific arena. Politics, sure, but not science.

      Science must account for all physical observations & measurements or it has been falsified.

    • Ross  February 20, 2011 at 3:14 am

      JFE. Have you seen an ordinary thermate reaction of iron and alunima?It is very energetic.Nano thermite can vapourise steel because it is many times more powerful.They found steel mico-spheres thoughout all the dust samples.You don’t need a nuke to vapourise steel.If you look at the slow motion video,these were multiple explosions in rapid succession rippling down the towers.A single nuke cannot produce these effects.

      Exploding a single nuke below each tower is also running the risk of displacing the foundations of surrounding buildings they did not want damaged.

      Why has Dimitri denied the existance of the planes and why does he deny the use of nano-themite whose existance has been proven? Niels Harrit and his team spent 2 yrs on their study.Where is Dimitri’s peer reviewed study showing scientific evidence of EMP and other signatures of a nuke explosion ?

      We all know how cunning and deceptive the neo-cons and their Zionist collaborators can be.This is all they do since they cannot achieve power by any other means.Remain skeptical until Dimitri’s claims are tested by the same methods as http://ae911truth.org/.This has made Richard Gage and his team very successful.

    • Gordon Duff  February 20, 2011 at 9:38 am

      What was forgotten is to get a legitimate testing laboratory to certify findings and to establish a chain of evidence. I am not saying it wasn’t there but it should still be there while radiation should not.
      Nano-thermite should be imbedded into much of lower Manhattan….with trace detectable from any scraping.

    • J.F.E.  February 20, 2011 at 4:18 pm

      Ross, you make some good points, however, you ignore the specific evidence of Strontium, Barium, and other radio nucleotides found by the USGS at the WTC complex and immediate vacinity. Along with Dr. Ward’s documentation of 55 times normal Tritium levels.

      There is no “Passing Go” as long as you ignore these facts. And, if you continue to ignore these facts, after that has been pointed out to you, then you identify yourself as intellectually dishonest in the context of a scientific discussion.

      Ross, to your point of thermitic vaporization: Yes, there would be localized thermitic vaporization at contact points between the thermitic cutting charges and the steel, but what is observed is that massive amounts of the steel was vaporized, almost all the core column steel from the upper reaches of the buildings (plus concrete, non-load bearing steel, people, and office paraphernalia), not just the contact points between thermite and steel. Also, steel reduced to 2.5 microns is atomized smaller than what known termetic coumpounds can achieve — but scientifically confirmed nuclear vaporization would do exactly that.

      I do not subscribe to the single 150 kiloton nuclear device in the super-deep basement theory, I subscribe to the “string of peals” micro-nuke theory.

      There is evidence of EMP and ionized plasma (another evidence of nuclear device) at other points in the thread.

      I have respect for Richard Gage, he is a courageous man, who has put his reputation on the line… but he has not addressed the facts & evidence of nuclear demolition, so, therefore, hasn’t falsified the assertion nuclear devices were part of the WTC demolition. Gage has not addressed the facts & evidence that falsify the thermite “only” theory.

      Gage, likely, has not been confronted and forced to rebutt facts & evidence of nuclear demolition, but you have been confronted and, so far, you have failed the test. Now deal with it or get to know it because as long as you ignore the evidence of nuclear demolition I’ll keep putting it in your face.

    • Steve P  February 21, 2011 at 7:37 am

      @ J.F.E.

      Good points, but we don’t know what was stored in large parts of the building. That sets up the possibility for all sorts of mischief, no?

      What we do know – “computer rooms” where both planes impacted – should raise further questions.

      Given the bogus cell-phone calls associated with these disasters, it’s obvious that this was a highly organized operation with many facets, some of which no doubt include tantalizing false leads, and other types of misinformation/disinformation.

      It’s not critical or even necessary to identify the exact nature of the explosive device(s) used to demolish the towers. All that’s really necessary is to show that the planes and their fuel could not possibly account for the devastation we all witnessed.

      Towers burn, but don’t fall down. Forty-story Oriental Mandarin Hotel in Beijing, China was consumed by flames from top to bottom on 2 Feb ’11, and burned like a torch, but did not collapse. Different construction, true, but there are others.

      The WTC towers were designed to withstand the impact of a fully-fueled 707, a jetliner quite similar in size and fuel capacity to the 767s alleged to have hit the towers, but with four engines and a significantly higher top speed. ‘Point being that damage from 707 impact might be greater than from 767.

      Since the airplanes were not the instruments of destruction, whether or not they were real airplanes is immaterial. That part is a side-show, window dressing, and a huge distraction, as we have seen.

      The best plan for getting to the bottom of these crimes is to get the people who were in charge that day under oath, and then hold their feet to the fire, specifically Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers, Garvey, Panetta, and Eberhart, for starters. There are others, like Rudy-boy.

      Bush: “The television was obviously on.”

      But it wasn’t.


    • John  February 19, 2011 at 7:56 pm

      Steven Jones worked with the department of energy.

      One day before the press conference of Fleischmann/Pons about their cold fusion experiment in 1989, he gave a similiar press conference about this topic to divert attention away because the authorities could not stop Fleischmann & Pons from giving this press conference.
      So you know where his loyalities lie.

  30. Maturin42  February 19, 2011 at 5:27 pm

    Gordon, what is standing in the way of me giving any credance to Mr. Khalezov is what I saw with my own eyes in the demolition of the towers. There is no way the progressive destruction of the towers from the top down occurred as the result of a nuke going off below ground. If I were logically challenged enough to accept that I would likely be a believer of the official conspiracy theory. A progressive destruction with every third floor erupting in sequence isn’t seen every day but I don’t think we have to go to exotic explanations – the nanothermite explanation works for me, nukes don’t. I have heard about directed energy weapons and mini-nukes since the 9/11 Truth movement has been in existence. I have yet to see any persuasive evidence of their existence, much less their use in the towers. As for building 7, it has the appearance of nothing more or less than a conventional controlled demolition that you might see in Las Vegas. It’s needless multiplication of suspicious trivia that won’t make much sense to anyone who reads it.

    • HP  February 19, 2011 at 6:36 pm

      There could have been both, a nuke in the foundation and nanos in the floors.,

    • bf  February 19, 2011 at 7:57 pm

      I would think there would be a ground level upheaval, a bit of raised street, or damaging movement of neighboring building foundations (like in an earthquake).

    • Soap Box  February 19, 2011 at 9:33 pm

      agreed bf – a greater mushroom effect would have been seen, initiated at the bottom as opposed to at the top. Also, the dustification would not have reached all the way to the top.
      Nuke charges doesn’t sit right.

    • J.F.E.  February 20, 2011 at 3:41 pm

      A “pearl string” of minimal radiation micro-nukes running down the core columns with a larger nuke charge in the basement, along with thermite cutting charges on the outer-wall columns would explain all physical observations and, additionally, all the physical evidence that contradicts the thermite “only” hypothesis.

      Here is a Youtube where Dr. Bill Deagel outlines his theory of how WTC 1 & 2 were demolished with micro-nukes:


      Dr. Deagle has submitted a scientific paper that explores these issues.

      Here is an extended Youtube that reports the massive pulverization, yet large amounts of undamaged paper sheets, then a brief discussion between Dr. Deagle and Dr. Jones, Dr. Deagel raising the nuclear angle, an interacting back and forth between experts, next Dr. Deagle states his theory of micro-nukes and then an interesting statement that other countries have been aggressively blocking his efforts at conducting tests that would more positively identify evidence of radioactivity and supply more evidence to confirm his theory.


      (It seems these countries are more worried that the tests will validate Dr. Deagle’s theory, rather than the tests will falsify his theory 🙂 Does that suggest Dr. Deagle is on the right track?)

    • bf  February 20, 2011 at 8:51 pm

      J.F.E, a “pearl string” down the core, one would imagine large concussive events, flashes and some sharp eye raising vertical ejections. More likely the core and the decking were sprayed by “fire protection” i.e. nanothermite that only had to do the work of dustifying what it was attached to. In other words if a square foot of nanothermite is applied to a square foot of decking it only has to blast that much material to dust, whereas a mini-nuke would have to blast from the core on out through everything else. Loud. Also nanothermite, which explodes, isn’t all that loud which fits eye witnesses better.

    • Penumbra  February 20, 2011 at 2:22 pm

      Seismic recordings DID register dramatic spikes in activity at the time.

    • bf  February 21, 2011 at 1:35 am

      seems ham-fisted… you know like, “so, how will we make it deceptively look like a collapse?” “I know! Let’s use nukes.” Doesn’t sit well.

  31. Ron Paul 2012  February 19, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    Check out this interview:

    “Egyptian General says enemy agents in the White House and Israel carried out 9/11”


  32. Garibaldi  February 19, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    Yes Gordon, Dmitri is a windfall, yes, there were preset underground nukes,(which does not rule out auxiliary use of thermite at all, though he tends to poo-poo it) but there is much yet to be “ironed out” about his “testimony”. For starters, as one example, I believe he asserts and demonstrates that the nuclear detonations and ensuing fallout would have been been largely contained underground and inside the structures, had his own schematic fully played out. So could you please ask him next time around how he might account not only for toasted HUMANS at GROUND ZERO, but for an inordinate number of TOASTED CARS and emergency vehicles found several city blocks away from that immediate target area?


    Additionally, and not to steal any Khalezov thunder, why haven’t I yet heard any previous mention by him of Dr. Ed Ward, who’s been grinding the same axe for years?

    http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm (sorry about the pics)

    So before I get all nuked up again with a million more questions about the intrinsic mechanics of 911, please allow me to simply say that, IMHO, his “new”kular news finally came down a tad late in the game, now that most other demo evidence has finally gone mainstream.

    Yet you pose a tantamount question, that is, what’s more important now- WHO or HOW?? For my money, (which is stretched thin enough these days), it’s always been the WHO-dunnit, and Dmitri should largely run with backing up his story on Mike Harari instead, because if it’s truly as true as he tells it, it’s much bigger than the Twin Towers and Building 7 combined. In fact, to me it’s freaking huge, after wondering for most of the last decade where that cretin suddenly disappeared to, and just exactly what fun and games he might have gotten up to in the meantime.

    • Budreaux  February 19, 2011 at 9:12 pm

      You can’t separate Mike Hariri from the how because it’s part of the story connecting Dimitri to Hariri. You need to do more reading and listening.

    • Garibaldi  February 19, 2011 at 10:56 pm

      That’s just it, budreaux. Reading and listening to one jot more of this ad nauseum infinitum debate on the physics of 911 is the very LAST THING I need to do now. I’ve studied and blogged intensively for over five years after I first found out about the whole royal scam…(entirely by accident) until I’m going blind as a bat, blue in the face and just about soft in the head. I’m quite well aware of how Harari sought out Khalezov in Bangkok to find out if or what he knew about the preplantings, the treaties, the fail-safes and blah-blah. It’s all so much gobbledygook and dial-a-puke unless and until we finally get those lie-detector results, not only from Khalezov, but most of all from Hariri, which will be one cold day in hell.

      P.S. IT’S DAMN NEAR TEN YEARS ALREADY GUYS. Will your magic nanothermite bring back even one of the poisoned innocents from the scorched land of Iraq? Do you need a college degree in criminology to tell if a scumsack like Colon Powell was plainly lying his face off? Do you need to hear it straight from “Curveball”???

    • Garibaldi  February 19, 2011 at 11:08 pm

      By the way, it’s HARARI, not HARIRI, Budroe. You had me goin’ there for a minute, but you really don’t want to get me started on Rafiq HARIRI, believe me. Devil’s in the details, but I’ll try to leave the typos to Gordon from now on, thanx.

    • Budreaux  February 20, 2011 at 1:48 pm

      I maqke typos too. Get over it!

    • Gordon Duff  February 20, 2011 at 1:49 pm

      you don’t even have to make typos with wordpress..but it helps
      wp edits them in on its own
      POS software…
      hope to replace it next month…when we refurb VT
      am going to be looking for candidates for our VT swimsuit edition

    • Texas Vet  February 20, 2011 at 4:58 pm

      G, We would all like a swimsuit edition, but I’d caution you to run this by your sweet wife very carefully first. Sometimes, there are good decisions and bad ones. Know what I mean?


    • Garibaldi  February 20, 2011 at 2:12 am

      P.S.S… and does it really take ten whole years for all this bloody shite to come out in the wash? Many Thanx Gordon Duff, for recognizing Christopher Bollyn and his unceasing struggle against all odds…

      http://www.bollyn.com/index.php#article_12758 (the ink’s still wet on this)

      see also – http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/16/colin-powell-cia-curveball

    • Penumbra  February 20, 2011 at 2:11 pm

      It will likely take much longer than ten years, if at all (despite the mountains of clear evidence of demolition and inside complicity). Just look at the 40+ year saga of the JFK assassination which has retained its Warren Commission paradigm in the minds of the majority of sleepwalkers.

      The fact is that any paradigm-altering (or -advancing) event concocted by the PTB carries with it the seeds of the overturn of the entire present order/system itself. The perps know this as do the beneficiaries both near and far.

      Thus it is incumbent that truth be marginalized, coddled, or otherwise strung along without resolution in order to maintain the facade of “liberality”, “free expression”, “democracy”, et al. whilst increasing the pace of the extortion and consolidation of power at the top.

      911 is a whopper in the seeds of undoing it carries with it. Such a traumatic farce could only result in the obliteration of the system, countless corporations, all three branches of complicit Federal “governance” and the constellation of think tanks, foundations, agencies and services which underpin it. In short, an anarchist’s utopian dream.

      Far too much stolen already in both funds and lives (with more to steal in their sights) to let the truth obtain a fair and uncontrolled hearing now.

    • Soap Box  February 19, 2011 at 9:24 pm

      Well stated Garibaldi.
      This new ‘nuke theory’ doesn’t quite answer all in my book.
      Dr Wood’s theory should not be discarded.
      Planes? No planes? Dunno. What is certain is that MS memdia b/cast fake, photoshopped video footage that day. Let’s ask them? Betja they know.

    • J.F.E.  February 20, 2011 at 4:11 am

      What is Ms. Wood’s theory? All she says is that some unknown weapon, with unknown capabilities, from an unknown location, with an unknown power source, was, by some unknown method, directed at the towers — this unknown caused the towers to collapse and resulted in the images she documented.

      How many unknowns in a theory does there have to be before it’s nothing more than vague speculation?

    • Penumbra  February 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm

      Well firstly two of the alleged flights out of Boston did not exist in the first place as scheduled flights, so those planes were other than listed, if at all.

      Secondly whatever did or did not present itself nose-first into the towers were not commercial airliners anyways, they were military planes rigged with remote control capacity (a technology already established as far back as the early 80’s).

      Testimony of flight(s) landing in Ohio (cleveland was it?) with passenger offloaded to the then unused NASA hanger leads one to a very plausible conclusion that they were lined up and shot and disposed of, likely in a mass grave somewhere, or more likely deplaned and reboarded onto…

      Flight 93, blown to bits over Shanksville with a ready narrative in place of a valiant effort by passengers and subsequent crash.

      I have no trouble believing either in the first or second possibilities. The second would certainly answer the need for a means to dispose of all potential witnesses in a manner consistent with the prescripted narrative.

    • Texas Vet  February 20, 2011 at 5:01 pm

      Pen, I have extra meds this month. The VA overshipped. Should I send some out to you?

      🙂 T.V.

    • Penumbra  February 22, 2011 at 2:28 am

      Moronic response the both of you and clear demonstration that you did not read what I had written. It also demonstrates that you have not bothered to do an ounce of research regarding the already exposed absence of the two flights (by the claimed flight numbers) out of Boston in the FAA’s own database. (Hint: try a Google search if all else fails.)

      Nowhere did I say that there were no lost lives. The issue is HOW and WHERE did they lose their lives or go missing. The lack of any trace in of bodies in the alleged flight 93 “crash” in Shanksville suggests that it was blown out of the sky by intercept and thus its passengers blown to smithereens. Whether ALL passengers had been transferred to that flight to eliminate all in one swell foop is an unanswered question.

      They certainly did not slam into the WTC as those were NOT commercial planes, despite the ingrained populist paradigm still clung to by the majority of sleepwalking idiots in this country.

      The fact that a flight (one reported at any rate) landed in Ohio and taxied to the empty NASA hanger is a matter of record. What happened there is another unanswered question.

      Shame on the both of you for your infantile responses.

    • Ingrid B  February 20, 2011 at 4:45 am

      What REALLY P`s me off is, all the BS about Iran. Iran`s nuclear research is for medical purposes, to heal people.
      What sort of sick minds are they that are capable of planning an event such as 9/11 and worse, lie about it? evil, cowardly, decietfull come to mind.
      The good thing about all this debate is, people learn from each other, something said may cause someone to look at things differently, debate and discussion are good and healthy, without it we might never know truth..

    • Cathy Garger  February 20, 2011 at 6:18 pm

      I’ve been studying 9/11 for nearly 6 years and have paintakingly gone through all the theories. And where you need to look most carefully is wherever the big fancy controlled opposition groups are *not* pushing on you to swallow.

      On that note, Mechanical Engineer/former Professor Dr. Wood just came out with 500 pages of evidence and pictures in a new book:

      “Where Did the Towers Go? The Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11” by Judy Wood, Ph.D.

      Talk about an eye-opener!


      I’ve already digested her entire web site:
      http://www.drjudywood.com and am now devouring her new book.

      What’s important to know is that the leading scientist of the thermite movement (i.e., the so-called 9-11 Truth Movement) is Dr. Steven Jones, a Los Alamos National Laboratory sub-contractor and expert in cold fusion. Study the technology and the history and you’ll discover he tried to de-bunk his very own specialty! Hmmm… what’s wrong with this picture?

      PS – Ya know, it’s just Amazing that Dimitri Khalezov came out of the woodwork the very same week Dr. Wood’s book was published and put out on the market. Talk about uncanny coincidences!

      Oh, and by the way? I need to clear up something. Many people try to marginalize Dr. Wood’s work by associating her work with no planes. Yet Dr. Wood’s work has nothing to do with planes. It has to do with weaponized energy.

      Think outside the box, gang. Don’t be a victim of “group think”, as so many are.

      Buy Dr. Wood’s new book and figure things out for yourself:

      Cathy Garger
      Associate Member Scholars for 9/11 Truth

    • Cathy Garger  February 20, 2011 at 11:47 pm

      Sorry JFE, there was no nuclear fission at the WTC. The products just aren’t there.

    • Shallel  February 22, 2011 at 3:13 pm

      It’s Dr. Wood.

  33. J.F.E.  February 19, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    The following responses are from Dimitri Khalezov, put to him in written interrogatory form with the help & assitance of J. Bruce Campbell (thank you), staff writer for Veterans Today, taken from the comments section of Mr. Campbell’s V.T. article, Dimitri Khalezov on 9-11:


    How do you arrive at the 150 kiloton figure?

    “————————————- I remembered this digit was discussed in my former organization – the Special Control Service. Besides, this digits corresponds to all visible effects (the cavity size and the earthquake intensity feeling), it also corresponds to the duration of time during which the hot matters remained hot at ground zero (as bigger is the yield as longer it will retain hot temperatures), and it also corresponded to logic – the 150 kiloton was the limit set by the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, so they apparently used the very maximum of what was allowed by it, and, still, it was not enough to pulverize the entire Twin Towers, as you can see. They should use perhaps 200 kilotons, but they were allowed the maximum of 150. Hence my claims.”

    Also, perhaps, Dimitri has reviewed this thread and read DR.NUR’s comments relating credible evidence about Israeli government, Mossad, use of micro-nukes. How much knowledge does Mr. Khalezov have about these micro-nukes?

    “————————————— I have some knowledge as a former officer of the organization dealing with nuclear weapons. Besides I just see the effects of these “car-bombings” with my very eyes (such as hundreds of tons of TNT yields, sizes of craters, “ground zero” definitions of the places of “car-bombings”, mushroom clouds, radiation sickness of people around, etc.), plus I had a several discussions with acting intelligence officers on this topic. All of it is more than enough to have an opinion.”

    I guess the basis for my questions is this: Is it possible that Mr. Khalezov is correct about WTC being a nuclear demolition (in which I agree with him based on the facts & evidence from ground zero and immediate vicinity), but is not accurate about specifics?

    “—————————– may be. But even if I am wrong is some particular details, the deviation from the reality is not big. I might, for example, mistakenly believe that it was 150 kiloton while it was 120 kiloton in reality, but by no means could I mistake a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear explosion with a laughable 1 kiloton mini-nuke’s explosion.”

    Obviously, Mr. Khalezov had nothing to do with the planning, preperation, and execution of the WTC 911 nuclear demolition. Mr. Khalezov does sound like he could have been a PLAN B patsy, as in, should somehow the PLAN A 19 arab hijackers, official story go awry, and not be available, or viable with the public, then Mr. Khalezov could be a viable back-up fall guy — anything to hide the truth and maintain plausible deniability for the conspirators.

    “———————– it seems that I was earmarked to serve as a “valuable useful idiot” indeed. First of all I am an extremist by nature which could be used to convince some stupid security officials that “as an extremely dangerous person I am indeed capable of anything awful”. Secondly, as a former officer of the 12th chief directorate, who has also an extremist nature and also very free-minded (read “criminally minded”) I could be easily used to blame on me anything like “nuclear terrorism”. It would look plausible. Thirdly, I was indeed involved in the fake passports trade in the 90s together with the Mossad operatives (I am quite free-minded in this sense since as a Christian I could remember that the Lord God has forgotten to supply Adam and Eve with passports upon their emplacement Here and so I don’t see anything really criminal in dealing with these illegal papers, I mean “illegal” in the God’s eyes) and the secret services knew about this fact very well. So it could be used to claim that I was allegedly the one who supplied the 9/11 hijackers and 2002 Bali bombers with fake passports. It is not true at all, but if someone would claim so it would sound plausible. And indeed they claimed exactly that – that it was exactly me (along with one Mossad agent) who allegedly supplied Hambali and 9/11 hijackers with fake passports. This is an “intermediate” level of the “truth”, of course, since serious guys knew that there were no “hijackers”, but the mid-ranking security officials would believe that. The only mistake was in the basic presumption – to use some one as a “useful idiot” you should first make sure that you are dealing with a real “idiot’. Since I am not the one, this method will not work with me personally and it will eventually lead to disastrous results – which you could see right now when I began to explain all of this to public.”

    Mr. Khalezov is candid to state he, himself, is not a nuclear physicist, but had tactical nuclear knowledge & information due to his experience and posting in the Soviet Union’s military.

    “—————– yes, this is exactly the case. But even what I know about nuclear weapons is more than enough to make certain conclusions.”

    The Mossad always seems to have something up their sleeve by way of deception.
    Is it possible that Mossad and the other conspirators had specific plans that Mr. Khalezov would not be aware of, and, also, be different from what Mr. Khalezov would expect based on his training & experience?

    “——————————– I don’t know. But it seems to me that the Mossad attempted (back in the 1998-2002) to make me responsible for alleged selling of mini-nukes and nuclear materials to “terrorists”. I could see that if looking back now. And indeed they did their best in this – particularly by connecting me to the 2002 Bali bombing that is known to be nuclear to any and every security official. But it did not work anyway. I don’t know what other plans they could have. Because I am not too valuable, actually. I quitted a military service a very long time ago and unlikely I could be useful in any game (except, of course, only to make a mockery of the very game, such as is the case now).”

    After all, while the size & scope of the WTC destruction would be unprecedented, Mossad, apparently, had much actual practice & experience with micro-nuke field operations (successful nuclear detonations without getting caught or the method getting revealed).

    “————————- the Mossad started to use their mini-nukes in disguise of ‘car-bombings’ (thanks to the stupidity of Reagan’s Administration who preferred not to disclose the nuclear truth to the public) from the beginning of the ‘80s (mostly against their own friends – the Americans, of course). Thus the Israelis apparently have a big experience in this field. No doubt.”

    That practical experience may have led Mossad to devise unique ways & means to execute the attack and guarantee success (complete & total collapse while maintaining plausible deniability), which Mr. Dimitri Khalezov does not know about.

    “——————————- it seems that the 9/11 affair was not planned by the Mossad (which is a small organization with limited human resources and also limited intellectual capabilities), but rather by the Freemasons in collaboration with the best thinking brains from among the NWO flock. And that is why 9/11 was planned so well (relatively “well” actually – they forgot that aluminum can not penetrate steel). The Mossad could only have a smaller part of this that had to do with the execution, but not with the planning. When it comes to my personal knowledge, I indeed don’t know much about this. All I know is about the fact that the “emergency nuclear demolition scheme” of the WTC existed and this was the matter of fact + that the Mossad was interested in this + that the WTC was finally demolished + that the Mossad was in a genuine celebratory mood over this otherwise awful fact. The rest are merely my conclusions as a researcher. Certainly I don’t know and I can’t know everything.”

    “That is what I could say in reply.

    Sincerely yours,


    Again, thank you J. Bruce Campbell for facilitating the exchange & Dimitri Khalezov for responding in a forthwith & honest manner.

    In reviewing the responses, it’s clear Mr. Khalezov has no direct knowledge of the exact planning, method, or sequence of events regarding the demolition of the WTC complex. Mr. Khalezov does have expert knowledge and based on that expert knowledge Mr. Khalezov has offered his opinion on the method of the WTC demolition. Mr. Khalezov’s expert opinion should be carefully considered & weighed, but it is a considered opinion. It is not the facts & evidence, itself. The facts & evidence stand independent of Mr. Khalezov’s opinion, and, therefore, are subject to an analysis & interpretation based on those facts & evidence.

    (In a criminal trial, indeed, any judicial proceeding, expert opinion is to be given due consideration, but the fact finder is not bound by that expert opinion, if the fact finder, finds the facts & evidence conflicts with and/or contradicts the expert’s opinion.)

    Gordon Duff: “Please not that these ‘demolition charges’ are thermonuclear, buried many meters under the sub-basement and virtually radiation free.

    These were not, are not ‘micro-nukes.'”

    There are facts & evidence that contradict the above conclusion and support the “micro-nukes” theory.

    Nobody has successfully disproved or rebutted the nuclear demolition theory because the nuclear demolition theory explains all the anomalies, while the thermite “only” theory does not account for all the anomalies and facts & evidence.

    The nuclear demolition theory accounts for all the known facts & evidence.

    Where there is room for debate, exploration, and investigation is the exact processes & mechanism, and sequence of events, but there is plenty of facts & evidence to pin that down too, if you apply reasonable scepticism & an open-mind, and follow the evidence where it leads without predisposing where those facts & evidence must lead to.

    • J.F.E.  February 19, 2011 at 6:15 pm

      I should also add that thermetic material was found at the WTC complex, but in addition there was also Strontium, Barium, and Tritium, all products of nuclear reactons, and these elements were found in elevated levels that exceed any naturally occuring background amounts, or other hypothesized sources, such as exit signs or balance materials in the airplanes, and such.

      So, at this point (I am open to additional facts & evidence which contradict my opinion when presented such), I am led to consider that a sequence of micro-nukes in combination with thermite cutting charges, took out the towers.

      The micro-nukes started with a basement micro-nuke at approximately the same time the first plane struck WTC 1 (there is video evidence from a live feed of an EMP that briefly electronically distorted the video image, as well as statements from people in the basement that others had “hanging” skin), then thermetic cutting charges acted on the outer-wall columns at the point of impact, then at the time of intitial collapse, another micro-nuke went off, acting to initiate collapse, just above the impact zone in WTC 1 and then a series (2 or 3) of micro-nukes, which were planted in the core columns went off in sequence down the core columns, in tandum with thermetic cutting charges down the outer-wall columns, to be finished with a larger nuke, not 150 kilotons, in the basement for final demolition, leaving no stacked debris (this accounts for the crater Mr. Khalezov points out). The evidence suggests at least half and likely much more of the concrete and steel of the building, particularly core columns were vaporized and turns to dust (dust as small as 2.5 microns).

      The problem I see with Mr. Khalezov’s theory is that one 150 kiloton nuke in the basement would not account for the collapse sequence, where collapse started at the top and worked its way down.

      Also, Mr. Khalezov’s theory doesn’t account for WTC 6 which also had a crater within its shell that went from every sub-basement up through the roof (too large to be accounted for by falling debris from WTC 1 [closest tower] and there was no identified pieces from WTC 1 within the crater that could have caused such a catastrophic crater). Pictures exist that document WTC 6 had evidence of explosion damage before either tower collapsed, such as blown-out windows, distored window frames, and blackened & distorted moldings. Also, a picture exists that seems to document firemen were dousing the WTC 6 fire with water hoses before either tower collapsed. This might also account for the numerous accounts of firemen at ground level hearing multiple explosions (in contradistinction to the “dousing” picture, there are no statements from firemen, that I’m aware of, that confirms WTC 6 was being “doused” before either tower collapsed).

      Anyway, that’s a brief and incomplete summary to provide a feel for how all observations & measurements need to be accounted for, to support any theory.

      A priori assumptions that don’t account for all observations will not stand the rigors of a contested hearing of the evidence that any criminal trial would entail.

  34. Jo  February 19, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    Can anyone explain why rescue choppers did not land on the roof of the towers and smash open an exit door for those supposedly trapped on the floors above the explosions

    • Texas Vet  February 19, 2011 at 5:08 pm

      Now, Jo, that is an interesting question. They could claim weight, but copters can hover, therefore little weight would be added to the structures. It seems easier for rescuers to go down 10-20 stories than having them climb 90 stories to a blocked and cratering path.

      I don’t know Jo. Maybe Gordon does?


    • NightFlyer  February 19, 2011 at 5:54 pm

      Again science and aerodymanics……too much heat rising and a chopper cannot hover or land. Been there CH-46D and UH1E Vietnam.

  35. Jo  February 19, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    My list is-

    1. Simon Shack, Hoi.Polloi
    2. Dr. Judy Wood
    3. Killtown
    4. Ace Baker

    Bollyn wastes a lot of words analyzing fake pictures that he thinks represent real planes

    I did enjoy Dimitri’s film too

    • J.F.E.  February 19, 2011 at 6:39 pm

      The following paper is my source for the presence of Strontium & Barium (the paper also notes other elements found consistent with nuclear reaction):

      While the following may or may not be the exact mechanism (the hypothesis I favor involves multiple micro-nukes) of the micro-nuke demolition of WTC complex, it is a good discussion of the facts & evidence that supports the micro-nuke theory of the demolition of the WTC complex:

      Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demoltion of The World Trade Centre

      William Tahil, B. A.


      It should be noted that Mr. Khalezov has reviewed this paper and is open to it’s conclusions except that this paper claims nuclear reactors were in the basements, to which Mr. Khalezov disagrees, stating his opinion of nuclear demolition charges instead. (It should be noted, I disagree with both in favor of a timed series of micro-nukes, timed in tandum with thermitic cutting charges). The salient point of the Tahil paper is the observation & measurement by the USGS of Strontium & Barium, along with other nuclear reaction products found in the vacinity of the WTC complex.

      In addition, Ed Ward, M .D. reports on 55 times higher than background levels of tritium:


      As is known, low level radiation exposure (and/or short duration exposure) generally doesn’t result in instant cancer, rather, cancers appear over time. Numerous first responders have, in the years since 911, come down with various types of blood cancers and some with thyroid cancers, which are consistent with radiation poisoning.

    • jo  February 19, 2011 at 7:45 pm

      Dimitri and Judy, It could be either, I don’t know- I actually don’t care. But I do know that there were no planes. Lawson is a zio shill who says ‘only the lunatic fringe would doubt what they saw on TV’ Sorry Tony, only morons BELIEVE what’s on TV. There is no ‘truth movement’ there will be no ‘truth’. 911 was made for TV hoax, perhaps invented at Tavestock, Mitre, Rand etc. Look, you’re version, the ‘planes’ version happens to be the official George Bush version, so YOU are the disinfo. At this late date only perps, their agents, zio shills and the bottom 5% of intellects believe in plains

    • jo  February 19, 2011 at 8:23 pm

      Before you demand ‘truth’, ask yourself- Will you accept a decision from the Supreme Court? they gave us George W Bush, the guy who lost to Al Gore. A military trial like Nuremberg?
      The legal system put David Irving in jail and OJ Simpson on the street-‘Hate crime’ laws force one groups ‘truth’ on everyone through legislation , does that make it an absolute ‘truth’

    • Penumbra  February 20, 2011 at 1:11 am

      What your point underlines, jo, is that there will be NO 911 Truth until the entire long-corrupted legal system is swept clean entirely, from the USSC down to every last county and local courthouse in the nation.

      All US judges, of whatever echelon in the judiciary, are servants to a foreign legal system, cobbled together from ancient Roman civil law and the mislocation of Admiralty Law (Law of the Sea only) onto dry land. This is and has always been legal fraud, crafted and administered from the Crown at Temple Bar, the legal arm of the Rothschild dynasty.

      Only when Common Law, with trial BY Jury (not WITH a Jury), is restored as the ONLY system of Law in this country as per the stipulation of the Constitution, will true justice upon all the traitors in this present system be meeted out.

      For that to occur will require more than voting and picket signs at this late date in the entrenchment of the criminal order.

      The tree of Liberty… (as it were).

    • J.F.E.  February 20, 2011 at 2:52 pm

      Jo has already been confronted with evidence that “no planes” is a total hoax and a fraud in a previous reply to her previous gambit to inject the “no planes” idea into the comment thread. But instead of reponding by either admitting that “no planes” is wrong or disputing the evidence that disproves it, she scurries away and reguritates the same “no plane” bull crap fuller down the thread.

      Jo, that is intellectually dishonest. It’s not acceptable in a discussion constrained by the Scientific Method and good faith.

    • Ron Paul 2012  February 19, 2011 at 8:47 pm

      I hate being redundant in my posts but there are always new people here.

      Ameteur footage of witnesses seeing something hit the Towers:


      Judy Woods’ theory: completely destroyed (interview with Judy Wood)


    • Shallel  February 22, 2011 at 3:30 pm

      Billiant jo! Agree completely. The badly faked videos are the best evidence we have.

      Have a Guinness!

    • Shallel  February 21, 2011 at 3:30 pm

      Baker’s work on the fake news broadcasts, fake witnesses, and media’s complicity in the coverup is most compelling! I say arrest the media first!

      Ace Baker treatise on composite videos of physically impossible jet crashes:

  36. Texas Vet  February 19, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    Article => “how could a relatively cool kerosene fire (jet fuel is kerosene) that would have trouble burning a steak on a grill, be so much more powerful?”

    T.V. => Well said. Jet fuel is not nearly as explosive as plain old automobile gasoline fumes. Jet fuel can create a hellacious fire if it has other things to burn around it. but again, as a post on VT pointed out last week, many, many of the 110 floors of the twin towers were flat empty, bare, unrentable.


    • OS  February 19, 2011 at 6:21 pm


      Your correct with regards to the burning temperatures of both types of aircraft fuels A-B, they can’t reach the temperatures required to melt AL or Iron given the conditions. I documented all the engineering processes at — casting facility for AL and Iron production about 10 years ago. It requires special designed blast furnaces to reach these temperatures, with special additives. The temperatures Gordon’s stated are correct, and require specific conditions.

      If you study the structure of twin towers, you will notice most of the I-Beams holding the frameworks in place are located toward center of building. And maybe relates to Gordon discussing ground level explosion that occurred prior to collapses. I have experience with explosives and wish to provide some analogy. Again, remember most of these frameworks were located near the center of these buildings, so how would this structure implode? This likely accomplished by creating a pulling force through the center of buildings causing an inward collapse. This could be accomplished by using cutting charges at the bases, and removing I-Beam sections. Cutting charges are fast and require small portions of x-material, these charges are also synchronized. This is performed so explosions occur at the same time, and accomplished with x-cord. However, the cut I-Beam sections must be displaced, and requires kicker charges. The kicker charges, larger of charges, can be set to explode right after cutting charges. And both cutting and kicker are distinctive, there must be small time delay (very small). If someone had audio recording of lower explosion, you can determine cutting and kickers.

      To remove the I-Beam sections does not require much x-material, because it’s specifically placed. Using anything other does not make sense; the charge would have to be large and would blow out the lower part of building. However, the cutting and kicker would have only broken glass due to pressure.

      Why would anyone use anything else?

      Your expert knows exactly what I’m talking about Gordon, ask him.

      What did those technicians bring into the buildings that weekend, network cable?

    • OS  February 19, 2011 at 6:49 pm

      Why power out? When wiring electrical and/or electronic detonator, static discharges can cause premature ignitions. This can also be caused by large aircraft flying over open location. Your expert should be able to confirm this as well Gordon?

    • OS  February 19, 2011 at 7:02 pm


      Secondary materials can be used as well. Also kicker charges may not be required if cutter charges are placed in another way.

    • OS  February 20, 2011 at 12:50 am

      Secondary materials?

      Thermite along with lower I-Beam cutting, there must be force pulling the frameworks through the center for control. Thermite can create high temperatures, but specific stresses are required for the control.

    • Shallel  February 21, 2011 at 3:22 pm

      The lowest columns were 5″ box columns not I-beams. At higher floors the thickness of the columns was reduced, and finally the topmost columns transitioned to 1/2″ H- Beams, since they didn’t have as much weight to support.

    • OS  February 22, 2011 at 1:15 am

      All can be cut through, thickness is not problem.

    • J.F.E.  February 20, 2011 at 12:05 pm

      OS, if I read you correctly, WTC 1 & 2 demolitions did not require nuclear demolition, but could be be accomplished with non-nuclear conventional ‘cut & kick’ techniques.

      I’m sure you’ve read through the post and comments section.

      What do you make of the various evidences that nuclear demolition was involved in the destruction of WTC 1 & 2?

    • OS  February 20, 2011 at 4:21 pm

      Likely lowest cost solution, bottom line.

      There are standard and “specialized charges” used for cutting through I-Beams, not much material is required (tape type material). These charges are used for specialized cutting, not explosive forces, and cutting force used for minimal damage to create specific stresses. For control demolition, designed to control building collapse, small charges are used to create the stresses for this control. If you use thermite (reactive materials) to weaken structures, you must apply directional force to control the collapse. As stated before, center and inward forces. Please read about blast furnaces, to understand the conditions necessary to melt metals. However, thermite can be applied to weaken these materials, but collapse would not occur unless forces were applied.

      These buildings had no downward motion at lower levels, but upper level collapsed onto lower levels, and pulverized lower levels. If stresses are created through the center I-Beams (lower), this would create large downward force in upper level (can be calculated). The ideal some micro-nuclear device would be precise enough to create fractures necessary for “controlled” center and inward forces does not seem feasible.

      In fact, if buried some distance in the ground (compression), the explosive force would move earth causing roadways to fracture (Was not the case). The nuclear device (depending) may crystallize the capsule it created, but would also move earth, and such movement would fracture roadways due to the ripple affect.

      Burning for weeks afterward? This could depend on amount of thermite used, fuel (other materials), and composition of the thermite. The thermite was likely a specialized material.

    • OS  February 20, 2011 at 10:04 pm

      I don’t believe there is evidence, reactive material maybe the mistake. A specialized thermite can contain reactive materials.

      It sounds more like fabricated story to create confusion, and point people into another direction. Create chaos, by introducing so many theories to create confusion, so further investigations are ignored.

      In fact the so-called “experts” story sounds ridiculous.

      Put the micro-nuclear theory along side the UFO theory, where it belongs.

    • OS  February 20, 2011 at 10:17 pm

      Ask the so-called expert, how many times micro-nuclear devices were used for building demolition? He won’t be able to give you one reference.

      Therefore this affect would be unknown, and why your given this ridiculous story. Because it’s “unknowns” that can’t be verified.

      How many UFO’s have been observed demolishing buildings?

      It’s another unknown that isn’t verifiable, and makes for a good “Fictional Story”.

    • OS  February 20, 2011 at 10:38 pm


      Notice the ground level charges, that’s the key. There’s a fast process, and slow process.

      Limited information can be discussed in these comment sections.

    • OS  February 20, 2011 at 10:43 pm

      It should be obvious now. No more comments on this subject.

    • OS  February 21, 2011 at 12:13 am

      Give me, one single reference using nuclear device for controlled demolition of building? You can’t, so what exactly are you talking about “Fiction”.

      I can give you many using specialized explosives. So don’t sell me a story based on not ONE SINGLE REFERENCE. Finding radioactive material does not mean nuclear device.

    • OS  February 21, 2011 at 12:33 am

      Are you aware Strontium is mixed with AL for casting purposes?

    • OS  February 21, 2011 at 1:32 am

      This might help as well, we do know many building exit signs use Tritium.


    • OS  February 21, 2011 at 1:38 am

      Good bye people, when enough is enough. I’m certain you’ll understand the “exit sign” Tritium contamination. But then radioactive materials must mean nuclear device, “yes right”.

      I have no ideal why I waste my time here.

    • OS  February 21, 2011 at 1:00 pm


      You’re far too obsessed to prove anything, radioactive materials can be found in various products, travel to the nearest city dumb and verify. Collapsing building would pulverize many of the products releasing radioactive materials.

      If you can’t provide “one reference” for using nuclear device for demolition, what exactly are you talking about?

      Give me (1) reference where small nuclear device was used for controlled demolition? If you can’t find one reference, then it hasn’t been proven for feasible usage.


    • OS  February 21, 2011 at 1:59 pm


      I like your thinking….

      You can’t conclusively prove your correct, so someone must conclusively prove your wrong?

      What exactly does that mean? I can tell you, it means nothing.

    • OS  February 21, 2011 at 2:05 pm


      I am Senior Engineer, about 20 years. Site the reference where OS claims to be a scientist.

      If you can’t then maybe you have a problem with references, “Remember”?

      JFE, quote “Remember, OS claims to be a scientist”

    • J.F.E.  February 21, 2011 at 9:11 pm

      OS, the best thing to do in Science is take one event or observation at a time:

      In the best spirit of the Scientific Method:

      Go down the thread and see the WTC Task Force Interview of EMT Patricia Ondrovic, who observed cars exploding several blocks away from the footprints of the WTC, she was running for her life as WTC 2 collapsed… here, I’ll help you out:

      Ondrovic page 5: “As I was running up Vesey, the first car blew up on me on the corner of Vessey and the West Side Highway. That set my turnout coat on fire, that set my hair on fire, and that set my feet on fire. I kept running.”

      Ondrovic page 6: “I guess that’s North Park. It’s a big green, grassy area, and there’s nothing there. As I was running up here, two or three more cars exploded on me. They weren’t near any buildings at that point, they were just parked on the street. The traffic guys hadn’t gotten a chance to tow anything yet, cause this was all during the first hour I guess of this thing happening. So there were still cars parked on the street that were completely independent of that. Three cars blew up on me, stuff was being thrown.”

      Don’t worry, it’s linked down at the bottom of the thread so you can take in the whole context.

      Thermite, nano-thermite, or even super-nano-thermite wouldn’t do what Ms. Ondrovic saw on 911 as she was running for her life down the street.

      Please explain the physical events, the exploding cars Ms. Ondrovic saw as she was running down that street for her life.

      What wher the physical forces & elements involved in those physical events?

    • OS  February 21, 2011 at 2:25 pm

      However, JFE

      You are correct about one think, I should not be coming to this site.

    • OS  February 21, 2011 at 3:36 pm

      Don’t worry JFE,

      Dimitri Khalezov is likely a propaganda agent, to help take you in another direction. When investigators get close, they always insert propaganda agents to steer you into other directions.

      It will take some time before you figure this out…

    • OS  February 21, 2011 at 4:39 pm


      Ask yourself a simple question?

      Researchers and investigators also pursue money trails, transfers of money typically into offshore accounts (hidden). Persons (decision makers) having funds transferred into accounts that are time and date stamped, maybe enough information to warrant further investigations.

      Last month, former Executive Banker blew whistle on prominent people around the world having these questionable accounts, including 40 or more politicians. This could be critical information for investigations associated with events, people, companies, institutions, and other information. A large database was provided.

      Why was this story avoided by Mr. Duff, he worked in this industry. He could have provided some insight, however he chose to avoid this subject completely. You obtain information and verify, especially when names, associates, account numbers (transfers), time and dates, and amounts are included.

      It should have been an important subject, but was completely avoided. That’s strange? Sometimes misinformation is used to guide people away from real information, something that can’t be verified, versus something that can be verified. And this serves one purpose, to create confusion through propaganda, and often used when investigators are approaching their objectives.

      Maybe your being steered in some direction, avoiding this and that, or the political motivation. Real investigations and researchers are not politically motivated.

      thats all.

    • Gordon Duff  February 21, 2011 at 5:42 pm

      u worked in banking?
      you know what spv means?

    • OS  February 22, 2011 at 1:02 am


      I solve very complex problems around the globe, it’s what I do for a living for many years. Have managed engineering projects for GM, Hughes Aircraft, Boeing Aircraft, Honeywell Corporation, amongst many others. Some of the companies, I can’t list. I am given the projects when new technologies are being introduced and implemented, many of which can’t be discussed.

      I can’t write specific to an issue, that would mean trouble for me. I can only present general information. You should understand?

      And Gordon,

      If not interested in your work, I would not be visiting your website and stories. If no one debated, it would be quite boring.

    • OS  February 22, 2011 at 2:38 pm


      Start with largest producer of fire proofing materials, then assess the companies they purchased, and history of each company. Then examine any special chemical compounds they produce, then ask better questions in the future.

    • OS  February 22, 2011 at 2:45 pm


      Google – largest producer of phosphorus. Then look down the list, one will be of interest. You will know.

      thats all, and be safe.

    • OS  February 22, 2011 at 5:33 pm


      You don’t know how to investigate and perform proper research? Your performing research in the reverse, you have to start will real implosion of the towers, the videos. You are obsessed with collateral damages that can be caused by many factors.

      And this simply means your obscuring real information and analysis. You must have some problem with the ideal that explosive charges can take down these towers?

      You wish people to look at what’s less likely, versus what’s more likely.

      What you’re obsessed with is secondary to implosive incident. Obsessed people don’t look at things rationally, sorry buts it true.

      Debris from these towers could clearly cause chaos, so explain exactly the chaos it would cause?

      That’s not a rational question, is it?

    • OS  February 22, 2011 at 6:29 pm


      I am curious about what made you so nervous,

      1. The fact that to wire detonators require power out to eliminate possible static discharges that can cause premature ignition?
      2. Or the fact that x-cord is used to synchronize charges and looks like network cable?

      Did you also know b-cap can be made by tying knot in x-cord?

      Anyway, no more to be said here, I think people get the picture. Regardless of explosive types, cutting charges were necessary, and this material is controlled and can be tracked.

    • J.F.E.  February 22, 2011 at 8:31 pm

      OS, all that talk and you didn’t answer my question.

      Yes, “you have to start will real implosion of the towers, the videos.”

      They aren’t “implosions.” The towers exploded. Review of video clearly reveals the explosive nature of the collapse.

      This 911 Eyewitness youtube of WTC 1 shows the exploding wave front move down the building’s exterior, shows the spire, and looks at the dynamics of the explosive wave front.


      This video is one of the better views of WTC 1 during collapse.

      Planes and kerosine did cause that explosive collaspe.

    • J.F.E.  February 22, 2011 at 9:12 pm

      No, planes and kerosine did not cause that explosve collapse.

      911 Eyewitness – Intense heat and bright flashes indicate nu


      Flashes penetrating the thick pyroclastic column.

      And comparison, analysis, and interpretation of the dynamics with other known explosion profiles.

      The two 911 eyewitness videos together provide an excellent visual examination of the collapse.

      And, coupled with additional evidence the thermite “only” hypothesis can’t answer, such as burning cars, “hanging” skin on victims from WTC 1 basement, evidence of EMP’s, multiple radio nucleotides found on the WTC complex site, and unquenchable hotspots at the footprints and molten metal in the pile, the conclusion of nuclear destruction is reasonable.

      Yes, a string of flashes piercing the thick curtain as the building falls.

      OS, the evidence is there and you haven’t answered any of it — deal with it. Ignore it and you aren’t serious, just an another ideologue.

    • OS  February 22, 2011 at 9:37 pm

      JFE, Good work.

      There’s other companies owned in this group with history, dig deeper for thermite. I need to stop writing in this comment section, already in trouble for reporting other incidents. Seriously, be careful, don’t assume you’ll be protected…that’s all. Just some advice.

      I took upon myself to investigate some people and corporations while working abroad. The rabbit hole went straight to The White House, in mid 2000’s. You’ll know when you get closer…it’s no longer game.

    • Mawwk  February 23, 2011 at 11:47 am

      Keep up the good work OS. There’s a little team of hacks working the rounds here, as usual. They stand out like a sore thumb, predictable behaviour, predictable source.

  37. Ingrid B  February 19, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    “You know the things I`ve come to know seem so confusing,
    It`s gettin`hard to tell what`s wrong from right,
    I can`t separate the winners from the losers anymore
    and I`m thinkin`of just givin`up the fight..

    from Christian Soldier by Kristofferson..

    • Texas Vet  February 19, 2011 at 5:01 pm

      Ingrid, Kris K. was on track. One of the first major steps to self-realization is for the individual mind to acknowledge how much it doesn’t know. One of the next major steps is to realize what an immense area there is to grow in. You need to direct those steps with commonsense.

      Remember, in 1492, Columbus never would have reached the Indies if he just listened “flat-worlders” and not his commonsense.

      Sounds like you are taking the correct steps to me. Congratulations.


    • Ingrid B  February 20, 2011 at 4:08 am

      thanks.. I`ll probably quote Kristofferson quite a bit..

    • Ingrid B  February 20, 2011 at 4:08 am

      PS. his songs helped me through some tough times..

    • Ingrid B  February 20, 2011 at 4:05 am

      I hear you Jon Jon and I agree, I just felt these words reflected something you said in your first comment regarding truth. I, too, believe that “truth will out.” I just love Kristofferson and his words can be used in so many contexts. I`m sure many vets felt despair, wondered what the hell they were fighting for. There`s a song about police brutallity but it was written in the 70`s, way before the cops got really brutal..

    • Penumbra  February 22, 2011 at 2:14 am

      Cops have always been brutal thugs. Make no mistake Ingrid. You just hear about it more these days.

  38. Texas Vet  February 19, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    Article’s Dimitri => “…Science shouldn’t be objective, but we all know better …”

    T.V. => G, I think you meant “Science SHOULD objective….” I think you sometimes you type as bad as me!

    • Ron Paul 2012  February 19, 2011 at 4:34 pm

      No Gordon didn’t misspell anything.

      Science is defined by being able to reproduce same result through repeatable experiments. There is nothing “objective” about it.

    • Gordon Duff  February 19, 2011 at 4:39 pm

      no..good catch on his part
      having one of those days

    • Ron Paul 2012  February 19, 2011 at 4:48 pm

      Science isn’t objective, theories are objective. Science proves theories by being able to repeat the same result through experimentation.
      Just saying.

    • Gordon Duff  February 19, 2011 at 4:53 pm

      perhap i should write in more conventional prose…instead of cutting corners.
      science is hardly objective…as the NIST has shown
      why hasn’t someone arrested those assholes yet?

    • Penumbra  February 19, 2011 at 11:39 pm

      RP you have it backwards. Science is objective. Results are the objective and only those which can be repeated via the same process are verified objectively. Theories, being the purview of speculation and that rooted in the perspective of the theorist, is entirely subjective.

    • Ron Paul 2012  February 20, 2011 at 12:49 am


      People trying to prove theories have an objective, science ( or scientific method ) as a principle is devoid of objectivity.

      You’re assuming that scientific method is going to verify the proposed theory. If scientific method reveals that the proposed theory is wrong, it’s wrong. In other words, the results of scientific method could care less about objective of the theorist. For example, having the “objective” of proving the theory that the world is flat is debunked by scientific method.

      Gordon already said it ( most eloquently I might add ), the NIST had an objective of promoting a theory and disregarded real scientific method, because scientific method ( being non-objective ) it would probably have proven their theory to be false.

      I think we are arguing over the motive of the theorist vs scientific principle itself, I’m just separating the two.

    • Fedge  February 20, 2011 at 9:31 am

      Actually it’s a lot more simple than all of this, you do just have it backwards right there.

    • Texas Vet  February 19, 2011 at 4:54 pm

      RP2012, getting the same repeatable results seems pretty objective to me. Espcially if the conditions are the same. One problem with the WTC is that the conditions were pretty unique and unrepeatable. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, often science can only use the most known objective reality as a comparison.

      Science is imperfectly object. Religions (including political religions) are not, although they may or may not be correct. In most cases, religions and politics are meaningless babbles — often by bright people — when scrutinized carefully with objectivity.

      What I get, RP, when I read Gordon’s series on this subject, is an attempt to be practically objective. G is not a science man, but a bulldog who wants the truth. Like the bulldog, he is sniffing and sniffing, circling in on the truth.

      Best to you,

      T.V. Electrical Engineer, Physicist and Mathematician


    • Ron Paul 2012  February 19, 2011 at 7:02 pm

      I don’t want to get off topic.
      Read Thomas Kuhn or John L. Casti if you’re interested.

      Best regards
      RonPaul2012 Complete Idiot, Leader of the Thetans

    • Dan  February 20, 2011 at 12:06 pm

      RP, I didn’t think anyone still put any stock in Kuhn. In his attempt to discredit objectivity in science, or any other endeavor, he absurdly claimed, for example, “Individual scientists embrace a new paradigm for all sorts of reasons and usually for several at once. Some of these reasons–for example, the sun worship that helped make Kepler a Copernican–lie outside the apparent sphere of science entirely. Others may depend upon idiosyncrasies of autobiography or personality.” (2nd ed., p 153). Do you believe that scientific objectivity is indistinguishable from motive as here stated? He claims, “…the man who continues to resist after his whole profession has converted [to a new paradigm] has ipso facto ceased to be a scientist,” (p 157). Isn’t this a contradiction, insofar as he is here implying there is indeed an scientifically objective basis for judging between paradigms? His whole arguments, after all, rests on this point. Like a lot of constructivists he resorts to “different worlds” to suggest different but coherent epistemic systems co-exist, when in fact, all he is describing is the straightforward situation where people hold different beliefs. Are all scientific propositions underdetermined as he maintains, or is it the case, for example, that the speed of light is greater than the speed of sound? Do thinkers who use absolute propositions to refute the existence of absolutes or objective truth find themselves self-referentially incoherent? I always enjoy reading your comments, but think you’ve gone out on a limb suggesting interested readers read Kuhn. The conspirators at NIST are simply out-and-out liars, and the evidence, which Kuhn would say is never conclusive, is clearly so in this case.

    • J.F.E.  February 20, 2011 at 2:38 pm

      Look, Ron Paul 2012 doubts nuclear demolition (unless he’s changed his mind), I stated the USGS has found Strontium, Barium, and other radio nucleotides at the WTC site.

      Ron Paul 2012 responded by asking for a cite to the authority I was relying on. Okay, I promptly provided the Tahil paper that outlines the USGS findings and in addition I provided Dr. Ward’s documentation of 55 times higher Tritium levels than the natural background.

      Did Ron Paul 2012 return and either acknowledge or dispute either Tahil’s paper or Dr. Ward’s documentation?


      Thats irresponsible and not scientific… and, here, we have Ron Paul 2012 presenting somebody who disputes the scientific method.

      Ron Paul 2012, I also support the real Ron Paul, but you are a gutless turkey who needs to be called out ignoring facts & evidence that contradict his preferred beliefs.

      No wonder when confronted with facts & evidence he doesn’t like he retires or turns around and cites a scientific nihilist: Nothing is objectively knowable, all is subjective

      Shame on you, Ron Paul 2012 — Man Up. Or admit you don’t have the intellectual honesty to participate in discussions dependent on good faith constrained by the Scientific Method.

    • Tea Partier  February 20, 2011 at 4:41 pm

      Comment: Best regards, RonPaul2012 Complete Idiot, Leader of the Thetans

      Daggum, RonPaul2012, that was pretty funny. You just took a major leap upward in my estimation. I’m impressed, friend.

    • Tea Partier  February 20, 2011 at 4:46 pm

      JFE responding to RonPaul2013 => “I stated the USGS has found Strontium, Barium, and other radio nucleotides at the WTC site.”

      T.P the First => “Yeah, but, JFE, you forgot to take into account all the hot air from WTC visiting politicians over the decades.”

    • James Freda  February 20, 2011 at 5:45 am

      If you reread the article Texas Vel he said science shouldn’t be “subjective”..meaning science should have clear cut answers to figuring out how things work. I can’t see how anyone here can argue with Texas and say he is wrong..and they feel science should be subjective.. i hear a lot of intelligent words in these rebuttals, yet the simple idea of how science should be based on facts and not biases some people don’t understand.

    • Penumbra  February 20, 2011 at 1:45 pm

      He edited the text after the point was raised, James. You are late to the discussion.

    • Texas Vet  February 20, 2011 at 4:52 pm

      Clearly, Pen, you of all people should understand that in any intelligent Research project, the approximate answer is known (or guessed) BEFORE the project is started. That is as objective as can be. Then, of course, surprises do happen.

      That is why science takes seemingly slow, steady baby steps, with many false and failed steps along the way.

      Freda is right, he just leapt ahead of you 🙂


    • Penumbra  February 22, 2011 at 2:12 am

      Not quite sure what you are driving at once again TV. I think you need to read my comments on the subjective/objective issue over again. You are preaching to the choir and don’t even seem to realize it.

  39. Ron Paul 2012  February 19, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    “Riveting 2-hour Trial Radio Debate Prepares Mohr/Gage for Live March 6 Showdown at UC Boulder”

    In about two weeks Richard Gage, AIA, will debate journalist Rev. Chris Mohr. The question? What brought down the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11/2001?

    More info here: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/454-radio-debate.html

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

From Veterans Today Network