Mr. Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former Soviet citizen, a former commissioned officer of the so-called “military unit 46179”, otherwise known as “the Special Control Service” of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the USSR. The Special Control Service, also known as the Soviet atomic (later “nuclear”) intelligence was a secret military unit responsible for detecting of nuclear explosions (including underground nuclear tests) of various adversaries of the former USSR as well as responsible for controlling of observance of various international treaties related to nuclear testing and to peaceful nuclear explosions. After September the 11th Khalezov undertook some extensive 9/11 research and proved that the Twin Towers of World Trade Center as well as its building 7 were demolished by three underground thermo-nuclear explosions – which earned the very name “ground zero” to the demolition site. Moreover, he testifies that he knew about the in-built so-called “emergency nuclear demolitions scheme” of the Twin Towers as long ago as back in the ‘80s – while being a serviceman in the Soviet Special Control Service.

View Latest Posts >>>

Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC

Some thoughts on the mini-nukes theory in regard to the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center.

ScreenHunter_2125 Sep. 02 13.43

I feel obliged to answer a recent VT article “2 + 2 = Israel nuked the WTC on 9/11” http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/28/2-2-israel-nuked-the-wtc-on-911/ published by Jim Fetzer on Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 – that so timely coincided with the publication of the final “full” edition of my book on 9/11 (my actual book titled “The Third Truth about 9/11” could be downloaded from here: www.911thology.com ).

I am also obliged to inform everyone that unlike cheap pulp fiction by Assange and Snowden (that is freely accessible and, moreover, is being intentionally promoted by official mass-media), this book of mine is indeed a “hot potato”.

Official mass-media is under the strictest prohibition of mentioning this book, while all more or less “decent” commercial websites are under a strict “suggestion” to the same effect. I was surprised to learn yesterday that my book was blacklisted on all official commercial services on the Internet – for example, Facebook returns the result “prohibited item” when you try to advertise this book on a commercial basis. The same thing could be said about Amazon. Well, let me come back to the main point of this article, though.

In his article, as well as in his comments under it, Jim Fetzer stated, as if it were a fact, that my so-called “big nukes theory” was allegedly “debunked” (while in reality I won any and every argument with those who tried to debunk me in the past; that is not to mention that my claims bear a status of a “witness’ testimony” and not of a “theory”).

Additionally, Jim continued to maintain that I allegedly could not explain the alleged absence of damage to the so-called “bathtub”. In reality, it is not true. The damage to the so-called “bathtub” were duly addressed by me a few years ago. Moreover, I repeated this once again when I was a guest of Jim Fetzer’s radio show in 2011. If you only care to download and to read my latest edition of the book, you will find all needed information there.

For the mean time, however, I feel obliged to defend my witness’ testimony (that was intentionally demoted by some folks to the status of “theory”). Do not get me wrong, though. I was not a witness of the WTC demolition. I was not a witness of the damage inflicted to the so-called “bathtub”. My opinion in regard to the mechanics of the WTC demolition is merely an opinion, not a testimony.

When I used the word “testimony” it is not about the demolition mechanics. It is about the fact that while being a commissioned officer of the Soviet Special Control Service in the late ‘80s, I learned about the fact that there was a so-called (translated from Russian back to English) “emergency nuclear demolition scheme” of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York. And this “emergency nuclear demolition scheme” was not based on any so-called “mini-nukes”.

It was based on huge thermonuclear charges (huge enough to incinerate the entire city of New York if detonated above the ground level). This is my witness testimony. But when it comes to the demolition mechanics, I guessed these on my own, by studying technical details pertaining to the actual demolition. Of course, I could be wrong in such a guessing. But I could not be wrong when I stated the fact of the existence of the “nuclear demolition scheme”, because this I knew long time ago – back in the ‘80s.

Another point that I noticed many shills and other “debunkers” of my “theory” love to emphasize that (in accordance with my alleged claims) the demolition nukes were “built” into the TwinTower. This enables them to ridicule my “theory”, of course.

In reality, however, I have never claimed that the actual demolition nukes were allegedly “built-in” into the WTCTwinTowers. I claimed that the actual “emergency nuclear demolition scheme” was their built-in feature. But it does not mean that the actual nukes were permanently embedded into the foundations of the TwinTowers.

It was not so, of course. If you read my book attentively enough or if you watched my video attentively enough, you would notice that I always claimed that the demolition nukes were kept in special premises under the WTC-7 and they were delivered by special underground tunnels with mini-railways under their targets only at the moments before the actual demolition. The shills always ignore these explanations of mine, because they are inconvenient for their cause. However, it should not dupe a serious researcher.

When it comes to Jim Fetzer, he seems to switch to the “mini-nukes” notion along with a certain unknown Jeff Prager not so long time ago. Jeff Prager was an ardent supporter of mine initially. He watched my video, read the first edition of my book and at once agreed with my points.

He began to publish various articles explaining how the WTC buildings were demolished by the 150 kiloton underground thermonuclear chargers and his works were quite impressive (apparently, his English was better than mine and he supplied his explanations with better graphics compared with what was done by me). However, it did not continue for long.

Soon, Prager was noticed by some serious folks and converted into their shill. He was told to promote the ridiculous mini-nukes theory which he has done since then. Actually, it is forgivable for a lay person to support the mini-nukes notion in the absence of any alternative to it.

However, it is no longer forgivable when such a person is acquainted with my explanations – that the WTC was demolished by three thermonuclear charges that were far from being “mini”. Thus, in the case of Prager, it is no longer forgivable – he switched to the “mini-nukes” notion after being acquainted with the Truth.

The same thing could be actually said about Jim Fetzer. He was acquainted with my ideas a very long time ago – being one of the first. He got the first full edition of my book back in 2008 and so he had more than enough time to get my points.

I would like to state firmly that the mini-nukes theory promoted by Jim Fetzer and Jeff Prager is not feasible. In order to prove this to you, I would like to publish an excerpt from my latest book dealing with this particular theory.

This is not to mention that the advocates of the “mini-nukes” theory would never be able to offer you any plausible explanation as to the demolition mechanics. They could explain neither the mechanics of the instant pulverization of structural steel, nor the enormous underground cavities under the three WTC buildings that corresponded to 150 kiloton yields and not to the laughable yields of the alleged “mini-nukes”.

They could not explain the “long-lasting underground fires either”. Unlike those “mini-nukers”, the humble author of these lines was able to explain everything – the demolition mechanics, the pulverization of steel, the enormous underground cavities (like the one shown in the picture below), along with long-lasting “underground fires” that persisted at the depths of a hundred meters for nearly half year.

1 14-38 Tower-4-Site - September-2008

Below you can see a chapter of my book that debunks the mini-nukes conspiracy theory. Additionally, another chapter of my new book that deals with the alleged absence of damage to the so-called “bathtub” will be published separately, here: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=267027

Conspiracy theory No.6 (a/k/a the “mini-nukes” theory): This particular conspiracy theory is the most serious and that is exactly why it shall be addressed in the most carefully manner.

Some people claim that the U.S. Government (or as a variety – Osama bin Laden’s so-called “warriors of Islam”, or possibly, also Saddam Hussein’s secret emissaries) allegedly deployed low-caliber nuclear charges, Special Atomic Demolition Munitions (SADMs), commonly known as “mini-nukes”, to demolish the Twin Towers by exploding these kind of devices in their basement floors.

Some alleged “witnesses” went as far as even to claim to “hear explosions” on the WTC basement floors. In fact, this conspiracy theory became very popular especially during the last couple of years and even a special term “nukers” was coined to call its proponents.

2 NYC-091101-2

Strange photograph found on http://www.globalsecurity.org/eye/html/wtc_nyc-091101-2.htm

Above is a very seditious photograph that was originally published on the NASA web site as an “image of the day” and claimed to be a “SPOT satellite image of Manhattan, acquired on September 11 at 11:55 AM EST”.

It was truly suspicious when this photo was removed the very next day from the official NASA web site and it could be no longer found in the NASA archives despite being the “image of the day” on such an auspicious date as September the 11th.

This image is apparently bogus because the three black spots shown on it have never existed in reality. They could not be found on any other contemporary image – either a satellite- or an aerial. It appears that this “seditious” photo was concocted by NASA on purpose.

Someone tried very hard to “imply” that there were three (again not two, but three) alleged small atmospheric nuclear explosions in the WTC area – because only an atmospheric (and not an underground) nuclear explosion could cause such burning areas as those three shown on that image.

It does not matter that the hypocenters of the three implied “mini-nukes explosions” do not match the actual hypocenters of the explosions that brought down the WTC Twin Towers and the building #7 in reality. It does not matter that the bogus image was claimed to be shot at “11.55 AM EST” – i.e. when the third explosion (that destroyed the WTC-7) had not occurred yet.

What matters is the very attempt to produce such bogus “evidence”. It is understandable why it was so done: it was not clear yet on September the 11th what would be a public version of the 9/11 “truth”. The most probable option the governmental spin-doctors apparently considered to feed to the gullible public was the “mini-nukes” story.

Only a day later it was finally decided to blame the WTC collapses on kerosene, so the “mini-nukes” theory was left for the exclusive consumption of the mid-level politicians and mid-ranking security officials. Thus, the initial “evidence” concocted by NASA became “politically incorrect” and was promptly removed.

Coming back to the “mini-nukes theory”. This particular theory must be considered especially carefully, because there are all reasonable grounds to believe, that the very U.S. Government in its cumbersome and desperate attempt to conceal truth about the 9/11 attacks, exploits this theory as a “confidential” version of “truth” about 9/11 intended for various “patricians”.

I feel that it is my primary duty – to disprove this particular Theory No. 6 – irrespective of whether such “mini-nukes” might belong to Osama bin Laden, to Mullah Mohammed Omar, to Saddam Hussein, to Larry Silverstein, to the Mossad, to the Freemasonic Order, or to the U.S. Government itself.

Here it is: even if this particular theory might look to some people very much like resembling the truth, (actually it is quite plausible in comparison with the rest of the bizarre theories above), still, it is very, very far from the actual truth.

Proponents of this particular theory normally use the following arguments to support their claims:

– 6.1. Seismic “evidence”. Fake seismograms “implying” that the WTC was demolished by “mini-nukes”.

3 Seismogramme

One of such seismograms which purports to show the two alleged explosions of “mini-nukes” under the WTC South and North Towers – allegedly “filtered” in diapason 0.6 – 5 Hz.

Widely circulated in the Internet (and admitted by the U.S. Government to be true – one may only guess why the U.S. Government did not deny their authenticity???) two supposed seismograms from seismographs of the Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC (shown above), allegedly recorded some suspicious seismic activity on September 11, 2001.

To say precisely – they recorded nothing else than two underground nuclear explosions under the WTC site – at 9:59:04 and at 10:28:31 (those several seconds in time difference between actual beginnings of Twin Towers’ collapse and the seismograph’s recordings were due to the time required for seismic waves to travel 21 miles from Manhattan to Palisades).

The proponents of the “Conspiracy Theory No.6” (as we called it here) claim that this is allegedly a “proof” that the “mini-nukes” have indeed exploded under the WTC Twins.

I will not say anything first, but only put this preliminary question: are they really sure about “mini-nukes”? Just read further and you will also doubt that it might have been “mini-nukes”.

On these seismograms (being widely circulated in the Internet and being freely available until now on the Columbia University website: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html ) are clearly visible two supposed underground nuclear explosions – at 09:59:04 and at 10:28:31. These two were supposed to be nuclear explosions, without any doubt; they can not be mistaken with anything else – the two spikes are simply too short in time and too big in amplitude, to be mistaken with an earthquake…

Still, it does not mean that these seismograms are necessarily genuine – it could be as well a part of the U.S. Government’s covert support for their concoction for the “patricians” and their “leakage” to the wilderness of the Internet might have been intentional. We have to be cynical when we deal with such types of easily available “evidence”. Let us consider these seismograms more carefully.

– 6.1.1. What is most doubtful is that the U.S. Government and the FBI, who confiscated all videos of the alleged plane which hit the Pentagon, and who do not want until now (this being said in June 2008) to release passenger-lists of the four allegedly “hijacked” planes, nevertheless, still tolerate the presence of these seditious seismograms on the official web site of the Columbia University.

The mere fact of these seismograms’ existence on the official web site, somewhere in the Internet within the U.S. jurisdiction, is the best proof that these seismograms are bogus. They apparently serve some special purpose beneficial to the U.S. Government (at least, covertly) and therefore they must be automatically presumed to be fraudulent.

Besides, the two seismic peaks in these seismograms are also too clear – it seems that someone made them by hand and a ruler – just to make sure that even a lay person would not miss to notice the two nuclear explosions on these pictures.

– 6.1.2. What is particularly doubtful in these seismograms is that the magnitudes of the seismic spikes are unreasonably low. It seems that “someone” had really tried his best to “prove” to us that it was “mini-nukes” and not anything stronger than that.

Moreover, magnitudes of these two spikes – 2.1 and 2.3 on the Richter scale respectively – also attract some doubts. The two nuclear charges which demolished the two Towers were supposed to be of the same caliber. It is because nuclear weapons (especially high-tech “mini-nukes” – which could only be produced by developed countries) are very precisely wrought devises, so both nuclear explosions were supposed to go off at the exact same yield.

Since both alleged nuclear explosions supposedly happened at the same location – with similar ground structure and similar distance to the seismic station – both of them should have caused seismic spikes with equal magnitudes.

However, there could be a following effect: both nuclear explosions (presumed to happen underground) were supposed to create underground cavities – which are typical for any and every underground nuclear explosion.

Since the positions of the two nuclear charges might have been close to each other, their respective cavities might in theory overlap each other (at least, in a rude approximation – if we disregard any precise mathematic calculations). In this case the energy of the second underground explosion communicated to the earth would be lower than that of the first one, because it would be partly decoupled by the adjacent (and probably overlapped) cavity left by the first explosion.

Strangely, in this particular seismogram it is vice-versa – the first spike is only 2.1 and the second one – is 2.3… This alone is not a proof, of course, it is only a suspicion, and in this particular sense I could be mistaken, but I am sure that I am not. Anyhow, these seismograms are false and it will be proven below by some other logical considerations.

– 6.1.3. Besides the above mentioned seismogram, the same webpage of the Columbia University site[1] published the following table which purports to represent the 9/11 seismic events:

However, before analyzing the below seismic table, please, try to remember that:

1) aluminum projectiles can not penetrate steel targets, even in theory;

2) suicidal hijackers can not survive their suicidal missions;

3) real planes’ impacts can not cause black frames right in the middle of the impact scenes recorded by various video-recording equipment;

4) cellular phones can not function at the cruise altitudes of commercial airliners;

5) commercial aircraft can not fly at their full cruise speeds at altitudes of only 350 meters above the ground;

6) typical Saudi-Arabian passports are made from some pretty common paper and cardboard and they can not survive infernos caused by the impacts of fully loaded aircraft (in order to be later found somewhere below the spots of the supposed impacts).

Just remember that there were no physical planes that really hit the Twin Towers on 9/11. Thus, anything that deals with alleged effects of the alleged “planes’” impacts must be presumed to be bogus by default.

Now, at last, you can look at the below table:

4 Seismic Table from Columbia University site

Do you see any cheating? If not, I will point it out to you. It will be proven below successfully, but just for the simplicity’s sake, please take it now as if it is already a proven fact: the WTC-7 was also demolished by an underground nuclear explosion – exactly in the same manner as the WTC-1 and WTC-2. OK?

We see that those “seismic specialists” at service of the 9/11 cheaters wanted to prove to us that an underground explosion under the WTC-7 which actually caused its collapse was supposedly only a 0.6 magnitude seismic event, while the impacts of the “planes” as high as several hundred meters above the ground were respectively 0.9 and 0.7 magnitude seismic events? And they want us to believe them?

Here is the second very well known fact: when in 1993 some guys detonated alleged “over half ton of explosives” in the basement floor of the WTC (in fact it was a mini-nuclear explosion of about 0.1 kiloton, but this is the “patrician” truth and we will consider it in detail in a separate chapter) it was not detected by any seismic station – either in the Columbia University, or anywhere else.

Why did it so happened? Because those folks who work in the Columbia University would “detect” only those things the U.S. Government and the FBI approve.

The alleged “conventional explosion” of 1993 was supposedly “not detected” [for the plebeians] simply because specialists who worked in that seismic laboratory understood very well that a mere “half ton of TNT” exploded underground was still too little to communicate to our planet Earth enough energy to cause any noticeable seismic signal.

Of course, even a conventional explosion of half-ton of TNT would still communicate some little energy to the Earth, but it would not be possible to notice such a minor seismic event against a general seismic background – which represents a kind of permanent “noise” of a certain magnitude.

That is why, despite the fact that a real mini-nuclear explosion in 1993 was definitely detected (it supposed to cause a seismic signal of at least 2.5 or even higher on the Richter scale), it could not have been reported to the plebeians, for whom it was claimed to be a “conventional” explosion of a “half-ton”, undetectable by the seismic means.

What could we conclude analyzing this piece of information? First, we could be sure that those seismic “specialists” from the Columbia University are not as “independent” as they may appear. They would lie to us if the FBI orders them to do so. Thus, we have to be rather careful when dealing with these liars.

Secondly, we could guess that a half-ton of TNT exploded underground in the location of the WTC Twin Towers would be such a minor seismic event, that it would not be technically possible to detect it (and this postulate was successfully proven by the very specialists of the same seismic laboratory who refused to detect for the plebeian consumption the alleged “half-ton of TNT” explosion in 1993).

How come then, that the two “planes’ impacts”, which happened above the ground had been detected by this seismic station? And moreover, not only “detected”, but detected with certain magnitudes comparable even to those of real “mini-nukes” explosions underground?

One does not have even to doubt that he is being cheated by these “seismograms”. Those rogue guys from the Columbia University who published such a concoction, were acting under the FBI’s instruction – which wanted to produce some plausible “evidence” that it was indeed terrorist “mini-nukes” (in the case of the WTC-1 and the WTC-2) and nothing explosive at all in the case of the WTC-7.

These suspicious seismograms were just a necessary part of the “patrician” version of the 9/11 “truth” and nothing more than that. In addition to this, the cheaters went as far as to trying to prove to us that there were some “planes’ impacts”, thus implying not only that aluminum projectiles could penetrate steel, but also that such processes could allegedly cause noticeable seismic signals…

Just to conclude: these seismograms might be for the gullible “patricians”, or even for the most discerning “plebeians”, but they are definitely not for the “barbarians” like us and we shall not be duped by them[2].

– 6.1.4. The magnitudes of the two alleged nuclear explosions shown by these seismograms. What do you think: which kinds of devices those magnitudes of 2.1 and 2.3 are supposed to belong to? I will quote here something verifiable – found after a long search on the U.S. Government’s website[3]. I am quoting:

“…A 1-kiloton nuclear explosion creates a seismic signal of 4.0. There are about 7,500 seismic events worldwide each year with magnitudes >4.0. At this magnitude, all such events in continental regions could be detected and identified with current or planned networks.

If, however, a country were able to decouple successfully a 1-kiloton explosion in a large underground cavity, the muffled seismic signal generated by the explosion might be equivalent to 0.015 kilotons and have a seismic magnitude of 2.5.

Although a detection threshold of 2.5 could be achieved, there are over 100,000 events worldwide each year with magnitudes >2.5. Even if event discrimination were 99% successful, many events would still not be identified by seismic means alone.

Furthermore, at this level, one must distinguish possible nuclear tests not only from earthquakes but also from chemical explosions used for legitimate industrial purposes…”

Statement by Dr. Peter Leitner, Author: “Decontrolling Strategic Technology, 1990-1992,” before the Joint Economic Committee United States Congress Tuesday, April 28, 1998.

“Technology Decontrols: Striking at the Heart of U.S. National Security”.

__________________________________

As everybody could see, the U.S. Government was actually obsessed with the “mini-nukes” which might be used against it as long ago as in 1998 – otherwise, the U.S. Congress wouldn’t even hold such a specific hearing. It should be noted in this regard, that the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania[4] had not been bombed yet at that moment, and the 1983 nuclear bombing of the American marines in Beirut[5] had been forgotten as 15 years had passed.

However, at least three major terror actions were perpetrated recently where at least three “mini-nukes” have been used against the United States. One – in the first WTC bombing in 1993, one – in the 1995 Oklahoma bombing, and one – in the case of 1996 “Khobar Towers bombing” of the U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.

Anyway, we are not interested right now in the actual development of that “mini-nuclear” intrigue (it will be discussed in detail later in this book). Now we are interested only in digits that could be derived from the above quotation: a fully contained underground nuclear explosion of one kiloton in TNT yield would create a seismic signal with magnitude of 4.0 – as claimed by the U.S. Government’s own specialist. While a fully contained underground nuclear explosion of 0.015 kiloton, as well as a properly decoupled (for cheating reasons) underground explosion of 1 kiloton would both create a seismic signal of about 2.5.

Since the supposed explosions of the “terrorist mini-nukes” in the lowest underground floors of the WTC Twin Towers would never be real underground nuclear explosions, they would communicate to the Earth much lesser amounts of the energy in comparison with the respective explosions of the same yield which are truly underground ones.

I guess it is clear. If you simply bring a “mini-nuke” into a basement of the WTC (let’s say, into its lowest underground parking floor) and detonate it there, its energy, which would supposedly cause the seismic signal, would be largely disseminated in the basement.

By no means such an explosion could be considered being truly “underground”. It would be a normal atmospheric nuclear explosion and it would be quite complicated to measure its exact yield based on the seismic data alone – which was designed to measure exactly only real deep underground explosions and not the explosions in spacious underground parking lots. In the latter’s case such a measurement would only be guessing.

Let us try to guess now – what those cheaters from the Columbia University attempted to tell us (if we were the gullible “patricians” or the “discerning plebeians”, I mean) by their “seismograms”?

Here is just one of the basic premises. It is believed that if some country possesses a ready underground cavity of 100 meters in diameter (such as the one left by a former underground explosion of ~150 kiloton).

And if this country would detonate inside such a ready cavity a new nuclear charge of 1 kiloton (in order to secretly avoid the nuclear testing ban), such a secret explosion would not be detected at all by controlling services of other counties. It is because its seismic signal would be almost completely muffled by the existing cavity.

The above was just an example that one who is guessing could base his calculations upon, because it would be really difficult to guess if you do not have any basic data at all.

Again, what did those cheaters, who drew those seismograms with perfectly clear spikes of 2.1 and 2.3 in magnitudes, want to say to the “patricians”? In my opinion, they wanted to say the following: “terrorists” detonated two “mini-nukes” of 1 kiloton in TNT yield in the basements of the WTC, but their seismic signals were decoupled by empty spaces of the basements. Thus, it shows slightly above 2.1, instead of the 4 – expected in case of a “normal” deep underground explosion of one kiloton.

The “patricians” are supposed to agree with such “logic” and to believe that these two suspiciously perfect spikes of nuclear explosions were indeed caused by the “mini-nukes” that demolished the WTC-1 and the WTC-2. While the WTC-7 was demolished without any “nuclear” spike at all – it simply “fell by itself”. And the “patricians” have apparently believed such a confidential “truth”.

– 6.1.5. I quote here again the phrase taken from the abovementioned Statement by Dr. Peter Leitner: “…Although a detection threshold of 2.5 could be achieved…” Does anyone understand what it means?

It means that magnitude 2.5 is such a low magnitude that a specific seismic signal of 2.5 could be barely recognized at all against the noisy seismic background which has about the same peak magnitude. Even though he admits that it is still possible to distinguish a nuclear spike of 2.5, this would be an extremely difficult task to achieve.

Note: it was about 2.5. And what do you think about 2.3 and 2.1? Could their detection threshold be so successfully achieved as shown in the abovementioned seismograms? Where the two supposed “nuclear spikes” are so distinct against the completely absent background seismic noise which itself supposed to reach from time to time 2.5 in its maximum? Is your intelligence insulted yet?

However, even this is not all. Not only have the 2.3 and 2.1 seismic spikes been successfully “detected” by those perspicacious guys from the Columbia University. They managed to successfully “detect” the alleged seismic signals of the “planes’” impacts and even the “conventional” WTC-7 collapse, which, according to their ravings, has produced a seismic signal as low as only 0.6 (look carefully at the above table and the above seismograms for the confirmation).

Moreover, it shall be known that it is normal to filter seismic signals for a reason of distinguishing suspected nuclear explosions from ordinary earthquakes at 0.6 Hz alone. Sometimes they also filter the seismic data at 1.25 Hz alone. But look at that bogus seismogram picture above – they claim on it that the seismic signals were filtered in diapason raging from 0.6 till 5 Hz… And still those alleged “spikes” of such an unbelievably low magnitudes are distinct against absolutely noiseless background…

I will quote here again something important from the abovementioned Statement by Dr. Peter Leitner: “….There are about 7,500 seismic events worldwide each year with magnitudes >4.0… there are over 100,000 events worldwide each year with magnitudes >2.5…”

Now just try to imagine how many seismic events happens each year with magnitude >2, how many – with magnitude >1, and how many – with magnitude >0.5. Imagined? Now try to divide that imaginary number by 365 – to see how many of them happen every day. Now again – divide the resulting digit by 24 – to see how many of them happen every hour.

And now – please, look at that “seismogram” again and take notice that it allegedly embraces a period of time of roughly 3 hours. Did you see any trace of those supposed extraneous seismic events? I guess everybody understands, that those rogue guys from the Columbia University simply laugh at us by using our supposed ignorance…

5 Lop Nor 700-800 kt nuclear test

The above is a seismogram of the May 21, 1992, Lop Nor (Chinese nuclear testing ground) underground nuclear explosion believed to be in between 700 and 1800 kiloton in TNT yield. This seismogram was obviously filtered in much narrower frequency diapason since it is professional. It is just for comparison.

6 Sesimogram of earthquake (above) & nuclear explosion (below)

These are another two seismograms: the above – of a typical earthquake, below – of a typical nuclear test. This is how a real seismogram is supposed to look like. Try to compare it with that of the Columbia University.

I hope it is clear enough that these notorious “seismograms” concocted by the Columbia University were primarily intended to cheat some people (apparently, not the “plebeians”, but the “patricians”) to the effect that some “mini-nukes” have been allegedly used by those brutal “Muslim terrorists” to demolish the TwinTowers. But we have successfully proved it here that those “seismograms” themselves are cheating stuff.

Thus, anything what they purported to represent should be logically presumed to be cheating also: it was not “mini-nukes” that demolished the TwinTowers and the WTC-7, it was something different…

Later, in the Chapter devoted to the actual nuclear demolition of the TwinTowers, it will be proven that the people from Columbia University cheated us, again, and the real seismic events before the Towers began to collapse were well over 5.5 on the Richter Scale; but for now the abovementioned is sufficient.

– 6.2. Another argument of the proponents of the above theory is that the supposed Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) of those alleged mini-nuclear explosions, in the basement floors of the WTC, was so “powerful” that it even caused passenger cars parked along some streets adjacent to the spot to explode with their doors burst open and to cause such cars to be partly burned down.

There were even some “eye-witnesses” hired to testify to this effect. The most peculiar thing was that several half-burned (for some truly unknown reason) cars have been indeed found on adjacent streets and have been photographed accordingly. This led to reasonable suspicions that this was nothing else than a special trick intended to “adjust” evidence to this particular claim.

It was especially suspicious, because such “half-burned” cars have been indeed nicely and exactly “half”-burned – such as shown on the left picture below. It is pretty obvious that these cars were not “half-burned” by any “mini-nukes”, but were subjected to blow-lamps and hammers of the FBI agents who were deployed around ground zero with a task to inflict the typical “atomic” damage. This “half-burned” car is no more “genuine” than the above “seismograms”…

7 car_half-burned_combined

Left: Peculiar nicely “half-burned” police car in the immediate vicinity of the WTC.

Right: Another police car – in even closer proximity to WTC – which managed not to be “half-burned”.

We will review a few more pictures of the artificially half-burned cars later, but now let us try to look at the naturally half-burned car for comparison:

8 Bali Bomb Blast Cars

The most seditious picture of 2002 Bali Bombing. A naturally “half-burned” green car – the genuine forensic signature of an atmospheric nuclear explosion.

Here is a “naturally” half-burned car after a real “mini-nuclear” explosion – known as “2002 Bali Bombing”. It is just for comparison – compare it with that so nicely and so precisely “half-burned” police car above…

Please, note that this well-known effect of “half-burning” of cars during an atmospheric nuclear explosion in the open actually occurs not because of EMP. It occurs because of extreme heat caused by radiation from fireballs of the nuclear explosion in visible spectrum (which has the very same nature as normal light as received from our Sun, but much more intense).

Note also that the green car in the case of 2002 Bali bombing was not burned by ordinary flames, because its “shady” parts peculiarly managed to retain their green painting, which won’t happen in case of common fires. Those parts of the car which faced the nuclear fireballs were shortly subjected to intense irradiated heat, but not to actual flames.

You can also imagine what kind of burns such thermal radiation would cause to people’s skin: people who happen to be there would be also “half-burned” – the burns covering about 45% of their bodies.

Someone might wonder (we are talking about the photo of the Bali bombing) – why did the farther vehicle lose its painting completely even on its “shady” parts?

It is because its position was sufficiently closer to the hypocenter of the nuclear explosion and so it occurred within a zone of higher temperatures. The green car was apparently more “lucky” – its position was farther from ground zero[6]. The “micro-nuke” in the Bali case was indeed “micro” – its explosive yield was between 0.01 and 0.015 kiloton only – in this case every meter counts when it comes to the radiuses of its destruction zones; thus, the position of the farther car on that photo indeed makes the difference.

The consequences of the 2002 Bali bombing as shown in this “seditious” picture clearly testify that it was an “open” nuclear explosion, while it was not the case in the WorldTradeCenter.

People in the case of the 2002 Bali bombing received heavy burns – very typical for an atmospheric nuclear explosion – i.e. burns covering exactly 45% of their bodies, plus heavy radiation injuries. Many of them died in the next couple of days, and almost all the rest – died in about 30 days time (30th-31st day is a standard “dead-line” – to die from moderate forms of radiation sickness).

Moreover, all these people who wandered around this area of the recent nuclear explosion, had a good chance to die from radiation sickness too – because they apparently inhaled deadly microscopic radioactive dust – abundant in the shown zone.

Now, at last, you could imagine an approximate direction of propagation of thermal radiation in the case of that green car in the event of the 2002 Bali bombing. To figure out this direction is relatively easy by looking at the remaining green parts of the car and imagining that these parts were in a “shady” side regarding the actual nuclear fireballs. The actual “shade” that saved some green painting could have been provided by two factors:

1) by actual position of the green car towards the fireballs of nuclear explosion;

2) by some extraneous subjects partly shielding the car from thermal radiation emanating from the nuclear fireballs, such as some buildings in between, other cars, trees, etc.

Now, please, try to determine a potential direction of propagation of thermal radiation in the case of that nicely “half-burned” police car supposedly found in the WTC “Ground Zero”, as shown in the first picture.

It is not possible to figure out such a direction, unfortunately, due to the fact that “half-burning” is too precise (and too stupid, to say the least). The fact that you are not able to establish the direction of the suggested “thermal radiation” is the very proof of that “half-burned car” being false evidence. That car was apparently “half-burned” by a blow lamp…

Coming back to the claims about the alleged “EMP”. The claim about EMP is utterly unreasonable and could only be put forward by the people who know absolutely nothing about the true nature of such Electromagnetic Pulse resulting from a nuclear explosion (or possibly by those pretending not to know it).

The problem is that if it were true that there was such powerful Electromagnetic Pulse as claimed that it was even able to cause cars to burst open and even to half-burn them, then EMP would first damage all electronic devices in the surrounding area (starting from microelectronic devices, of course) and relatively robust passenger cars would definitely occupy last positions in a list of potential “victims” of that EMP.

I think that general ignorance of the gullible public should not have been exploited so shamelessly like in the case of this particular claim. It should be known that any Electromagnetic Pulse resulting from any nuclear explosion would completely and without any doubt interrupt any and every kind of communication channels – be it radio or even wired ones – around that area.

This apparently did not happen around the time of the Towers’ collapse. Neither radio-communications between firefighters, nor any radio- or TV- news coverage had been interrupted.

It should be noted that all various radio-communication equipment belonging to firefighters and to police officers and all electronic medical equipment belonging to paramedics (not to mention mobile phones, pagers, computers, TV-sets, radios, digital photo- and video- cameras and even digital wrist-watches of the ordinary people around the WTC) remained in working condition; if any were damaged it was only due to mechanical damage – caused by debris or by dust, but definitely not by any EMP.

Yes, there were also well-known shortages in electricity supplies, as well as some interrupts in radio-communications and in mobile phone services connected to the Twin Towers’ collapse, as well as some interrupts in a fixed telephone system. However, you could probably understand that all those shortages and interrupts had not been caused by any Electromagnetic Pulse as alleged.

These interrupts occurred only because the collapsed Towers used to contain certain radio-communication repeaters and cellular transmitters. And, partly, also due to mechanical damage caused to the surrounding area – as a result of which there were some power-lines and fixed telephone-lines damaged. This was the very factor which caused some power shortages and some communications interrupts.

However, all the communication devices, even those that did not actually function immediately after the collapse, still, remained electronically undamaged and could resume their functioning later. You could be pretty sure that there had never been any Electromagnetic Pulse strong enough to be even noticed and this entire argument shall be discarded at once as the most ridiculous speculation.

However, the facts concerning EMP as mentioned above are good to remember for future use. It is because EMP is nothing else than an inalienable part of any and every nuclear explosion (except only a deeply buried underground one). Thus, the fact of the absence of any EMP in the abovementioned case would be needed for the future disproof of any lies in regard to alleged nuclear munitions which might supposedly “explode” in either the basements or even in the deepest underground floors of the WTC.

– 6.3. More about the “half-burned” cars.

The fakery with the “half-burned” cars around the WTC appears to be quite serious, because this FBI’s concoction was sincerely believed by many simpletons and now many gullible people try to base their theories on this particular false presumption.

I have encountered allusions to the “half-burned” cars in various discussions on the Internet and it seems that people are badly duped by this concocted story. I feel it would be a crime if I didn’t devote some time to disproving this particular fakery.

From the picture above (where the naturally half-burned green car during the 2002 Bali nuclear bombing is shown) you can have a clue – how the naturally half-burned car should look like and how it should be orientated towards the fireballs of a nuclear explosion that actually caused the half-burning.

Armed with this basic knowledge, let us subject to our critical review those few pictures of “half-burned” cars found around the WTC.

This particular collection of the “half-burned” cars was assembled by not unknown Judy Wood and is available on her web site: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html

These images of the “half-burned” cars are very popular among various 9/11 conspiracy theorists nowadays. Some minority of them try to stretch this supposed “evidence” to justify their bizarre “laser-beams-from-the-space theory” (like Judy Wood, who compiled the photos exactly for that reason, and her followers).

However, the majority of such conspiracy theorists try to use this so-called “evidence” in a more direct way (exactly in the way it was intended by the “half-burners”) – i.e. as an alleged “proof” of a thermal radiation of supposed atmospheric nuclear explosions caused by the alleged “mini-nukes”.

Now I will prove to you that this so-called “evidence” is fake and it cannot be used for any theory at all, except for pointing the accusing finger at the shameless U.S. government agents who half-burned these cars in the immediate aftermath of the Twin Towers nuclear demolition. Let us begin with this picture:

9 Image8

What does the “half-burning” of a white car in front intended to represent?

I think the intention of the “half-burners” is pretty clear. They wanted to show (to those who would buy their concoction) that the white car was allegedly subjected to thermal radiation coming from the front side of the car, from above, under ~45° vertical angle.

This would be a typical effect of an atmospheric nuclear explosion occurring slightly above the ground level (or at the ground level, because the nuclear fireballs might reach a certain altitude of tens of meters even if the actual detonation of a nuke took place right on the Earth’s surface).

What is wrong here? Apparently, if the half-burning was a genuine thing (I mean not caused by a blow-lamp of an FBI agent, but by thermal radiation of real nuclear fireballs) then it would burn the bonnet(the hood) of this car, but would spare the two back posts (located to either side from the back window) because these would be in the “shade” of thermal radiation.

However, in this picture we see quite an opposite effect – which is the best proof that it is indeed a fakery. Another important thing is conspicuously missing in this concoction – a supposed effect of an impact by air-blast wave that must come from the same direction as alleged “thermal radiation”. The car must have been smashed by the impact of the blast-wave directed from the front side, from above, under ~45° vertical degrees angle. However, it is not smashed here…

10 Image174

The car on the picture above is a much better work. Those “half-burners” took care not only to “half-burn” the car, but also to produce an effect of “smashing” from the same direction. So, this one is much more impressive than the poor concoction on the first picture.

Still, if you look at it with a critical eye, you can see that this production is far from being realistic as well (just compare it with the green car from the 2002 Bali bombing case which we will hold as a “standard” of natural half-burning of cars by an atomic blast).

11 Image18swamp

The above one is as poor a production as was the first car – the “half-burning” is too “precise” to be “natural”. Moreover, the expected effect of the air-blast wave was neglected to such an extent that the folks who produced this car did not even bother to smash (or at least to melt with a blow-lamp) a rotating beacon mounted on the car’s roof…

12 Image9

The above one again represents a much better work. The folks who produced this car did not forget to produce the effect of smashing (at least, they did not leave the rotating beacon on the car’s roof intact). Nonetheless, the actual “half-burning” does not match any reasonable orientation of the car towards the supposed source of thermal radiation and this is pretty obvious.

The picture below is quite revealing, because it shows a nicely “half-burned” police care flanked by a non-police car that did not suffer any alleged “atomic” damage at all. This, by the way, is the very same police car with the number of “2723” that was shown on two previous pictures, but this time it was captured by a politically incorrect photographer in its original position, i.e. before it was towed away:

13 1209020_5

The next picture below is the most seditious, because it shows the very process of the “half-burning” of one police car.

14 Image168

Note that the “half-burning” of cars was oddly a very “selective” process. While the police car is being “half-burned”, the rest of the cars around are not.

Most probably, it was an order given to some police (and most probably FBI’s) units to half-burn their own cars, and the policemen, being obedient government servants, did not dare to half-burn surrounding cars that were not theirs (at least, I have no other explanation to this particular discrepancy).

Besides, it is clearly noticeable on the picture above that the “half-burning” of the police car (“NYPD” letters on its door stand for “New York Police Department” in case someone doesn’t know) has nothing to do with the actual Twin Towers’ collapse.

The Towers had collapsed some time ago – because here sidewalks and the actual car are covered in the well-known WTC dust, moreover, the dust, that used to be suspended in the air during first ~30 minutes, has already subsided, judging by the fact that the visibility here is almost perfect.

The incriminating scene must have been captured by the photographer at least an hour- or even more after the actual WTC collapse.

15 2431

Here is another seditious picture, but this time of a fully-burning car.

As you can notice on the very first picture, some cars were “half-burned”, while some others – were “fully-burned”. Apparently, the “fully-burned” cars were intended to represent cars that occurred closer to the hypocenter of the supposed “atmospheric nuclear explosion” and so came into the zones of high temperatures in their entirety.

People, who organized this show, apparently knew how cars located on various distances from a hypocenter of an atmospheric nuclear explosion should look like. Therefore they ordered the job to be done accordingly.

What is interesting to notice here is that the “burning” of cars is suspiciously “selective” again. The dark-red van is being surprisingly spared by the supposed thermal radiation… This is not to mention numerous leafs of paper scattered around that peculiarly refused to inflame from the supposed “nuclear fireballs” either…

I hope I made it clear to everyone that the infamous “half-burning” of cars around the WTC was nothing else than false evidence and we don’t have to bother considering any conspiracy theories based on it.

– 6.4. One more argument of the proponents of the “mini-nukes” theory is that they claim that many people who happened to be around the WTC area shortly before the Twin Towers began to collapse, allegedly developed such “typical after-nuclear” ailments, as they[7] call it “…burned or hanging skin, without fire, like so many Hiroshima victims…”.

Apparently none of such people have ever had any chance to see any “Hiroshima victims” in order to examine their skin; still, they continue to claim that nonsense.

The problem is that any kind of skin disease resulting from the nuclear explosion could only be caused by radiation – in either visible spectrum, as well as its infra-red and especially ultra-violet sub-varieties (i.e. by direct burns from its thermal radiation), or in invisible spectrum (i.e. by the direct impact of invisible gamma- and especially beta-radiations + neutron-rays emanating from the same source – which is normally referred to as “penetrating radiation”).

If we imagine that alleged explosions of the “mini-nukes” in the basement floors of the Twin Towers were so “open” that they even caused skin damage to some people, why then did the actual nuclear fireballs go unnoticed by anyone?

One might imagine that such nuclear fireballs should have outshined our Sun by at least 10-fold. Those who would be unlucky to look into such a thing directly would definitely loose their ability to see anything for at least a couple of minutes, if not for a couple of hours. Did anyone notice anything similar?

And in any case if there would be some radiation capable of damaging skin, then, automatically, there would be also very strong EMP (exactly as described in the above Clause 6.2) emanating from the same source. This, without a doubt, would have damaged all electronic devices in the surrounding area and interrupted all kinds of telecommunications.

In addition to EMP, there would have been another effect expected. All those visible and invisible rays, capable of damaging skin (including not only ultra-violet and gamma-rays, but also X-rays), would additionally destroy (overexpose) all photo films. Those days many people still had old-fashioned non-digital cameras, which used ordinary negative films, which were highly vulnerable to such radiation – even in case if this gamma-radiation enters not through its lens and an open shutter, but penetrates via the camera’s thin plastic case.

Apparently, this did not happen in reality – everybody could still use their mobile phone and have their negative film developed without any slightest sign of its being overexposed.

In any case one shall remember that a nuclear weapon (even such a small one as a so-called “mini-nuke” of only 1 kiloton in TNT yield) is still an extremely dangerous thing. It would necessarily produce some ionizing radiation strong enough to lethally injure people in its close proximity and to seriously (with a probable rate of further lethality of 90% and more) – injure standing people even in distances of several hundred meters.

Moreover, unlike radiation injuries caused by cumulative doses of radioactive contamination (that are usually chronic, proceeding in man’s body largely unnoticed but cause leukemia or various kinds of cancer several years later), radiation injuries caused by a hard front of penetrating radiation would always cause injuries that are acute – i.e. immediately noticeable: ailments within the first couple of hours and possible deaths within several days.

One might make his own calculation based on this premise. 1 kiloton of a nuclear explosion would produce a front of penetrating radiation with strength capable to fatally injure standing people in distances of up to 800 meters – because they would get lethal doses of 500-600 Roentgen (or you can measure it in “rem” units, which is about the same[8]).

In further distances (let’s say, slightly over 1 kilometer) standing people would acquire 200-300 R doses, which would cause extremely heavy cases of acute radiation sickness (with a rate of mortality up to 90%). And even in farther distances standing people would acquire still over 100 R doses which would cause not necessarily heavy cases of radiation sickness, but nevertheless acute[9] cases of it.

The consideration above was applicable to a single nuclear explosion of 1 kiloton. Consider also that there should have been two (one for the WTC-1 and another one – for the WTC-2) “mini-nukes”, which supposed to go off shortly one after another. It shall be presumed then that everyone in this area and around should have been struck not by just one front of penetrating radiation, but by two.

It should be known also that any kind of acquired radiation dose (be it from either instant penetrating radiation or from radioactive contamination) has a “cumulative” nature – meaning that different amounts of radiation doses acquired on several instances could be summarized.

If someone has received a not yet lethal dose (but very close to the lethal dose) by penetration radiation from the first blast of the “mini-nuke”, then, from the explosion of the second “mini-nuke” 30 minutes later it would be guaranteed for him to get a dose about twice as much as the nominally lethal one.

The same calculation is also applicable to the people standing in father distances. Let’s say, someone, whose position was 1,5 km away from the spot, gets only 100 R from the first explosion of the supposed “mini-nuke”. His condition due to radiation sickness would not be life-threatening yet (he would also develop acute radiation sickness, but in a light form, which will probably in a couple of months heal itself even without any specific medical treatment).

However, when he is struck by the front of penetration radiation from the second explosion of the “mini-nuke” only 30 minutes later, he would get another 100 R (so he will acquire 200 R in summary). This will cause already heavy condition – the ensuing acute heavy radiation sickness will be life-threatening – with a high probability of death.

Let us draw a logical conclusion. If any “mini-nuke” (especially if it were two “mini-nukes”, not just one) would really explode in the basement floors of the WTC Twin Towers as claimed – without any doubt it would cause a lot of cases of acute radiation sickness.

These cases would range from lethal ones (when the people will die in a few days even despite medical treatment) and very heavy ones (when the people would require such a serious medical treatment as a bone marrow transplantation) to just light and medium ones – which would cause many people to feel immediately sick and remain sick for weeks and also cause some deaths, even despite medical treatment. Apparently, this did not happen as well – nobody is known to be hospitalized with any symptom of acute radiation sickness immediately after 9/11.

Actually, all cases of radiation sickness related to the WTC nuclear demolition (practically only among ground zero workers and among nearby Manhattan residents) were chronic rather than acute. They were caused not by penetrating radiation that supposes to instantly emanate from an actual nuclear explosion, but by radioactive contamination, especially by radioactive vapor – which was a totally different case.

Considering all said above, one may conclude that it was impossible that the alleged radiation in visible spectrum might have caused some skin diseases (as claimed) while in the same time there were not any noticed cases of acute radiation sickness caused by the penetrating radiation, which is an inalienable part of any nuclear explosion. Thus, the above argument is also nothing else than a ridiculous speculation.

– 6.5. Another argument of the proponents of the “mini-nukes” theory is that they try to use the fact that there were practically no dead bodies and not even body parts found among the main pile of the WTC debris (since all what was found there was just only that well-known microscopic dust). This fact led some conspiracy theorists to yet another ridiculous speculation.

They claim that all people from the WTC Towers have been allegedly “vaporized” as a result of the explosions of those supposed “mini-nukes”.

This speculation shall be countered as follows: if the people have completely “vaporized” – why then the dust itself has not been “vaporized” as well? Is there any logic in such a claim?

It shall be understood that a potential explosion of a SADM (“mini-nuke”) would never release enough energy to “vaporize” people in distances over, let’s say, 35 meters from its hypocenter. It would kill them, of course – by an actual explosion, by extreme heat, by air blast-wave, and by ionizing radiation in combination.

Most probably, it would also tear them apart and throw parts of their bodies everywhere around. But, still, it would not be able to completely vaporize their neutron-ridden, smashed, and charred remains – so a coroner would still have something to deal with even after an explosion of a “mini-nuke”.

One might make his own calculation based on this particular premise: 1 kiloton in TNT yield of a nuclear explosion is technically capable of vaporizing only 80 tons of dry granite rock, which is not actually much. Moreover, these mentioned 80 tons would only be able to vaporize exclusively from among its immediate surroundings (let’s say, 5 meters around its hypocenter); because in farther distances 1 kt in TNT yield would vaporize far less than 80 tons due to an apparent dissemination of its energy.

Considering that the TwinTowers were over 400 meters tall, it would not be possible to “vaporize” anything in their middle floors, not to say in their upper floors. Moreover, it shall be also understood that if the energy, instantly released from a nuclear explosion, would be enough to vaporize people, it would also vaporize any and every other material in the same proximity – including the very dust.

Nobody could expect such an effect that some materials would remain, while all people would be selectively “vaporized”. It simply does not work that way. Especially considering that total incineration (not even to say about “vaporization”) of a man’s body requires temperatures almost as high as to melt steel (if someone does not believe – let him check what the typical temperatures are at any crematorium oven and also check as to how much time a corpse must remain in there to be completely incinerated). This argument is not sustainable at all.

– 6.6. Any explosion of a “mini-nuke” in the basement floor of the Twin Towers would never be a real “underground explosion” in a sense of a fully contained underground nuclear explosion.

It would still have all features of a typical atmospheric nuclear explosion, so it would feature at least a certain loud sound – resembling a burst of thunder – and this would reach quite far around the WTC area. Apparently, nobody had heard anything like that, if not counting several speculators who allegedly “heard some explosions in the basement floors”.

Just try to imagine, that if 1 kiloton, which is 1,000 tons of TNT, would really explode in the basement floor as claimed. Would those speculators hear “some explosions” or they would simply lose their ability to hear for at least a couple of days?

It would necessarily feature an air-blast-wave, which without any doubt would shatter all windowpanes in every building around the WTC area (which apparently did not happen – many windows suspiciously managed to retain panes of glass even after both WTC Towers had already collapsed).

It would definitely cause a certain Electromagnetic Pulse – an inalienable part of every nuclear explosion – exactly as described in above Clause 6.2. This would, in turn, damage absolutely all electronic devices around this area and interrupt all telecommunications (including wired ones) – an effect, which was missing in reality.

At last – any imaginary explosion of a “mini-nuke” on the ground floor of the WTC Tower (how deep would the exact floor be does not matter – even at the deepest floor) would undoubtedly cause some debris and other products of an explosion to be thrown away through the lobby of the building and its lowest floors – onto adjacent streets. Just try to imagine that 1 kiloton in TNT yield of such a “mini-nuke” is still nothing less than ONE THOUSAND TONS of TNT – i.e. ONE THOUSAND TONS of a highly-explosive material.

For example, a large-caliber conventional aviation-bomb weighing only 5 tons normally causes several buildings standing close to each other to be destroyed at once. While a 10 tons conventional aviation bomb would destroy a good block of a city street.

Thus, one could make his own calculations as to how far such an explosion of 1,000 tons of TNT (even if it happens in the deepest underground floors of the WTC) would throw debris through the WTC lobby… However, this did not happen.

There was apparently no explosion which might look like or sound like an “explosion”. Thus, the entire theory of “mini-nukes” – irrespective of whether such imaginary “mini-nukes” might belong to the “foreign” or to the “home” perpetrators – is beyond belief.

– 6.7. The last one is just an ordinary engineering consideration. If any “mini-nukes” would have really been exploded somewhere in the basement floors of the WTC Twin Towers as alleged – they would definitely cause the following effect.

The explosion power of such a “mini-nuke” would never be enough to reduce to dust the entire 400 meters length of the rigid Tower’s structure; but it would definitely be more than enough to completely “undercut” it – that is to say “to sever the entire Tower from its foundation”.

In only a second after such an explosion, the entire rigid Tower’s structure would fall over and crash with its entire length onto the surroundings. Though, the Tower’s structure even in this case would never disintegrate – it was made to be so strong that even in its potential fall to its side it would remain whole.

Apparently, this scenario was not what happened in reality – as everybody could see on his TV. The last “conspiracy theory” – that some “mini-nukes” allegedly exploded at the WTC Tower’s basements – shall be discarded as unreasonable, despite looking quite “believable” at first glance.

– 6.8. And the very last is some logical consideration. Suppose that someone would still stubbornly adhere to the “Conspiracy Theory No.6” – disregarding all technical considerations provided in the above Clauses 6.1 – through – 6.7 – and would still believe that the WTC Buildings No.1 and No.2 (i.e. the TwinTowers) were both demolished by the “mini-nukes”, which belonged to Osama bin Laden or to Saddam Hussein. Then there would be one very funny irregularity resulting from the following well-known fact.

16 Larry Silverstein interviewLarry Silverstein makes his unprecedented admission about controlled demolition of the WTC-7 during his interview with PBS documentary America Rebuilds” aired on September 10, 2002.

The new owner of the WTC property – a certain Larry Silverstein – had already admitted publicly that it was him, Mr. Silverstein, who personally gave a final order (or, at least, a permission) to “pull” building 7 in the late afternoon of September 11, 2001.

He said exactly in that interview:

“…I remember getting a call from the, er.., fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it [the WTC-7]…” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse…”

This was probably the most seditious admission, portions of which were reproduced in a PBS documentary aired on September 10, 2002, and entitled America Rebuilds”. The most shocking part of his interview was not even that he has admitted that he (Larry Silverstein) had personally voiced the idea to demolish the WTC-7.

The seditious thing was, firstly, that there were no firefighters deployed to the WTC-7 in the late afternoon September 11, 2001. Therefore, we can conclude that Mr. Silverstein did not talk at all to any alleged “commander” of firefighters in regard to the demolition of building 7. According to Chapter 5[10] of FEMA’s Building Performance Study[11] , firefighters were never in building 7:

“Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.” Here is another account: “Given the limited water supply and the first strategic priority, which was to search for survivors in the rubble, FDNY did not fight the fires [in WTC 7].” – according to the Fire Engineering, 9/2002[12].

The second seditious thing was that even if there had been any decision to “pull” (i.e. to bring it down in a process of a controlled demolition), even in such a case the procedure of an actual controlled demolition would not be carried out by firefighters. I hope everybody understands that to demolish buildings is not a job of firefighters, but that of highly-qualified construction engineers, possessing specific demolition skills.

But the most seditious indeed is not even the two above considerations. The most seditious consideration would be this: if for example, someone has decided to “pull” (i.e. to demolish) a building in an urgent manner, amidst the supposed fires ravaging the building, then what do you think – how would that person be able to quickly bring into such a burning building a big number of charges of conventional explosives – along with all required detonators, to quickly make all necessary calculations, to nicely position these explosive charges and the detonators (despite the fires burning around), and to proceed undisturbed with such a precise job as a controlled demolition? Try to guess.

Of course, it would never be possible. To prepare a controlled demolition would take a few weeks at least.

Such a sudden decision to “pull” the WTC-7 could only be carried out in one and only one case: if a controlled demolition scheme was a built-in feature of the WTC-7.

Moreover, such a built-in scheme (if any) could not be based on any conventional explosives. Those explosives would be damaged by fires in this particular case. While in general case it would simply be too unsafe to keep large amounts of conventional explosives, all equipped with detonators on a permanent basis, inside such a building.

The only possible presumption is that such a built-in demolition scheme was a nuclear one – which was safe at least during its “stand-by” stage. Unlike conventional explosives, nuclear charges can not explode accidentally, nor even as a result of any fire. Nuclear charges can not even be accidentally detonated – even from the result of some accidental explosion nearby[13].

Now, if one would take a closer look at what Mr. Silverstein has actually admitted, and would try to analyze a true meaning of his words, he would find that:

1) It was Mr. Silverstein, who demolished the WTC-7, and as such this action had nothing to do with any alleged “commander” of the non-existent firefighters (whom he tried to present as a “demolition team”);

2) Mr. Silverstein could only use in this case some built-in nuclear demolition scheme, because such an in-built demolition scheme, logically, could not have been based on any conventional explosives.

Theoretically, however, one could also presume for a little while that, instead of such a built-in nuclear demolition scheme, Mr. Silverstein used the third SADM a/k/a “mini-nuke” – similar to those two alleged “mini-nukes” which might have been used several hours back to demolish the Twin Towers in accordance with the Conspiracy Theory No.6. Let us have some fun and keep this “mini-nuke” presumption for a little while… just see what will happen next.

By the way – Mr. Silverstein’s abovementioned interview was so widely circulated on various websites, in books and in videos, that even if now someone would at last try to quash any further distribution of his unprecedented confession, it would be simply too late. Everybody who is familiar with elementary logic has gotten the point already: the WTC-7 was demolished with the prior permission of Larry Silverstein.

Coming back to the suspected nuclear stuff involved: the WTC-7 had been apparently demolished in the same pattern and by exactly the same kind of a nuclear explosion – exactly as the WTC TwinTowers.

The WTC-7 had been also first reduced to “unexplainable” fine dust and then had fallen strictly down – right onto its footprint with free fall speed, while also spreading large clouds of that “unexplainable fine dust” all around Manhattan.

There were exactly the same streams of radioactive vapors emanating from the debris of the WTC 7, as well as those emanating from the debris of the WTC-1 and WTC-2. There were the same “unexplainable” high temperatures – recorded weeks and months later under the debris of the WTC-7 (as well as high temperatures at the spots of the WTC-1 and WTC-2).

Firefighters had been ordered to use exactly the same radioactivity deterrents (transparently named “powerful ultra-violet absorbers”) to mix into their water – to be used to extinguish at last those very “unexplainable underground fires, the most long-lasting in history” – under the debris of WTC 7 – as well as they had been ordered to do so in regards to the debris of the WTC-1 and WTC-2.

Thus, if someone seriously believes that both WTC-1 and -2 had been demolished by the “mini-nukes”, he must automatically come to the very same conclusion in regard to the WTC-7. There was technically no difference – either in an actual pattern of the WTC-7 collapse or in any features from its nuclear demolition, like the unexplainable “underground fires”, unexplainable “high-temperatures”, and streams of those radioactive vapors emanating from the WTC-7 demolition site for many weeks.

Now here is pure logic: if the two supposed “mini-nukes” that had allegedly demolished WTC-1 and -2 indeed belonged to Osama bin Laden or to Saddam Hussein (or to both), then the third “mini-nuke”, which has leveled the WTC-7, must also have been the property of Osama bin Laden or of Saddam Hussein. Do you agree with this logic?

Based on this presumption, we may further conclude that Mr. Silverstein – when he actually permitted or ordered to “pull” the WTC-7, had indeed permitted or ordered nothing less than to set off the third “mini-nuke” provided by Osama bin Laden or by Saddam Hussein. Didn’t he?

Or it is also quite possible that the third alleged “mini-nuke” belonged to Mr. Silverstein himself (it is indeed very much possible, at least from the point of logic, and, logically thinking, we would have to presume so).

Logically, there would be just only a few possible combinations in regard to who exactly owned those three “mini-nukes” (if there were indeed any) that might have been used to level the WTC buildings No.1, No.2 and No.7 respectively:

– 6.8.1. The third alleged “mini-nuke” belonged to Larry Silverstein, while the first two belonged to Osama bin Laden or to Saddam Hussein (or that each of the first two “mini-nukes” belonged to either of them as a variety); so while “Islamist terrorists” detonated their own “mini-nukes”, Mr. Silverstein answered them in a worthy manner – by detonating his third “mini-nuke”.

– 6.8.2. All the three alleged “mini-nukes” belonged to Osama bin Laden or to Saddam Hussein (or both) and Mr. Silverstein was only an operator entrusted by their respective owners to set off their “mini-nukes” when necessary;

– 6.8.3. All the three alleged “mini-nukes” belonged to the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government for some not so clear reason wanted to stage an unprecedented covert nuclear attack on its own citizens. However, instead of appointing an operator from among highly trusted secret agents or corroborative military officers, the U.S. Government appointed a lay civilian – Mr. Silverstein (who, in addition to his other personal faults, does not even know how to properly keep his mouth shut and makes such scandalous revelations about it) – to pull the trigger in either of the three cases accordingly;

– 6.8.4. While the third alleged “mini-nuke” belonged to Larry Silverstein, the first two belonged to the U.S. Government. Meaning that when the evil U.S. Government had detonated their own two “mini-nukes”, Mr. Silverstein had detonated his own one “mini-nuke”;

– 6.8.5. All the three alleged “mini-nukes” belonged to Larry Silverstein and the entire conspiracy to demolish the WTC by exploding these three “mini-nukes” belonged to Mr. Silverstein as well, and as such this conspiracy had nothing to do either with Osama bin Laden, or with Saddam Hussein, nor with any sinister conspirator within the U.S. Government.

Considering that combinations 6.8.1 and 6.8.4 are not logical, and combination 6.8.3 even though logical, is not serious, the only plausible remaining combinations are 6.8.2 and 6.8.5, while the most possible if to chose between 6.8.2 and 6.8.5 would be the last one. (One could scarcely imagine Larry Silverstein making a sinister agreement with a secret emissary of Saddam Hussein, not even to say about any secret emissary sent by Osama bin Laden – especially considering that Mr. Silverstein appears to be a Jew).

If someone still stubbornly adheres to the “mini-nukes conspiracy theory”, he must exclude from his list of possible conspirators the U.S. Government first. It is self-evident, that such an unprecedented admission of Mr. Silverstein automatically excuses the U.S. Government from any complicity (in a sense of the “mini-nukes” theory, I mean, not in any other sense).

Yes, the U.S. Government indeed participated in the ensuing 9/11 cover-up, but it does not mean that the U.S. Government had ordered to demolish the World Trade Center by its own mini-nukes or that the U.S. Government had ever planned such an incredible action in advance.

The only remaining possible culprits in this case (i.e. in case if the entire “mini-nukes” theory is true) are:

– Larry Silverstein (since he has already confessed as having something to do with the demolition);

and:

– Osama bin Laden and Co. and/or Saddam Hussein and Co. (both have denied their complicity).

Considering the complicity of Mr. Larry Silverstein, at last, has been established, while the same question remains open in regard to Mr. Osama bin Laden and Mr. Saddam Hussein, we would better stop for awhile with this so-called “mini-nukes” theory or how we have called it – “The Conspiracy Theory No. 6”.

Again, considering all technicalities, described in the above Clauses 6.1 through 6.7, one might deem it successfully proven that the World Trade Center had not been demolished by any “mini-nukes” as claimed. It was technically impossible. I hope that by all the abovementioned considerations I did not leave a stone unturned of the entire “mini-nukes conspiracy theory”…

P.S. Just to conclude this. I cannot resist placing here one silly official diagram pertaining to the old good times when nuclear explosions were not converted to so-called “evil” (and when nuclear demolition schemes of skyscrapers were not so secret as they are today):

17 591px-Types_of_nuclear_testing_svg

Please, look at the depiction under “2)”. Does it look that a skyscraper is being demolished there by a “mini-nuke”, or by rather a huge nuke, considering the mere depth of its zero-box?

Sincerely yours,

Dimitri Khalezov.


[1] http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

[2] There is one shameless document concocted by these folks from the Columbia University. You can download it from here: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf I have to thank my friend Jan Malmberg who drew my attention to this unprecedented fiction bearing the truly mocking name “Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses”. In this ridiculous essay that pretends to be something “scientific” cheaters try their best to convince the gullible that aluminum planes penetrating steel buildings (as if the first were made from steel, but latter – from butter) allegedly cause detectable seismic events.

[3] http://www.house.gov/jec/hearings/dualuse/leitner.htm

[4] The mini-nuclear bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (that “strangely” coincided with the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing) would happen on August 7, 1998, i.e. after the abovementioned hearing.

[5] This particular nuclear bombing is described in detail in the “Prologue” chapter of this book.

[6] The spot of the destroyed Sari night club in Kuta, Bali indeed bears the name of “Ground Zero”. In case you doubt it – you can go to Bali, Kuta, and check it yourself; every non-English speaking taxi driver would at once bring you to the bombing memorial if you tell him: “ground zero”.

[7] This particular claim was found on this web site: http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

[8] Formerly, at first stages of nuclear science, it was units of “Roentgen” (R for short) generally accepted to measure radiation doses. However, later it was reconsidered – because “Roentgen” traditionally deals only with gamma-rays, while penetrating radiation is represented by full spectrum – alpha-rays, beta-rays, gamma-rays, fast neutrons, etc., all of them having damaging effects on organism. So, later there were adopted “correlating” measurement units, which purported to be more “correct”: such as “BER” (Biological Equivalent of Roentgen) – in the former USSR or “REM” (Roentgen Equivalent Man) in the United States; besides, there is also “RAD” unit (Radiation Absorbed Dose) – typically used to measure doses acquired from absorbed radiation (means not from penetrating radiation, but from radioactive contamination) – which for X-rays and gamma-rays is equal to “REM”. Just to spare you: without raking your brains, you could roughly presume that all of those units are about equal – when it comes to an actual nuclear explosion and to measurement of lethal doses – 500 R or 500 Rad or 500 Ber or 500 Rem would kill you in exactly the same manner. Still, many old-fashioned people (like the humble author of these lines) prefer to measure radiation doses in Roentgen units.

[9] “Acute” here means that such a radiation sickness is noticeable immediately – in a couple of hours, or maximum in a couple of days – as opposed to “chronic” – which might easily take its course scarcely noticed for years, but result in leukemia or in other kind of cancer at the end. It shall be known also that not only heavy cases of radiation sickness cause deaths, but the moderate ones cause deaths as well: 90% of people who suffer from heavy radiation sickness die on 10th or 11th day, while 50% of people who suffer from moderate cases of radiation sickness usually die on 30th – 31st days. People, who were struck by penetrating radiation of >3.000 Roentgens, could die in only a day or two; those who were struck by huge doses – let’s say >8.000 Roentgens – could be killed right on the spot.

[10] Available in the Internet: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm

[11] Available in the Internet: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html

[12] Available in the Internet: http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&ARTICLE_ID=158382&VERSION_NUM=1

[13] Nuclear charges also contain some conventional explosive materials which are intended to “implode” the nuclear material which will reach its over-critical mass in the process of such an implosion.

Thus, it might seem for some people that an accidental detonation of those conventional materials inside a nuclear charge might cause also an accidental “implosion” and accidental accumulation of over-critical mass which might lead to an accidental nuclear explosion. Fortunately, it would not be possible – the process of implosion requires highly (on a micro-second level) synchronized detonation of all conventional explosives.

Any kind of an “unauthorized” detonation of these conventional explosives would never be so precisely synchronized, so as a result, an actual nuclear explosive material would never reach its over-critical mass – instead, it would only be destroyed by that ordinary explosion, so such a nuclear charge would be rendered useless.

This is actually why nuclear charges can not accidentally detonate in a sense of nuclear explosion and that is exactly why they are considered much safer to keep in comparison with ordinary explosives, which could detonate at any time. The “unauthorized” detonation of such conventional explosives, however, could cause radioactive materials (especially highly poisonous Plutonium 239) to be thrown around, thus contaminating certain area.

A good example of the fact that nuclear charges indeed could not detonate accidentally was demonstrated by the infamous “1966 Palomares B-52 crash” or “Palomares incident” occurred on 17 January 1966 and described by Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash

Editing:  Jim W. Dean

__________________________________

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

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 September 2, 2013, With 11376 Reads Filed under Of Interest. 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

90 Responses to "Some Thoughts on Mini-Nukes Theory and Nuclear Demolition of WTC"

  1. LC  September 29, 2013 at 7:57 am

    Mr. Khalezov:
    Please save your book in PDF file format and post it on your page: http://www.911thology.com

    If your books are originally in Microsoft-WORD format then all you need to do is to save it as PDF and it does it in seconds. For most people it is impossible to download JPG files which is what you have there now so impossible to dowload your book & the other stuff in JPG format. Thanks. -lc

  2. LC  September 22, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    Ace Baker (video fakery expert) $100,000.00 prize to anyone who can prove any planes hit WTCs:

    9 11 NO PLANES Theory – Undeniable Proof!!
    ******http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04LCvk2KYfY

  3. LC  September 8, 2013 at 7:57 pm

    Mr. Khalezov: With your USSR background & connections can you shed some insider’s light on this subject I just opened in a related Allen Roland page?
    Recent history hoaxes bigger than 9/11: U.S. Atomic bombs- the United Nations- IMF-WTO- Israel- Apollo-MOON-hoax missions + many wars & Coup d’états . Of these may be the U.S. Atomic bomb hoax was smoothest since it’s never talked about as if never happened (that’s how great a hoax it was). Here is my take of it from many sources I put together which I don’t have all the links to include here.
    The 1945 bombs dropped on Japan were totally made in Germany & imported & activated by German scientists after Germany’s surrender on May 7, 1945 & before they were dropped in early August 1945:
    Watch: Mission For Mussolini 3/3: *********http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyIenJko8E4
    The first reported German Atomic bomb test was in the Baltic Sea in 1944 (witnessed by Mussolini’s attaché) & the second in Thuringia (north east Germany)….
    @ Min 11: Germans had made three massive atomic bombs which together with their nuclear scientists disappeared for 8 months under bogus pretext of internment in England then returned to live in Germany!!! (Nuremberg trials provided great smear cover for the German scientists completion of atomic bombs to drop on Japan). ….

  4. Dimitri Khalezov  September 5, 2013 at 9:02 pm

    Would you mind to point out exactly – which of the images (and which part of the particular photos) appear for you to be tampered with (and so invalidating the “half-burned” cars argument in its entirety). I would look to have a closer look at your points.

  5. Jim Fetzer  September 5, 2013 at 8:37 am

    Dimitri and I agree that these videos show impossible events. There appear to be only three ways in which it could have been done: CGIs, video compositing, and the use of a sophisticated hologram. I
    know you prefer a more extreme position of the entire footage being faked. But surely you can admit
    that the footage–whether it was faked in the whole or not, which Dimitri and I deny–shows “the plane”
    performing feats that no real plane could perform. Unless Newton’s laws were suspended on 9/11, I
    take it that you would admit that that is also the case, whether or not footage of the demolition of the
    Twin Towers is fake or not. I want to have you on the show to discuss this and am trying to reach you.

    • LC  September 5, 2013 at 9:36 am

      Newton was long dead so his laws couldn’t apply on 9/11.
      I haven’t seen any proof of video fakery than this one which I posted many times before from Mommyplayner: This videography professional has proved the planes video fakery and even put up $100,000.00 prize for anyone you can prove planes hit. Nobody has!!!!:
      *******http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDWP0Wn6xpo&list=PLfOVMoMFZ43DzcQ2_J00I0K4W6bwFOu7P

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 5, 2013 at 7:34 pm

      Hi LC, this video is indeed the nicest one. Ace Baker did his real best. There is an another link to the same video, by the way, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds – in this one the maximum resolution is higher than in your link – up to 480. I love this particular video. This is, by the way only part 7 of entire Ace Baker’s series. He has more series than just this one, but this is the most important one, of course. I wish every man should see this video before claiming the “remote controlled planes” or “holographic planes” versions.

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 5, 2013 at 8:01 pm

      Hi Jim. I do not think that a “sophisticated hologram” could have been used. Moving holographic imagery was not (and is still not) developed yet enough to show large fast-moving planes visible under different angles in great distances. At the very best, the moving holography available today could show a relatively low resolution (low enough for the human eye to see that it is now real thing) image of a moving man, providing however, that the man does not walk in the room, but rather stands on the same position merely moving his hands and head. This is the best the moving holography could produce so far (as on 2013). To believe that in 2001 the moving holography was able to produce moving passenger aircraft that people would take for real is not serious. Of course, it could only be achieved by video compositing. By the way, Ace Baker’s video mentioned by LC here is the best thing that proves the video compositing beyond doubt. I highly recommend you to watch his video, at least part 7 of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds

    • LC  September 8, 2013 at 9:04 am

      John Lear testified that such hologram technology had been in use since before 9/11.
      Also many people believed to have seen the first WTC plane but no one saw the second one. So the second one was probably just video fakery by fraudcasters:

      9/11 Hoax John Lear on Vanishing Planes & Holograms
      ******http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jCiQVnbwfc

  6. Dimitri Khalezov  September 5, 2013 at 7:56 am

    No, I did not mean that original footage shot by ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, etc. was fake. I mean only footage that showed to the gullible TV spectator how aluminum planes penetrated steel Towers was fake, such as, for example WNYW and WABS footage that was supplied in quasi-real time to all major news channels. Footage of the plane emerging from another side of the Tower in my opinion is not fraudulent. I believe that there was an engine of a plane positioned inside the Tower on the opposite side and some charge of explosives behind it designed to eject that engine onto the street (where it was indeed found). So I believe that what seemed to be a “plane’s nose” on the opposite side of the building was merely an engine planted there to make things plausible looking. I could be mistaken, of course, it is merely my opinion. I also would like to clearly separate two things – when I claim that while being a military officer in a special “nuclear” department of the Soviet military I learned about the fact that there was a nuclear demolition scheme of the World Trade Center is one thing. This is my witness testimony. But when I express my opinion on the photos, videos, or even technicalities of the nuke’s explosions and on corresponding damage done to the Twin Towers or the WTC-7, it is merely my OPINION. So, my opinion and my testimony should not be mixed into one and no one should question the validity of my testimony based on my opinion expressed in regard to other things.

  7. Dimitri Khalezov  September 5, 2013 at 7:45 am

    Yes, I know that it is relatively (again “relatively”) easy to manipulate photos using a computer (even I could do it using the most primitive tools such as “Microsoft Paint” from Windows XP), and it was not much different back in 2001. However, I do not see any point why should one manipulate with those pictures of “half-burned” cars? I understand that strange pixellation patterns + overall lack of resolution etc. might suggest that the pictures were tampered with, but my common sense refuses to understand WHY? WHY should you tamper with the pictures of half-burned cars? I understand that to produce fake images of aluminum planes penetrating steel towers was important, because naturally it was not possible to achieve, only in a form of fake photos and fake videos. But the half-burned cars could be produced by merely pouring benzene on half-car and burning it, or by doing the same thing with a blow-lamp. Why should you need to modify photos in such a case? Or do you mean to say that there were no “half-burned” cars as shown in those pictures? And the “half-burned” cars existed only in computer graphics? Please, clarify what you mean.

  8. Dimitri Khalezov  September 5, 2013 at 7:38 am

    OK, thanks. I will look into it.

  9. Raptor  September 4, 2013 at 4:44 am

    Speaking of the Planes/no-planes theory. Do keep in mind that there was supposed to be ZERO footage, real or faked, of the first strike absent the two Bro’s who were on a gas leak exercise with one of NYFD’s finest Pffifer I think it was. Yet one surfaced a few months after the main event that was claimed to have been from a camera somewhere across the water in New Jersey. i was shut down when I tried to obtain the information that would explain the type of camera, whether it be security cctv type or other……red flag that it’s not real and that’s where I started to realize that the Planes were a tool to sell terrorism and hide the fact that Jet fuel fire had nothing to do with the deconstruction of the twins..

    Building 7 was pre wired/pre-built to bring down yet the Twins were not…..I highly doubt that. Those twins were cold war era built…..placing pre-wired advanced ordinance within the concrete floors of those buildings as well as the CORE which was concrete, not those ridiculous butt plated and welded beams that so desperately try to tell you, WOULD HAVE BEEN a simple stroll in the park…..Yet truthers run from this idea because it makes far too much sense and destroys many a straw man in the process.

    A nuke of sorts wasn’t necessary to bring them down, but would make a nice hole/fire pit to house the debris piles..

    Raptor

    • stephanaugust  September 4, 2013 at 11:00 am

      As for the French brothers, one would think that they became famous and did a lot of movies, but their filmography looks like a food stamp program.

      ***http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1150227/

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 4, 2013 at 8:08 pm

      These two French brothers were merely shills, appointed as many other shills to make the 9/11 production to look “plausible” for the gullible. Of course, they were not professional. By the way, the mere fact of the French citizens participating in this project is the best proof that French secret services were involved into 9/11 planning and execution, Because if it were not so, these two lucky brothers would be arrested in France. Unlike the American citizens, those French security officials unlikely believe in the penetrating capabilities of aluminum when it comes to structural steel, so they would not fail to notice that their own citizens were accomplices to the actual 9/11 perpetration. So, since the two French brothers were not arrested in France after filming such an “event”, it shall be presumed that the French secret services were the part of the actual 9/11 project. Logic is stubborn thing…

    • captain obvious  September 5, 2013 at 6:50 am

      aint trying to play troll here, but the structural steel wasnt solid exterior faces. think about throwing a dart through a piece of chicken-wire, or smaller half inch mesh cage wire, the dart goes through until its fletching gets snagged. the planes no-planes biz being more irrelevant diversion in my opinion because whether there or not, they didnt bring those buildings down!

    • captain obvious  September 5, 2013 at 7:51 am

      typical aluminum IS soft and very malleable, but tempered structural aluminum as used for aircraft wing ribs and spars is different, it can fracture of snap. its not impossible the weight and momentum of the skeletal, the fuel, the tucked landing gear, sheared the skin for large sections of wings to zoom through floors above and below, out the glass etc of the other side.

      I’m not saying there couldnt have been frag-parts on the entry side, or frag-parts slammed against and stuck to vertical pillars inside the buildings, but am saying theres a possibility of a lot of a planes mass passing right on through if it “sliced just right” lucky enough! whats the diameter of the fuselage? how high were the ceilings from floors in those towers? a couple centimeters of crush to an aluminum can flying at 400 mph isnt an impossibility, same for a 16 foot diameter tube being slammed through a 14 foot tall horizontal slot, only has to smash-crush the top and bottom about one foot worth. I’m no physicist, but I’ve seen plenty of arrows shot into hay-bales with 25-35 lb recurve bows, and plenty of arrows shot from 60+ lb compound bows that blow right on through em. similarly, a bulletproof vest can stop a bullet, but stopping an arrow is an entirely different matter. back on point, still feel planes no-planes is an irrelevant rabbit trail, as it is NOT what droppped the buildings.

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 5, 2013 at 8:16 am

      However hard aluminum could be and with whatever speed it could fly, it could not penetrate steel. In order to penetrate steel buildings, the entire planes must have been made out of solid depleted uranium; it must not be empty inside (because the planes are typically empty inside), but filled with depleted uranium as well. And such a solid uranium plane must have flown at some Mach3 speed. Then its armor piercing capabilities could be discussed, but not in case of empty subsonic aluminum planes. I think my next article on VT will be about penetrating capabilities of aluminum, because many people seem not to realize that it is impossible.

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 4, 2013 at 8:03 pm

      Please, send me (or post here) a link to the second video of the 1st “plane” that you are talking about in your post. I would like to see it also.

  10. stephanaugust  September 4, 2013 at 1:11 am

    Now there is one thing I do not understand. If our rulers wanted us to believe that planes destroyed the WTC, why the half burned cars at all? (The only explanation I have is that they wanted to create “smoke”.)

  11. Dimitri Khalezov  September 3, 2013 at 11:06 pm

    To answer the question of onebornfree: I mean that ALL, absolutely ALL videos showing how aluminum planes penetrated steel Twin Towers were FAKE. This is equally applicable to the alleged “amateur” videos, and to the “professional” ones shown by the main TV channels in a quasi-“real” (with “only” 17 seconds delay) time. No genuine video could exist that show how aluminum could penetrate steel. If someone disagrees, then let him produce such a video on purpose – take a rail-track, for example, and shot at it aluminum bullets from his shotgun. I think this video would a real hit on YouTube. I will be the first subscriber to it.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 4, 2013 at 12:12 am

      That these videos are showing events that are physically impossible is beyond doubt. The question is how it was done. There are three theories: CGIs, video compositing or the use of a sophisticated hologram. Witnesses report having seen (what they took to be) a real plane, but it was performing feats that no real plane could perform. Assuming their reports are sincere, that rules out CGIs and video compositing, since they would have shown images of planes ONLY WHEN THEY WERE BROADCAST. I have quite a few articles about this–and plan to feature onebornfree on my radio show Friday to debate it. Some sources:

      “9/11: Planes/No Planes and ‘Video Fakery’”
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/20/911-planesno-planes-and-video-fakery/

      “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/01/reason-and-rationality-in-public-debate-the-case-of-rob-balsamo/

      “Were the 9/11 crash sites faked?” (Seattle, WA, 13 June 2012):

      Part 1: http://archive.org/details/scm-75926-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320

      Part 2: http://archive.org/details/scm-75938-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320
      “Fakery and Fraud in the ‘Official Account’ of 9/11”
      http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/jim-fetzers-vancouver-powerpoint/

      “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I”
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/07/911-truth-will-out-the-vancouver-hearings-i/

      I had a debate with Dick Eastman about planes/no planes in New York recently:
      http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-eastman%20debate.mp3

    • stephanaugust  September 4, 2013 at 1:03 am

      One could also argue that physically it is not possible that a fly (even the biggest fly on earth) makes a hole in a fly swatter. And on 9/11 the plane was the fly and the steel structure of the WTC was the fly swatter.

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 4, 2013 at 10:16 am

      Yes, you are right. This is the best “abstract” example. But I am still craving to see that YouTube video when someone shots aluminum bullet trying to pierce a rail-track. I would do it myself, I just have no shotgun and no capacity to produce such a movie, but I am sure that in America many people could arrange such a video with ease.

    • captain obvious  September 5, 2013 at 6:58 am

      I’d disagreed with that a little later up above in a reply, it is not impossible a planes fuselage or a good part of it busted through glass windows, getting a little crushed between floor and ceiling, missing vertical structural supports then exiting out the other side, same for wing sections with fuel tanks to make a big fireball out the other side, but planes damn sure didnt collapse buildings!

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 5, 2013 at 8:18 am

      Yes, I got your point – you mean some aluminum parts could sneak between the steel beams. But even in this case, the major part of the plane must have fallen back to sidewalks. However, we did not see that in the footage – we saw that the entire plane cuts into the steel perimeter of the Tower without even reducing its cruise speed – as if the plane was made of steel, but the Tower – from butter.

  12. Dimitri Khalezov  September 3, 2013 at 6:17 pm

    Quote:

    What was your methodology for examining the still photos that you concluded are nearly all genuine. —————– my methodology is to implement common sense and to see if the depiction is compatible with common sense or not.

    Do you have any training/experience in detecting photographic fakery? —————– I would not say that I am professional photographer, but I used to have the photography as my main hobby when I was young. But it does not actually matter – common sense in this case is much more important than any professional training. As you probably remember, no professional came up to claim that the 9/11 planes-penetrating-Twin-Towers videos were fake. It was non-professional folks who stood up and firmly stated that aluminum could not penetrate steel. That is what common sense is about.

    • LC  September 4, 2013 at 10:24 am

      Wrong twice above Mr. Khalezov:

      1- This videography professional has proved the planes video fakery and even put up $100,000.00 prize for anyone you can prove planes hit. Nobody has!!!!:
      *******http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDWP0Wn6xpo&list=PLfOVMoMFZ43DzcQ2_J00I0K4W6bwFOu7P

      2- The alleged Hurricane Erin on 9/11 was totally responsible for the refusal of crocodiles in Africa to mate on that day!!!

  13. Dimitri Khalezov  September 3, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    Quote: “Insider
    September 2, 2013 – 2:52 pm(Edit)
    Khalezov is a nobody.”

    Of course, I am nobody. I am a body-less spirit. A phantom. I do not have even bodily fingers to type on my keyboard. Therefore, I only incarnate into some gullible embodied folks and induce them to type on the keyboard on my behalf 🙂

  14. Worker Bee  September 3, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    Funny that no one seems to have mentioned the most obvious reason for nuclear demolition – the very mention of the use of nuclear explosives will “confirm” to those brainwashed by the controlled mass media that the person presenting the argument is a “crazy conspiracy theorist”. Very clever on the part of the 9/11 planners.

  15. Jim Fetzer  September 3, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    (1) Anyone can attempt to defend their position by rejecting all the evidence that refutes it, but without independent justification, that is merely an ad hoc move.

    (2) Khalezov claims all three buildings were done the same way (with 150kt nukes in the subbasements). But the videos refute that claim. Consider:

    (a) The Twin Towers are being blown apart from the top down. All their floors remain stationary until blown to kingdom come. There are no “pancakes”.

    (b) WTC-7 has all its floors coming down at the same time. It is not being blown apart. And when its done, there is a stack of pancakes = 5.5 floors.

    (3) The bathtub would have been shattered by 150kt nukes in the basements and, contrary to his assertions here, when I interviewed him in 2001, he had no idea what the “bathtub” was. Listen to the interview to judge for yourself:
    http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/Jim%20Fetzer%20Real%20Deal%20-%20Dimitri%20Khalezov.mp3

    (4) According to Dimitri, the massive explosion initially destroyed the first 60 floors, then damaged the next 30, where the top 20 were allowed to fall. But the videos we have of their destruction contradicts that claim. He wants to insist that the apparent integrity of the bottom 60 floors is merely an illusion, but that appears to me to be yet another gratuitous claim he cannot support.

    (5) What about WTC-6? A theory that ignores this 8-story structure which had its center destroyed (looking very much like a surgical operation) has disqualified itself.

    • Jim Fetzer  September 3, 2013 at 2:02 pm

      (5) continued: It was clearly nukes, with cement flowing like lava in the basement and tritiated water samples ay 55 times background levels.

      (6) The seismic readings of 2.1 and 2.3 are likewise inconsistent with 150kt nukes in the subbasements but consistent with mini or micro nukes that were shaped to direct their energy upwards, where very little of either tower was left to fall into its footprint. 150kt nukes would have produced seismic readings that were enormously greater than the recorded seismic readings.

      (7) He appears to be unaware of the massive explosions in the subbasements of each of the towers, which occurred 14 and 17 seconds before the alleged impacts of “the planes”. They are the source of the .7 and .9 seismic recordings, not any plane impacts. See Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an insider job” about this.

      (8) There is no good reason to suppose that either the videos were faked–if they had been, we would expect to see the towers collapse, not blow apart in every direction from the top down–where the bathtub only survived because it was one using a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes. No one should be taken in by an unscientific theory based on discounting evidence.

      I am very disappointed that this man would disregard the evidence that his theory cannot be correct, but that is what he is doing here. It is analogous to pulling rabbits out of hats. His theory is simply false and he ought to candidly admit it.

    • Worker Bee  September 3, 2013 at 2:34 pm

      In regards to point #7 – The relatively small aircraft hitting the relatively massive towers (for the sake of argument, let us assume for a moment that real 757’s did hit each tower) would cause an elastic deflection with rebound at a high enough frequency that it would rapidly be damped out, and certainly would not be above background noise levels picked up by a seismograph more than 20 miles away.

      I have run a few seismic surveys myself, and getting enough shear energy into the ground is a big problem if you want to get data to more than shallow depths. So whatever the 0.7 and 0.9 Richter readings come from, it was not aircraft impacts.

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 3, 2013 at 5:54 pm

      To address points of Jim Fetzer listed above (part 3):

      (5 continued) – yest, it was clearly nukes, with not only “cement”, but also “granite” flowing like lava – as you could perceive from the very first photo in my actual article above. The only question is the yield of these nukes. I claim that they were 150 kiloton (enough to cause the size of the cavity shown in the beginning of the article), why you claim they were merely 1 kiloton (NOT enough to cause the size of the cavity shown on the said photo).

      (6) seismic readings of “2.1” and “2.3” were successfully proven to be bogus if you cared to read the actual article of mine we are discussing here.

      (7) I heard about these explosions, of course, but I was not the one who interrogated those who claimed them; so I presume these claims were either intentionally fraudulent or, perhaps, caused by a confusion.

      (8) I did not quite understood what you mean here, so I could hardly respond.

      I am not going to admit that my “theory” is incorrect. I insist that my witness testimony (in regard to the WTC nuclear demolition scheme that I learned from my military service) is correct. But if you do not like my explanations as to the demolition mechanics – please, offer your own ones. I would be more than pleased to listen. Please, explain to us where your mini-nukes were exactly positioned, how many of the mini-nukes were there, what was their yield, and what was the mechanics of pulverization of structural steel. I am all attention.

    • Justin Kennedy  September 6, 2013 at 10:51 pm

      In response to Jim Fetzer’s comments which seem to misrepresent Dmitri’s findings:

      1) The 150kt nuclear devices were not positioned in the “basements”, which Fetzer claims is Dmitiri’s theory. The zero boxes were actually said to be positioned 150m below the towers.

      2) WTC 1 & 2 were not “blown apart” as claimed by Fetzer. The only visible explosions were near the tops of the towers, not in the floors below which were certainly not “blown to kingdom come” as claimed. It was just a dust pile which collapsed upon itself and blew away in the wind.

      3) It seems obvious Fetzer didn’t read Dmitri’s book or bothered to read the above article. Dmitri went to great lengths in the accompanying article to prove that the one and only source of seismic data was falsified.

      4) It’s one thing to criticize or misrepresent Dmitri’s findings, but we need more than “cement flowed like lava in the basement” to prove how mini-nukes were supposedly used to demolish the WTC?

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 3, 2013 at 5:40 pm

      To address points of Jim Fetzer listed above:

      (1) I do not only “attempt” to defend my position, I am certain that I could successfully defend it in reality. I do not reject any evidence at all, but do my best to address any and every single piece of it. As you could see from the actual article above I addressed even bogus evidence concocted by the FBI cops – such as “half-burned” cars. The only piece of “evidence” I ignore is the alleged “Erin” hurricane – the favorite “evidence” of Judy Wood and her henchmen such as Andrew Johnson. I do believe that the alleged “hurricane” (if there were any at all) is no more relevant to 9/11 than the refusal of crocodiles in Africa to mate at that moment. The rest of evidence is duly addressed by me.

      (2) Yes I do. And I insist so.

      (a) The Twin Towers were not “blown apart” but disintegrated in a mechanical manner by falling undamaged tops.

      (b) Because the WTC-7 was much shorter than its Twin sisters, it was damaged to the same extent from down to top. This precipitated its collapse as a whole piece. There were no heavy undamaged top above “dustified” structure in case of the WTC-7. So, the videos CONFIRM my claims and by no means “refute” them.

      (3) damaged to bathtub were duly addressed by me in this article (also on VT): http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=267027
      please, make sure to read.

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 3, 2013 at 5:45 pm

      To address points of Jim Fetzer listed above (part 2):

      (4) I am sure that I explained that point in the most satisfactory manner and no claims that I allegedly “failed to explain” it are accepted.

      (5) Nothing at all happened with the WTC-6 except purely mechanical damaged caused by falling debris from above and by hot products of underground nuclear explosions propagating by some underground premises from beneath. That is why the WTC-6 (despite of huge hole in its roof) managed to stand – unlike the three buildings that were intentionally demolished.

  16. LC  September 3, 2013 at 8:09 am

    Top gun Khalezov: most of the 9/11 material you’ve written is “witness statements” not allegations & theories. I have been trying to make VT understand the difference between these types of statements but so far no success.!!! It seems nobody cares about the difference or they think they’re all the same. Tell that to a court & they’ll see it. “911 Eyewitness Documentary” was posted by Dr. Jim Fetzer & Mr. Fox recently:
    *********https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCrLDQwNlqw
    @ Min: 89 the film maker said: “…this was a nuclear attack…”
    @Min: 79 of the above film it showed thousands of tons of WTC chunks flown into AMEX & the Gallery (Winter garden) 200 meters away requiring forces well over 100 kilotons to throw them there according to some force calculation formula which I had link from another website which even had a offered two types of prize money. One prize for anyone who could prove nukes were not used on 9/11 & the other prize for anyone who could prove planes hit the buildings.
    At the end whether big nukes or small nukes I don’t understand why so much fuss. assume 10 mini-nukes of 15 kilotons were used. That’s more deadly than just one nuke of 150 kilotons. So what is all the fuss about when we know for a fact that Big Apple was nuked Big Time???

  17. disobey4sure  September 3, 2013 at 5:32 am

    I’m sorry, onebornfree, you said you have neither read nor studied much. Your #1 comment is easily answered when you know something about nukes(there are different kinds with different yields and
    different results– especially if detonated Above Ground!).

  18. disobey4sure  September 3, 2013 at 5:16 am

    Captain Obvious needs to understand more about nuclear things. I know that school never taught much
    about the destruction caused by a nuclear explosion and their radiation levels– especially about WHERE it was detonated–
    Above ground, Below ground, or under the sea. Mini-nukes would have made a whole different mess!!!
    I’m sure Dimitri would explain it to you–maybe his book does.

    • captain obvious  September 3, 2013 at 8:11 am

      yup, I’ve never heard of neutron bombs either, right?

    • captain obvious  September 3, 2013 at 8:15 am

      PS nevermind “tool” that I was replying to in agreement with.

  19. captain obvious  September 3, 2013 at 3:14 am

    that must be IT, you’re right! the Empire State building is just a figment of our collective imaginations, the Golden Gate Bridge is a holograph and gravity defying energy field, and bears really DO use rabbits for toilet paper! thank you so much for enlightening me with the truth, you have done a great service!

  20. 911thology Supporter  September 3, 2013 at 2:58 am

    Hi Dimitri, wellcome back.

  21. captain obvious  September 3, 2013 at 2:43 am

    agree (and not any kind of expert!) that it had to have been combination, underground and top down both.
    the “I’m right you’re wrong” stuff doesnt make sense to me, it’s been established theres the footprints of nuclear devices used, really narrows down where they might have come from! very MINI nukes down the cores of the towers, flash contained by interior walls mostly, would also explain girders and debris blowing out sideways, squibs blowing out windows preceeding the top of the building falling through etc.
    mini nuke underground and conventional shaped charges from above or mini nuclear charges from above isnt much an issue to me anyhow, governemt and media LIES is the huge issue, it damn sure wasnt jumbojet impact and fuel bringing those towers down at freefall speed in a perfect controlled demolition fashion just like WTC-7 that was reported down by the BBC some 23 minutes too early!

  22. Dimitri Khalezov  September 3, 2013 at 12:09 am

    Thanks. I am glad to be back. Hope we will have a lot of interesting discussions here. I plan to publish a few more chapters of my book here as separate articles.

  23. Dimitri Khalezov  September 3, 2013 at 12:06 am

    First of all, I suggest you read the book – it contains a lot of answers to various questions, your questions inclusive. But not to leave them without answers here, I could say:

    1) This is very important to differentiate between “mini-nukes” and “huge demolition nukes” because the first could be ascribed to so-called “terrorists”, while the second could only belong to the US Government.

    2) I trust all 9/11 imagery, the very half-burned cars inclusive. I just make proper conclusions from all such photos.I do not claim that the “photos with half-burned cars were faked”. I insist that the photos were genuine showing genuine state of affairs – the manually “half-burned” cars that were “half-burned” by blow-lamps of desperate FBI agents.

    Sincerely yours,
    Dimitri

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 3, 2013 at 7:10 am

      To answer your questions in the same order:

      1) Of course, the USG could, in theory, use its own mini-nukes in disguise of some one else’s mini-nukes, but why should it do so? The USG although it looks like a pack of dummies, does not look like a kind of lunatic asylum, still. In addition, the alleged usage of mini-nukes was not feasible from the technical point of view – as explained by the above article.

      2) I believe I am discerning enough to be able to sort out things and so to distinguish genuine photographs from the faked ones. As you could see, I started this article with explaining the bogus photo by NASA that showed three black spots of three alleged mini-nukes explosions. So, as you could see, I am perfectly capable of distinguishing the genuine things from bogus ones. But when it comes to the genuine 9/11 imagery, such as that showing us the half-burned cars, I do not see any reasons why I should distrust these.

      Of course, I undertook a close analyses of what I could find in regard to the 9/11 imagery and I concluded that well over 99% of those photos are genuine and therefore trustworthy. Only a very few photos were faked in reality. It is not so with the videos, of course. When it comes to the videos of the “planes” they were all faked.

      And when it comes to my conclusions, I reached them mostly based on my common sense than on any photos. Photos are just illustrative, so I used them in my explanations.

  24. Allesandro  September 2, 2013 at 10:31 pm

    Dimitri,

    Would like to see Larry “Pull-It” Silverstein who said “there’s been such a huge loss of life, we decided to “Pull”,…. swing from the gallows, maybe getting him first on INSURANCE FRAUD along with the INSURANCE Company who paid out on such a ridiculous claim (defrauding shareholders when they paid the claim) and then later for complicity and murder. After all RICO was created for just this occasion.

    I’d like to send him a copy of your book for bedtime reading. Pleasant Dreams Larry, sleep tight. Don’t let all those people’s lives you ended bother you, but their souls may be paying you a visit.

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 2, 2013 at 11:55 pm

      Hi Allesandro. I can’t agree with you on the alleged guilt of Larry Silverstein (I believe that he was just a victim rather than a culprit), but I definitely support the idea that he has to be brought to the trial (that must be public, of course). I hope we will learn a lot of details from such a trial. But the idea of sending him my book is a very good idea. I fully support it. Please, send him my book, I will appreciate it. Dimitri.

    • captain obvious  September 3, 2013 at 2:51 am

      personally I think “lucky larry” was just as much an insider as rudy ghoul-iani who had a flunkee carrying his personal oxygen bottle for him as he was fleeing the scene.if “the air was safe to breath” then how-why did ghoul-iani have the prescience to have his personal air supply handy?
      “lucky larry” got buildings worth billions for a few million and bought “terrorist insurance” on those buildings that’d costed LOTS of money to remove all the asbestos from, isnt suspicious enough?

    • captain obvious  September 3, 2013 at 2:59 am

      ghoul-iani having all the SEC financial fraud investigation hard-drives carted away with the rubble of a crime scene ASAP, was also very criminal, and as a former judge he’d know not to do that, right?
      oh heck no, he was hailed “hero” and “America’s Mayor”, even dared running for the presidency.
      do you have doubts about HIS alleged guilt too? was he somehow just a victim?

  25. Worker Bee  September 2, 2013 at 9:30 pm

    WTC 7 collapsed the way one would expect a building wired for demolition with hundred of small charges progressively cutting the beams on each floor from the top down, with very little dust as the building fell. WTC 1 and 2 were obscured by dust as they fell, and some rather large pieces were ejected a significant distance – not at all like a typical controlled demolition. Why the difference, if all three buildings had the same demolition method?

    • adil  September 2, 2013 at 10:54 pm

      he has explained it except for the dust part… bldg 1 and 2 had undamaged parts falling into the “dust”. that might explain as dust moved violently sideways to give way for falling bldg. bldg 7 had no such weight so dust naturally fell. I haven’t seen video for long time but I suppose whole structure might look fluid before it fell. I do remember that. other than that “where did the bldg go” applies to bldg 7 as well. so it cannot be natural demolition.

    • captain obvious  September 3, 2013 at 8:29 am

      didnt learn of WTC-7 until a few years after the big event (like so many of us) but the video images are very well burned in. the building had the classic center crimp first, for the ends to fall inward downward. it was also dropped at a very near freefall speed, but didnt require as much explosives as towers to drop them nearly-neatly into their footprints. I really DONT doubt Dimitri’s assessment about nuclear neutron bombs being used at the bases, its just that if it was all that was used, the buildings tops would have more likely tipped over to smash neighboring buildings LOTS more!
      (to worker and adil both)

  26. Allesandro  September 2, 2013 at 9:23 pm

    Dimitri,

    Thanks for all your work on behalf of all global citizens who’ve been screwed as a result of 9/11/01.

    If I remember correctly, there was also a huge crater under WTC Bldg 6, maybe where the GOLD was stored, and a truck got stuck on the way out with some good amount of gold on it,…I’m not sure but how would that be explained?

    Seems to be an unanswered question in your theory, which I believe may be true, but did I get this part wrong, or could there have been something else there?

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 2, 2013 at 11:58 pm

      I can not say anything about gold, because I could only explain things that I know or at least understand. I have little understanding about gold, though, I heard that those folks attempted to steal gold and some of their loaded trucks were found abandoned in underground tunnels. About what you call “craters” (in fact, it were underground cavities) I know only about three – under both Twin Towers and under the WTC-7. I have never heard about the on under the WTC-6.

    • Allesandro  September 3, 2013 at 6:53 am

      Dimitri,
      This is what I was telling you about WTC Bldg 6, Custom House: Gold, Collapse Of Russian Economy, 9/11, Bonds Clearing off-line, etc. Eye Opening connections.
      “What Caused the WTC 6 Crater?

      Before the smoke had cleared from around the stricken South Tower, a mysterious explosion shot 550 feet into the air above the U.S. Customs House at 6 World Trade Center. This unexplained blast at the Customs House has never been investigated or reported in the mainstream media.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n_fp5kaVYhk

      Despite the fact that the horrible events of September 11 occurred in broad daylight and were widely photographed, significant aspects of the attacks have been completely suppressed by a media blackout. A massive explosion, witnessed by millions of television viewers on CNN, evidently devastated WTC 6, the 8-story U.S. Customs House, although no national newspaper or media outlet has said a word about it.
      The exploded remains of the destroyed U.S. Customs House (WTC 6) that was NOT hit by any planes, and it experienced an explosion at the exact moment the South Tower collapsed……
      Continues…
      ” An Inconvenient Witness – Kurt Sonnenfeld & the Emptied Vault of WTC 6
      Kurt Sonnenfeld, the FEMA videographer who, for 29 days after 9-11, filmed the crime scene at the World Trade Center, including the sub-basement levels of WTC 6, was recently interviewed by the Voltaire Network. His comments from June 22 about WTC 7 and WTC 6 and how inconvenient witnesses like himself have been silenced are extremely important….”

    • Allesandro  September 3, 2013 at 7:23 am

      Dimitri,

      This is the link to the text on WTC Bldg 6 the explosion, crater, etc. it did not copy on my other reply:

      http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com/2012/12/911-what-happened-to-wtc-building-6.html

    • Allesandro  September 3, 2013 at 7:40 am

      Dimitri,

      Also a good picture of the crater under WTC Bldg 6 after the explosion , forgot to mention before.

      http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com/2012/12/911-what-happened-to-wtc-building-6.html

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 3, 2013 at 5:20 pm

      Allesandro, I looked at the picture at your link. I saw this before, of course, because it is a very famous picture. But it does not show any “crater” under the WTC-6. It merely shows a hole in the roof of the WTC-6; moreover, the major part of the actual WTC-6 is still there, being relatively intact. This state of affairs hardly confirms any alleged “crater” under it. In reality, there were only three craters – that corresponded to the positions of the three demolition nukes that destroyed the Twin Towers and the WTC-7.

    • stephanaugust  September 3, 2013 at 9:43 am

      When I read the articles about the gold for the first time I thought for a second that 9/11 was done in order to steal the gold in “Die Hard With A Vengeance” style (part 3 of the movie series with the blown up ship).

  27. adil  September 2, 2013 at 6:34 pm

    why it doesn’t matter? I am spalled that people tell things like that.! only one of them is telling the truth.

    like we can safetly conclude that nano thermite was managed conspiracy. mini nukes seems to be same as mini nukes can be easily blamed on “terrorists”. finally the mini nukes theory was not convincing one. there is no reason we should allow a non convincing witness credibility. it can be genuine mistake or it can be managed opposition. nevertheless we need to reject things that is confusing us even more.

    till date I find only Dimitriv Khalezov convincing – he has really detailed utube video, he covers everything, he gives credible facts and he writes very detailed analysis. why you want to believe half cooked analysis that leaves you more confused?

  28. adil  September 2, 2013 at 6:27 pm

    I really like Dimitriv. most convincing and he certainly works very hard to cover all aspects. other one (mini nukes) just hang on to bath tub. and kerosene burned buildings down are just too dumb to talk to.

    one thing I would like to add here is that mini nukes analysis tell multiple mini nukes. I know little bit about electronics and I am sure that you cannot perfectly time so many mini nukes that it looks like one continuous one. not to mention that it perfectly pulverized a square shape when it sphere of influence is supposed to be spherical.

    • captain obvious  September 3, 2013 at 8:38 am

      the multiple mini’s may not have been the case for the tops, thermate de-structurings and conventional explosives could possibly have done as much too. for mini’s, if the blast sphere is slightly smaller than the square, taking out the center cores with thermate slicing up the outers.. but anyway, they were sure quick to call it “ground zero” is a nuclear detonation nickname just like “pull it” is for controlled demolitions!

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 6, 2013 at 10:23 pm

      Hi Adil. Yes, you are 100% right. There is no way to time multiple mini-nukes in any “sequence” because they would destroy one another.

  29. sweetliberty  September 2, 2013 at 4:49 pm

    “The twin reflecting pool fountains were constructed on the footprints of the old World Trade Center towers destroyed on 9/11 by nuclear detonations. The fountains are pouring water onto the radioactive Ground Zero to keep the nuclear detonation created tholeiite rock below cool and wash the radioactive fallout out to the ocean. No building can be built on the footprints of the old World Trade Center Towers because the technology doesn’t exist that would allow the excavation of the radioactive tholeiite rock bed that was created by the nuclear detonations.”

    continued…

    **http://presscore.ca/2012/u-s-government-planning-and-preparing-another-vatican-new-world-order-false-flag-attack.html

    • sweetliberty  September 3, 2013 at 1:01 am

      Your detailed analysis was quite enlightening. ( I didn’t finish reading your article before I posted the link above.- sorry )

      Thank you, Mr. Khalezov.
      (Were you able to find the dictionaries you were looking for? I stumbled upon your videos asking about them, not too long ago.)

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 3, 2013 at 6:58 am

      So far people only found for me one – Oxford Concise 2004 from that list. The rest is still needed. I would be happy if you could find genuine Britannica on CDs, these are pretty common and many people should possess them from good old times. These CDs are more common than the dictionary-books.

  30. ron101  September 2, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    Hi Dimitri.
    Dimitri, you should hookup with a mobile payment service , also called sms payment for donations for your book. it’s simple for people – all they need to do is send 1 sms.
    Good luck

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 2, 2013 at 11:59 pm

      Hi Ron. Thanks. I will think about it. If you could send me an e-mail, may be you can teach me how to do so (I am not too clever in such things).

    • ron101  September 6, 2013 at 12:29 pm

      Dimitri go to smscoin.com and register there (their website is also in russian). contact them if you need more explanations

    • ron101  September 6, 2013 at 12:30 pm

      Dimitri, go to smscoin(DOT)com and register there. it is also in russian contact them if you need more help

  31. stephanaugust  September 2, 2013 at 3:53 pm

    “… notice that I always claimed that the demolition nukes were kept in special premises under the WTC-7 and they were delivered by special underground tunnels with mini-railways under their targets …”

    I did not know that.

    And I loved the half burned cars tour.

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 3, 2013 at 12:00 am

      I loved the half-burned cars too. I have never seen anything more stupid than this cheap production (that was bought, nonetheless, by many naive people).

  32. DaveE  September 2, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    Also, the mini nukes theory depends on the energy of the blast(s) being directional, which is just plain impossible without a LOT of mass to resist the shock wave and a “path of least resistance” where the energy could be dissipated, in the preferred direction.

    Practically speaking, that’s only possible with an underground nuke, where the energy would naturally be directed upwards into the building by the enormous mass of the surrounding Earth. It’s just not possible in a low-density structure like a building to direct a shock wave, at least to any significant degree.

  33. DaveE  September 2, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    So saith our resident Israeli.

    • stephanaugust  September 2, 2013 at 4:13 pm

      Where your so called “the joooze” at the scene to document the event or the Bhutanese?

    • Worker Bee  September 2, 2013 at 9:22 pm

      I doubt that this is a work of a hasbara agent – claiming the Bhutanese as TPTB serves no purpose, other than providing entertainment for Mr. Insider.

    • adil  September 2, 2013 at 10:49 pm

      this sure is x agent… probably fired now that the truth is harder to hide.. he seems to have gone insane trying to bend truth… it ain’t as easy as it was earlier … just usual comments- we got to intervene, muslims backwards, patriotic duty etc etc and people rallied behind these agents… now such cushy jobs have become harder these agents are going insane. he is mid eastern for sure. lot frustrated (joozee is probably dick in mid eastern slang). most likely stuck in a arranged meaningless marriage.

  34. CoJonesGrandes  September 2, 2013 at 1:05 pm

    arianiuss.
    Khalezov’s completed book is now available. Go check out his Youtube page.

  35. DaveE  September 2, 2013 at 11:12 am

    Very impressive, Dmitri. I think it’s clear to anyone with a background in elementary mechanics that a purely above ground explosion would not do the trick, by itself, although these may have been used, anyway, if nothing else for the cinematography of it all.

    • DaveE  September 2, 2013 at 2:59 pm

      I meant Dimitri. Sorry about that.

    • Dimitri Khalezov  September 3, 2013 at 12:08 am

      Hi Dave. Thanks a lot. I am glad you like the article. My name could be spelled both ways – in my Soviet documents (as well as for my bank account now) my name is “Dmitri”, but I used to use other documents for almost 20 years, so there it was spelled “Dimitri”, with the second ‘i”, and as such it became my “pen-name” and “screen-name”.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS MONTH
From Veterans Today Network