Nov 25 2014
Ground Zero – Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Center.
Nexus
There follows an excellent article about the WTC twin towers and how they were brought down by nuclear explosions.
The long, but fascinating article was composed by a Russian fella named as being Dimitri A Khalezov, a former officer in the USSR’s Special Control Service, AKA Soviet Nuclear Intelligence:
“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 the detection of nuclear explosions (including underground nuclear tests) of various adversaries of the former USSR as well as responsible for controlling the 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 built-in “emergency nuclear demolitions schema” of the Twin Towers as long ago as the ‘80s – while being a serviceman in the Soviet Special Control Service”.
In the article, Khalezov painstakingly puts forward evidence that the towers were brought down by mini-nuclear bombs, already in place, well below the footings of the towers.
Now, the reason for the bombs being in place was due to the building regulations at the time which decreed that all skyscrapers due to be built had to have in place some means of demolition – without which the towers would never have been given the go-ahead…
Ground Zero – Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Center.
An improved English version of the scandalous article from the NEXUS German magazine.
“…If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” – Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.
“…society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The keyword here is “blackwhite”. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this.
But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as “doublethink”. The alteration of the past is necessary for two reasons, one of which is subsidiary and, so to speak, precautionary…”. – George Orwell, “Nineteen Eighty-Four”.
“…We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty…” – Remarks by President G. W. Bush to the United Nations General Assembly U.N. Headquarters, New York, New York, November 10, 2001 9:38 A.M. EST
Yes. Agree. Let us do it, Mr. Bush. Let us stop tolerating those outrageous conspiracy theories right away…
Let’s begin with the most outrageous of all of the 9/11 conspiracy theories – with the one that states that aviation fuel (“kerosene”) could instantly “melt” huge amounts of structural steel into fluffy microscopic dust and that the location where such a spectacular feat occurred could possibly be known as “ground zero”…
The third truth about September 11
The official story of September 11th is a bag of lies and this seems to be a proven fact within communities outside the mainstream. What really did happen? A new series of revelations by a former member of Soviet nuclear intelligence has shocked even those who believed they had a clear view behind the curtain.
Dimitri Khalezov
How exactly did the WTC buildings collapse? The analytical work of an expert on nuclear explosions leads us to a shocking conclusion.
When ordinary people saw how two planes struck the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York and how the Twin Towers then collapsed into clouds of dust during the 9/11 events, they were too shocked by the incidents to subject the events to any level of scrutiny. Since then, the odd notion has been embedded into people’s minds: that hollow aluminum planes could supposedly penetrate thick steel buildings in their entirety and that aviation fuel (kerosene) could supposedly “melt” these steel buildings into fluffy microscopic dust…
Sooner or later, these ridiculous notions need to be discarded. The Twin Towers’ collapses had absolutely nothing to do with neither planes nor the fires which resulted as a result of the “crashes”. This is an obvious fact that occupies the minds of millions of Americans who are unhappy with the official interpretation of the World Trade Center’s destruction over the course of at least the last 6 years. After the initial shock caused by the 9/11 events had subsided, many people began to realize there were simply too many inconsistencies in the official version.
First off, what caught their attention was that the order in which the Twin Towers collapsed did not correspond to the order in which they were struck by planes. The South Tower, which was hit second, collapsed first, and the North Tower, which was hit first, collapsed second. This meant that it took the “fires” 1 hour and 42 minutes to “collapse” the first Tower and only 56 minutes to “collapse” the second Tower.
Considering that the fires in both Towers were caused by approximately the same quantities of kerosene and considering that the Towers were Twins (i.e. they were absolutely identical in their strength), this became the first clear indication that their collapses had nothing to do with fire alone. The next realization came after 9/11 researchers began to consider that World Trade Center building #7 (an enormously strong modern steel-frame 47-story high skyscraper) had also collapsed in a similar manner later on that afternoon on that very same day, but without having been hit by a plane.
If the collapse of the Twin Towers was to be officially blamed on kerosene carried by “planes”, then the collapse of WTC-7 was unexplainable to such an extent that the official Report of the 9/11 Commission preferred not to mention the collapse of WTC-7 at all – as if the collapse of a 47-story high modern skyscraper was not worthy of a single mention. Comparison of these three events and a lot of irregularities surrounding their collapses brought the first 9/11 researchers to the realization that they were being lied to by the authorities and that the destruction of the World Trade Center had nothing to do with kerosene or any “planes” because no planes were needed in the first place.
The mere collapse of WTC-7 later on that same afternoon on September 11, 2001 proved that no actual terrorist planes were required in the first place and that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings would have occurred regardless– irrespective of any “planes”. Someone simply needed the World Trade Center buildings to collapse and that is why they collapsed. From this point on, the so-called “9/11 Truth Movement” had begun.
People then began to accuse the US Government of having intentionally demolished the World Trade Center in an industrial process known as a “controlled demolition”. More and more people in America started to accuse their own government of having been the main culprit behind the 9/11 attacks and eventually more than 65% of the US population expressed their disbelief in the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks and of the World Trade Center’s collapse. In fact, anybody who has watched contemporary 9/11 coverage closely enough can remember the following screenshots where a “third explosion” was mentioned:
Video – YouTube direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oZ1h8mYwbw
Here it is – the seditious video footage by CNN where lines of text were shown that insisted it was a certain “third explosion” that first “shattered” and then – “collapsed” the South Tower of the World Trade Center. The North Tower (the one with an antenna) had not yet collapsed at that moment. It would fall later on – from a “fourth explosion”, but CNN by that time would receive a severe reprimand from the so-called “good guys” and would never again dare mention such seditious words as “explosions”. The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center would be declared as “destroyed by kerosene”, while WTC building 7 (which was not hit by any plane from alleged “terrorists”) – “destroyed by diesel oil” (since the storing of diesel oil was indeed kept in WTC-7 for emergency power generators).
And, understandably enough, most people who disagree with the official “kerosene” theory accuse the US Government of having intentionally demolished the World Trade Center. However, they don’t actually have much understanding of demolition processes in general and more specifically of the World Trade Center’s actual construction.
That is why quite a few “conspiracy theories” have emerged that range from claims that the WTC was supposedly “wired with explosives” to claims that it was supposedly demolished by so-called “nano-thermite” (a mystic substance never heard of until now) which they claim was supposedly “used as a coating” on each and every steel piece of the Twin Towers’ bearing structures.
There are even more bizarre conspiracy theories that pin the collapse of the Twin Towers’ on supposed “high-tech weapons” – such as laser beams originating from space for example. Of course, none of these conspiracy theorists actually ever agree with one another and they focus their time not only on accusing the US Government of having been the main culprit behind 9/11, but they also accuse each other of “muddying the waters of the truth”. The problem with all these conspiracy theorists in general is that they do not really know what happened to the World Trade Center and, more importantly, they don’t know why it happened.
The author of this article will try to present his readers with something different. Instead of presenting just another “conspiracy theory”, he will instead present his expert opinion and eyewitness testimony along with his experience and knowledge from his former position in the Soviet Army. As a result of this approach, he hopes the reader will receive a far better explanation in regards to the demolition of the WTC that which he or she could never have received on any Internet forum dealing specifically with the WTC conspiracy.
Ground Zero and ground zero.
To begin with, I would like to remind everyone that the location of the former World Trade Center in New York is called “Ground Zero” in English. Many people don’t seem to realize what the term “ground zero” actually means and how important this is from an evidentiary point of view. Most of us just accepted “Ground Zero” as some sort of proper noun – as if it were the name of a city or the name of a ship.
However, not many people today realize that the rather peculiar name “ground zero” was assigned to the location of the former WTC much too prematurely for it to have been an actual “Proper Noun” when referring to the WTC. Almost immediately after the collapse of the Twin Towers (and just a few hours before the collapse of the WTC-7) – i.e. by noon on September 11, 2001, almost every government official and even some news reporters had already begun referring to the location as “ground zero”.
All news releases printed the next day even referred to the location of the former WTC as “ground zero” and this particular term continued to be spelled out in lower-case letters. The usage of the term “ground zero” in relation to the former WTC area continued even throughout September 12, 2001 and several news agencies even continued using the term “ground zero” in lower-case letters throughout September 13, 2001. Only then, as if someone had caught on, did this particular term immediately become elevated in status to “Ground Zero” with Capital Letters. As such, it, at last, became a Proper Noun. But what about the term “ground zero” in lower case letters – i.e. not in the status of a Proper Noun yet?
Why would officials have referred to the WTC almost immediately after its collapse by this particularly peculiar term? Was it a mistake caused by all the confusion going on in the midst of the unprecedented 9/11 events? I would answer “yes”.
It was definitely a mistake that occurred during the overall confusion in that this particular term slipped out to the public. It was, however, not a mistake in the sense that the wrong term was being used to refer to the WTC as “ground zero” – simply because it was just too early at the moment to have chosen a Proper Name for the site where the WTC had just been destroyed.
In fact, Civil Defense specialists were absolutely correct when they designated the area as “ground zero”. There was absolutely no mistake in making such a designation from a Civil Defense specialist’s perspective. It was definitely a “ground zero” in the sense which they understood it to be. It was, however, absolutely a mistake in the sense that the particular term “ground zero” had inadvertently been leaked to journalists and through them…to the general public.
After that, it was simply too late to quash the Civil Defense designation of “ground zero” and desperate US officials had no choice but to “Capitalize” the seditious term by converting its correct Civil Defense’s designation of “ground zero” to its very own Proper Noun: “Ground Zero”.
To begin with, I would like to quote a statement concerning a hero from 9/11 – Detective John Walcott, a “Ground Zero” responder, who spent a considerable amount of time at the WTC site cleaning rubble from of the World Trade Center. He had spent enough time there to develop a very interesting disease: acute myelogenous leukemia in its terminal form.
Just a mere two paragraphs taken out of a frightening article entitled “Death by Dust”[1] managed to contain and reveal practically all the “unexplainable” things many had questions about concerning “Ground Zero”. The excerpts below will provide the reader with some key basic points which will allow you to better understand the main point of this article – that of dust and radiation:
“…Because Walcott was a detective, he ended up spending his five-month stint not just at Ground Zero, but also at Fresh Kills. As much as he choked on the Lower Manhattan air, he dreaded the Staten Island landfill. Walcott knew everything in the towers had fallen – desks, lights, and computers. But apart from the occasional steel beam, the detritus that he sifted through there consisted of tiny grains of dust – no furniture pieces, no light fixtures, not even a computer mouse.
At times, the detectives would take shelter in wooden sheds, in an attempt to get away from what Walcott likes to call “all that freaking bad air.” One day, he was sitting in the shed with his colleagues, eating candy bars and drinking sodas, when some FBI agents entered. They were dressed in full haz-mat suits, complete with head masks, which they had sealed shut with duct tape to ward off the fumes. As Walcott took in the scene, contrasting the well-protected FBI agents with the New York cops wearing respirator masks, one thought entered his mind: What is wrong with this picture?[2]…”
Yes, Mr. Walcott, unfortunately something was wrong. Something was very badly wrong with that picture…
Those FBI agents, who had no shame in showing up in full haz-mat suits, moreover sealed shut with duct tape, knew the truth, as they stood in front of the “commoners”. That is why today these guys don’t suffer from leukemia or from any other kinds of terminal cancer. The FBI agents will apparently live long and fulfilling lives, despite having briefly visited “Ground Zero”…
If you were to only open up a contemporary dictionary and look up the actual meaning of this peculiar term, you wouldn’t need to ask that question; you would immediately understand what was wrong with “Ground Zero”:
Above – all possible meanings of “ground zero” as defined by The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition 1999, ISBN 1-888777796), page 559.
It should be noted that Mr. John Walcott eventually managed to survive, unlike many of his colleagues who used to work at “Ground Zero” and who were not as lucky as him. On December 17, 2007, it was briefly mentioned in an Internet news article[3] that John Walcott had at last undergone a truly advanced (and extremely painful) operation known as a bone marrow transplantation. From now on, he could continue to live, but only on special immuno-depressant drugs which prevent transplant rejection; and without ever leaving his home due to the fact his entire immune system no longer exists and any kind of infection can easily prove fatal.
For anyone who doesn’t know what “marrow transplantation” is, I am obliged to explain. A marrow transplantation is required in patients who have incurred heavy doses of either penetrating or residual ionizing radiation (or both) and whose own bone marrow (which is responsible for blood regeneration) has been completely killed off by heavy doses of radiation.
This is a particularly unique property of radiation – it strikes bone marrow cells more heavily than it does other cells in the human body. That is why the majority of victims of radiation suffer from leukemia. And, the heavier the dose of radiation, the more bone marrow is killed off, thus, the worse the case of leukemia the patient suffers from. John Walcott apparently suffered from the most severe possible condition – before obtaining his bone marrow transplantation, he was living exclusively on donors’ blood because his own blood was not regenerating at all.
In addition to killing off or severely damaging bone marrow, ionizing radiation, especially when someone inhales or ingests radioactive dust or radioactive vapor, causes various kinds of cancers that can affect virtually any part of the human body and even several parts all at once.
It is, however, not too difficult for dishonest doctors and health officials to provide plausible “explanations” as to what may have caused these cancers. They can just claim it was due to “asbestos”, “toxic fumes”, “toxic dust particles”, etc. However, when it comes to bone marrow damage, these deceivers are caught right in their tracks because bone marrow damage can only be caused by ionizing radiation.
That is precisely why the FBI agents showed up in full “haz-mat” suits and even had their head masks sealed shut with duct tape to “ward off fumes” while visiting “Ground Zero”. They didn’t want to suffer from leukemia nor from any other cancer, so they went as far as to seal their head masks shut with duct tape, not just to “ward off the fumes”, as John Walcott had believed, but because they needed to ward off airborne radioactive dust, and more specifically, radioactive vapor, which must not be inhaled or ingested at all costs.
Volunteers at “ground zero” amidst the Twin Towers’ debris and amidst streams of radioactive vapor ascending from under the debris – the photo was taken approximately five weeks after the events.
Indeed, I can assume some readers may simply be just too shocked by this particular revelation and may not tend to believe me – thinking that I am merely speculating on uncertainties. However, the abovementioned story regarding John Walcott and those FBI agents wearing haz-mat suits at “ground zero” had nothing to do with me personally – it exists as a matter of fact independently of the humble author of this article. Also independent of the author of this article stands the actual legal definition of “ground zero” which before 9/11 used to be as follows:
“ground’ ze’ro” – the point on the surface of the earth or water directly below, directly above, or at which an atomic or hydrogen bomb explodes.
Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (Edition 1989, printed in 1994, ISBN 0-517-11888-2).
“ground zero” = point on the ground directly under the explosion of a nuclear weapon.
Dictionary of Military Terms (Peter Collins Publishing 1999, ISBN 1-901659-24-0).
“ground ze-ro” /,.’../ n [U] the place where a NUCLEAR bomb explodes, where the most severe damage happens
Longman Advanced American Dictionary (new, first published 2000, ISBN 0 582 31732 0).
“ground zero” noun 1 [C usually singular] the exact place where a nuclear bomb explodes: The blast was felt as far as 30 miles from ground zero. 2 [U] the site of the former World Trade Center in New York City, which was destroyed in an attack on September 11, 2001.
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2nd Edition. (2nd Edition 2006, ISBN-13 978-0-521-60499-4 – this is a post 9/11 edition, widely available).
The above were complete, unabridged definitions of “ground zero”. It was the only definable and proper definition of its meaning. If you don’t believe your eyes and prefer to run to the nearest book store and buy an English dictionary, don’t be in too much of a hurry.
When you arrive at the shop you will be surprised even further because as of now it is no longer possible to even find a dictionary that contains the original, unedited definition of the term. All dictionaries printed before 9/11, like those which I mention above, containing the original correct meaning of “ground zero”, have been removed from book-shelves and replaced with newer ones. Unfortunately, the very English language itself was one of the first victims of the 9/11 perpetration…
The dictionaries’ photos below were not present in the original version of this article in NEXUS magazine; however, I decided to add them to this Internet-version, since they are very illustrative.
These photos compare similar dictionaries produced by the very same publishers that had previously printed them – and after the name “ground zero” was inadvertently awarded to the location of the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center:
Above – “Encarta” dictionary by the Microsoft – the 1999 and the 2001 editions.
Above – The Chambers Dictionary – the 1998 (reprinted in 2001) and the 2003 editions.
Above – The Macquarie Dictionary (of the Australian English) – the 2001 and the 2005 editions.
Above – The Macmillan Dictionary of 1987 and the Macmillan Essential Dictionary of Learners of English of 2003 (the second dictionary of 2003 is much smaller in grade and contains lesser words and definitions than the first one – of 1987; nonetheless, “ground zero” has a much “broader” definition in the second one dictionary).
Above – Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of 1983 and the Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the infamous “September 11, 2001 edition” (the ISBN for the second dictionary – 0-375-42566-7 – was indeed reserved on the very day – the eleventh day of September, 2001 – and thus the date of 9/11 became is the official date of the publication of that infamous dictionary…)
Above – Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language of 1994 edition and Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, New Deluxe Edition of 2001 (the Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language is a carbon-copy of the Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary – that is why the two sets of photos above look identical).
Above – the Collins English Dictionary– the 2001 and the 2003 editions.
Above – The New Penguin English Dictionary – the 2000 and the 2003 editions.
Above – Longman Advanced American Dictionary – the 2000 and the 2007 editions.
Above – The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary – the 1995 and the 2006 editions.
Above – The American Heritage Desk Dictionary of 2001 and 2013 editions.
Above – Merriam-Webster’s biggest dictionary – Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged of 1986 and 2002 editions.
Above – Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of 1999 and Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary of 2010 (the first dictionary has never been re-issued, while the second one was not even published before the 9/11 events, however, these two dictionaries are approximately equal in their status and are equal when it comes to the number of pages and numbers of words and definitions).
Don’t be surprised that almost every new English dictionary printed after 9/11 has begun to describe “ground zero” as having more than one sense. Now, at least 3-5 new meanings have been ascribed to this particular term, ranging from some supposed “great devastation”, “great disorder” and “busy activities” to some supposed “basic level” and “starting point” definitions. Some preferred another approach: editors of the new Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, for example, defined “ground zero” as a “place where a bomb explodes” without mentioning anything at all that such “bomb” is supposed to be nuclear or thermo-nuclear in nature. In addition to all of this, these days almost every dictionary – whether big or small – has begun to include this (to be exact “these”) definitions.
The term “ground zero”, obviously due to being such a specialized term prior to 9/11, existed only in really big English dictionaries – such as Webster’s Unabridged, full Collins, full American Heritage, and other similar large dictionaries (and even in those it contained only the single correct meaning of the term). It didn’t exist in smaller dictionaries – such as those intended for students and for advanced learners (with the only exception being the Longman Advanced American Dictionary – which is mentioned above). For example, “ground zero” was absent in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries in their 4th, 5th and 6th Editions published before September 11, 2001. Even Oxford’s 4th special “Encyclopedic” version (which was about 50% larger compared to the regular one) did not contain any reference to the term “ground zero”. Only Oxford’s Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of 7th Edition first published in 2005 began describing this term at last.
Post-9/11 editions of the Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners and the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, all kinds of new Merriam-Webster’s Dictionaries, the majority of new American Heritage Dictionaries, the new Collins English, the Microsoft Encarta Dictionary and many other new dictionaries and encyclopedias after the September 11 affair have all begun to include “ground zero” and to define it in such a sense that it might supposedly have more than one meaning, all trying their best to divert attention away from the former nuclear (and only nuclear) nature of this term.
By the way, editors of the last mentioned above Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary should be praised for not having deceived their readers: they were brave enough not to include any misleading definitions of the term “ground zero” in their post-9/11 dictionary, which is in sharp contrast to every other dictionary that was edited at the behest of the 9/11 cover-up. It was reported there had even been attempts to prove that the WTC was already referred to as “ground zero” even before September 11, 2001.
All these post-9/11 linguistic efforts in attempting to obscure the term “ground zero” are understandable indeed. That obviously revealing name, rashly awarded by Civil Defense specialists to the demolition grounds of the former New York World Trade Center, was obviously too revealing to just leave this particular term in future editions of dictionaries with only its former sense alone…
Nuclear demolition of the WTC.
The author of this article used to be a commissioned officer in the Soviet military unit 46179, otherwise known as the “Special Control Service of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the USSR”. The 12th Chief Directorate itself was an organization responsible in the Soviet Union for the safe-keeping, the production control, the technical maintenance etc. of the entire nuclear arsenal of the state.
The Special Control Service was responsible for detecting nuclear explosions and was responsible for the observance of all international treaties related to nuclear testing. It is especially important to note the existence of the so-called “Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty” of 1976 between the USSR and the United States of America. In accordance with this Treaty, all parties were obliged to inform one another about all nuclear explosions intended for non-military purposes.
During my military service in the abovementioned organization at the end of the ‘80s, it came to my knowledge that there was a so-called “emergency nuclear demolition schema” built into the World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York. The actual nuclear demolition schema was based on huge thermo-nuclear charges (about 150 kilotons in TNT yield) which were positioned about 50 meters below the lowest underground foundations of each of the Towers. It was strange to me by then and, to be honest; it was hard to believe that US authorities would be crazy enough to demolish buildings in the middle of a populated city using underground nuclear explosions.
However, as I understood it correctly, nobody had ever actually planned to demolish the World Trade Center in such a way. It was merely a means to get around the bureaucracy: such a nuclear demolition schema had to be built into the Twin Towers not to get them demolished, but to get permission to build them in the first place.
The problem was that the then building code of New York (as well as that of Chicago) didn’t allow the Department of Buildings to issue permits to build a skyscraper unless its constructor could provide a satisfactory means by which he could demolish the building either in future, or in the case of emergency. Since the late ‘60s (when the Twin Towers were first proposed) this type of steel-framed buildings was a totally new concept and nobody knew how to deal with them in the sense of demolition.
Given that traditional (“conventional”) controlled demolition methods were applicable purely to older-style buildings, they had to come up with something new for the incredibly strong steel Twin Towers that would convince the Department of Buildings to issue permission for their actual construction. And the solution was indeed created: nuclear demolition.
A brief history of the atomic and nuclear demolition concept.
The initial idea of using nuclear devices to demolish various constructions was born almost immediately after the emergence of actual nuclear weapons in the beginning of the 50s. At first, nuclear munitions were not called “nuclear”, but “atomic”, so the concept of demolition using these munitions was accordingly called “atomic demolition”.
These terms managed to survive, and despite having renamed “atomic weapons” to “nuclear weapons”, the term “atomic demolition” is still used to this day with respect to special engineering devices – such as SADM and MADM. The first term stands for “Special Atomic Demolition Munitions”, the second tern stands for “Medium Atomic Demolition Munitions”, while many people mistakenly believe that SADM means “Small Atomic Demolition Munitions”, rather than “Special”.
In fact, it’s not a mistake to call them “small” instead of “special” because SADM are indeed “small” – their nuclear explosive yields usually don’t exceed 1 kiloton in TNT equivalent. Considering that all modern SADM have variable yields which can be set to as low as 0.1 kiloton, and sometimes even set to as low as 0.01 kiloton (equivalents to 100 and 10 metric tons of TNT respectively), they deserve to be called “small” munitions. Other popular names for these Small Atomic Demolition Munitions are “mini-nuke” and “suitcase nuke”, though the second one is probably not logically correct.
In reality, most SADM resemble big pots weighing between 50 to 70 kilograms that can be carried as back-packs – so it is very unlikely that they would fit into a suitcase.
However, there are also modern “mini-nukes” which are made of Plutonium-239 rather than Uranium-235, and due to the much lower critical mass of Plutonium, their size can be significantly decreased – some of the newer Plutonium-based “mini-nukes” can indeed fit into even a case as small as a handbag. Medium Atomic Demolition Munitions (MADM) are bigger in both a) their size and b) their TNT yield. They can range up to 15 kilotons in TNT yield, weigh up to 200 kg and be as big as any large regular gas-cylinder you’d find in your home.
Either of the abovementioned atomic demolition munitions can be successfully used in demolishing large objects which otherwise could not be demolished by any reasonable amount of conventional explosives – especially in times of emergency, when there is neither the time nor the means to plan for their “regular” demolition using conventional means.
For example, they can demolish bridges, dams, tunnels, reinforced underground structures, large reinforced buildings, etc., however, the efficiency factor of using such nuclear demolitions as SADM or MADM isn’t quite that high. As it is publicly known, the main goal of the controlled demolition of buildings through implosion is not to actually eliminate the buildings by blowing them up and ejecting their debris everywhere, but to bring them down neatly while at the same time minimizing damage to surrounding buildings.
For precisely this reason, engineers who prepare controlled demolitions have to first figure out the exact points within a building’s bearing structure to cut and attach charges of conventional explosives to those spots – in order to break the bearing structures.
In almost every case, there is more than one spot to attach explosives since it is unlikely that any structure would have a single supporting girder or a single supporting column to cut; at best there would be at least several, if not many. In the case of atomic demolition, however, using the abovementioned atomic demolition munitions is quite different.
People who work in the planning of the usage of atomic munitions for emergency purposes require neither the time nor the training to make the precise calculations which are needed in conventional controlled demolition. What these people would have at the very most is a basic knowledge of field-engineering and a basic understanding of nuclear demolitions.
Thus, atomic demolition munitions are not used to “neatly” bring down a structure, but rather as a means to bring down a structure by any means necessary and at any cost no matter what the toll is. This is why the explosive yield of the atomic munitions used to demolish such a structure in the case of emergency would be excessive.
This is because the majority of the explosive energy from atomic munitions would be spent in vain. So, the majority of energy released by the nuclear explosion of an atomic demolition device would be spent on the well-known factors of an atomic blast: thermal radiation, air-blast wave, ionizing radiation, electro-magnetic pulse – all of which have nothing to do with the actual demolition task at hand and would not contribute much to the end goal of neatly demolishing the building.
The destructive factors of an atomic explosion would greatly damage the surroundings – and this damage itself is rather extreme and definitely comes at a much higher toll than the actual cost of a demolition itself.
It is to be said then that nuclear demolition in the abovementioned sense would have a rather poor performance index when compared to carrying out a precisely-calculated conventional controlled demolition. This is due to the fact that the latter directs its almost entire explosive energy on breaking the bearing structures, rather than on creating an air-blast wave and thermal radiation.
Regardless, the use of an atomic demolition device alone is just far too costly. At the bare minimum, a Uranium-based “mini-nuke” costs a few million US dollars if not more and a Plutonium-based one costs much more than that. Apparently, a thousand tons of TNT would cost cheaper than 1 kiloton of atomic munitions. However, it is possible to demolish most buildings using 1000 tons of TNT while it is possible to demolish only a single building using a “mini-nuke” (but while damaging many other buildings in the surrounding area).
Considering all of this, it is to be concluded that it is not a viable option whatsoever to use atomic demolition munitions, whether small or medium, for the demolition of civil infrastructure in times of peace, especially when we have sufficient time on our hands to prepare for their demolition using professional conventional controlled demolition methods. And, in any case, a conventional controlled demolition is much cheaper than a nuclear demolition. Mini-nukes can only be used for a demolition job in the case of a real emergency.
How then did it come to be that this old atomic demolition concept, despite being known to be too costly and having such a poor performance index when compared to conventional controlled demolition by implosion, came to be eventually revived and even implemented in the World Trade Center nuclear demolition schema?
It just so happens to be because a newer generation of buildings came into existence at the end of 60’s, namely steel-framed buildings.
Despite the common misconception, no steel-framed skyscraper has ever been demolished by implosion anywhere in the world prior to the WTC towers. This is primarily due to the fact that most skyscrapers are newer buildings and the need to demolish them has yet to come. Even the tallest building ever demolished by implosion was only 47-strories high – it was the Singer Building in New York City which was built in 1908 and demolished in 1968 due to it being so obsolete.
This building was much weaker in structure when compared to the incredibly strong hollow-tube type steel-frame skyscrapers which are built today. So, despite this common misconception, it is not possible to demolish a steel-frame building using any conventional controlled demolition (implosion) schema.
In older times, when buildings were brick-walled and concrete-panelled, their bearing structures used to be concrete supporting columns and concrete supporting girders. Sometimes these concrete bearing structures were reinforced by the insertion of metal bars and even sometimes just by concrete alone.
In any case, it was always possible to calculate the right amount of conventional explosives that was needed to attach to these bearing structures and in the correct spots (or to be placed into holes drilled into the bearing structures) in order to break them all at once and cause the building to collapse into its own footprint.
However, with modern steel-framed buildings this is simply no longer possible. Examples of modern steel-framed buildings include the former Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, World Trade Center building # 7 and the Sears Tower in Chicago.
Here is an example of the steel structure of the WTC Twin Towers:
There was no “bearing structure” in the older sense of the meaning – the entire Tower was essentially a “bearing structure” in of itself.
The steel-frame of the WTC consisted of exceptionally thick double-walled steel perimeter columns and core columns.
This co-called “tube-frame design” was a totally new approach which allowed open floor plans rather than columns distributed throughout the interior in order to support the loads like it had traditionally been implemented in older structures.
The Twin Towers featured load-bearing steel perimeter columns (square in cross-section) which were positioned one meter apart from each other on the Towers’ facades which formed an exceptionally rigid structure that in turn supported virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and even shared the gravity load with the core columns.
The perimeter structure contained 59 of such columns per side. The core structure of the Tower consisted of 47 rectangular steel columns that ran from the bedrock all the way up to the tops of the Towers.
In the following picture, you can see steel perimeter and core column remnants that remained at “Ground Zero”:
Here is one more picture (from the NIST report) showing the Twin Tower perimeter columns during their construction:
Perimeter columns are being inspected at “ground zero”.
These steel columns were incredibly thick – each wall measuring 2.5 inches (6.35 cm), so the entire thickness of each column was 5 inches (12.7 cm). To imagine how thick this is, here is a good example to compare to: imagine the front armor of the best tank from the WWII period – the T-34 – whose steel was only 1.8 inches (4.5 cm) thick and was just single-walled. The T-34 tank and its armor are in the pictures below:
Yet there were practically no armor-piercing artillery shells available at the time capable of penetrating such front armor.
Of course, no explosives whatsoever could ever tear through the front armor of a tank (except for hollow-charge shells which would still not even be able to tear through the armor completely, but would merely just burn a narrow hole through the armor plate).
Considering that the Twin Towers’ steel frames consisted of double-walled steel columns that were almost three times as thick as the front armor of a T-34 tank, it would not be possible to come up with a solution to break these columns simultaneously and do so in many spots simultaneously in order to achieve the “implosion” effect – which is, of course, the basic goal of controlled demolition.
It was, of course, technically possible to break some of these columns in certain spots, using exceptionally huge amounts of hollow-charges attached to each individual column, but even such an incredible amount of explosives wouldn’t be enough to achieve the desired “implosion effect”.
The Towers were simply too high and too rigid – their steel cores would have been simultaneously broken in too many spots on every floor, which no one could afford, and even if they could, still, such a solution would not lead to the desired effect – there would not be any guarantee that such a high-rise structure would fall straight down into to its foot print. It would most likely just scatter its debris over the course of a quarter mile given its mere height alone. So, it was impossible to bring the WTC Towers down by any form of traditional controlled demolition.
The same thing could be said about WTC building # 7 and the Sears Tower in Chicago. Both of them were constructed using similarly thick double-walled steel frames which were impossible to break at once due to the same reasons described above.
However, in accordance with US laws governing the construction of skyscrapers, designers had to submit a satisfactory demolition schema before construction would be approved by the Department of Buildings. No one would be allowed to build a skyscraper that could not be demolished in future.
This is the main reason for having a built-in nuclear demolition feature. Ironically, the nuclear demolition schema of a skyscraper is not actually meant to demolish the skyscraper, especially considering that no one has any practical experience in demolishing skyscrapers by such means – it is merely intended to convince the Department of Buildings to give permission to build the skyscraper.
It appears that all designers and proponents of such nuclear demolition schemas sincerely hope their ideas not be put to use during their life-time.
How does this work?
First off, such a modern nuclear demolition has nothing to do with the previously discussed atomic demolition using SADM or MADM as described above. It is an entirely new concept.
During the modern nuclear demolition process, a demolition charge does not produce any atmospheric nuclear explosion – with its trade-mark atomic mushroom cloud, thermal radiation, air-blast wave and electro-magnetic pulse. It explodes quite deep underground – much in the same sense as any nuclear charge explodes during a typical nuclear test. So, it produces neither air-blast wave, nor any thermal radiation, nor any penetrating ionizing radiation, nor any electro-magnetic pulse. It causes only relatively minor harm to surroundings by its ensuing radioactive contamination, which, nonetheless, is considered to be a negligible factor by the designers of such projects.
What is the basic difference then between an atmospheric and an underground nuclear explosion?
The basic difference is as follows. During the initial stage of a nuclear (as well as a thermo-nuclear) explosion, its entire explosive energy is being released in the form of “primary radiation” which in its main part (almost 99%) falls within an X-ray spectrum (and the remaining portion is represented by a gamma-ray spectrum which causes radiation injuries and a visible spectrum which produces a visible flash). So, the almost entire explosive energy represented by X-rays is spent on heating the surrounding air within a few hundred feet around the explosion’s hypocenter.
This occurs because X-rays can’t travel very far as they are consumed by the surrounding air. The heating of the relatively small area around the hypocenter of a nuclear explosion results in the appearance of “nuclear fireballs” which is physically nothing more than extremely overheated air.
These nuclear fireballs are responsible for the two main destructive factors of an atmospheric nuclear explosion –
1) thermal radiation
and
2) an air-blast wave since both factors result exclusively from the high temperatures of air around the nuclear explosion.
When it comes to an underground nuclear explosion, the picture is entirely different.
There is no air around the tiny “zero-box” which the nuclear charge is placed into, so the entire amount of energy instantly released by the nuclear explosion in the form of X-rays is spent on heating the surrounding rock instead.
It results in the overheating, melting and then vaporizing of the rock. The disappearance of the vaporized rock results in the creation of an underground cavity whose size depends directly on the explosive yield of nuclear munitions used.
You can get the idea on how much rock would disappear during an underground nuclear explosion based on the table below – whereby the quantities of vaporized and melted materials of various kinds (in metric tons) are shown on a “per kiloton of yield” basis:
Just as an example: the detonation of a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge buried sufficiently deep in granite rock would result in the creation of a cavity measuring roughly 100 meters in diameter – such as the one shown in this picture:
All skyscrapers have their lowest foundations approximately 20-30 meters beneath the surface of the Earth. So therefore it is easy to calculate the position under the skyscraper where you would need to position the “zero-box”. This is the precise location from where it will expand its upper cavity which is in the direction of the lowest subbasement of the building.
For example, in the case of the Twin Towers, their lowest underground foundation was 27 meters beneath surface. A 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear demolition charge was positioned at a depth of 77 meters below surface (or 50 meters below the underground foundation). A thermo-nuclear explosion at a depth of 77 m would create an extremely overheated cavity whose upper sphere would expand to the lowest underground foundations of the tower it intended to demolish.
However, it would still be short of reaching the surface of the Earth by 27 meters – so the surrounding structures would not to be affected by the destructive factors of the underground nuclear explosion, with the possible exception of radioactive contamination. The Tower being demolished then loses its foundations completely and is sucked into the overheated cavity whose internal temperatures are hot enough to melt the entire Tower. The nuclear demolition schema of WTC building # 7 and that of the Sears Tower in Chicago were calculated in the exact same way.
However, there is one additional factor that needs to be taken into consideration during the calculation of the nuclear demolition of any skyscraper. This is the actual vaporized granite rock inside the cavity. How is all that former granite rock, which now exists in a gaseous state, supposed to escape from the cavity? In fact, a picture of the physical events after an underground nuclear explosion is quite interesting. Let’s consider it.
Typical physical processes during an ideally deep underground nuclear explosion.
- Nuclear explosion starts to heat the rock around its hypocenter.
- Rock is vaporized. As a result of the disappearance of the vaporized rock, a “primary cavity” appears and is filled with the former rock which now exists in gaseous form. The extremely high pressures from the gases in the cavity now begin to expand the actual primary cavity at the expense of neighboring areas of the still solid rock.
- The actual cavity reaches its final “secondary” size because of the extremely high pressure from the gases inside of it and as such expands from its original size (shown by the dotted line) to an even bigger size (shown by the firm line). Given that this expansion occurs at the expense of the neighboring areas, these neighboring areas of rock become tightly compressed.
- Final picture. White: the underground cavity (the secondary size); blue: the “crushed zone” – totally pulverized rock (crushed into complete microscopic dust ~100 micron particle size); green: the “damaged zone” – partly crushed rock.
This pictorial rendition schematically outlines all the important physical processes of an ideally deep (meaning that it occurs sufficiently far from the Earth surface) underground nuclear explosion. So, now it should be clear that the extreme pressures from the vaporized rock inside the cavity takes on at least two important tasks: 1) it expands the actual cavity from its “primary” size to its “secondary” size; and 2) because it does this expansion at the expense of the neighboring areas of the rock, it produces two damaged zones around itself, each representing a different degree of damage.
The zone immediately adjacent to the cavity in nuclear jargon is called the “crushed zone”. This zone can be as thick as the diameter of the cavity itself and is filled with a very interesting matter. It is filled with rock that is now completely pulverized. It is reduced into a fine microscopic dust, an approximate particle of which is about 100 microns in size. Moreover, the particular state of material within this “crushed zone” is in a very interesting state – nothing in the world can produce the following phenomenon other than an underground nuclear explosion:
If you were to pick up a stone from this zone, but do so very gently, it might still stick together and resemble a stone by its form and its color. However, it you just squeeze the stone a little bit with your fingers, this “stone” will immediately be crushed into complete microscopic dust which it actually now consists of. The second zone – just outside of and surrounding the “crushed zone” is called the “damaged zone” in professional nuclear jargon.
This “damaged zone” is filled with rock crushed to various pieces – from very small (millimeters in size), to some relatively larger fragments. The closer to the border of the “crushed zone” you get, the smaller the debris becomes, and the further away from hypocenter you go – the larger the debris. Finally, outside the “damaged zone’s” border, there would be virtually no damage inflicted to the surrounding rock.
However, the physical processes we discussed above are true in an “ideally deep” underground nuclear blast. When a nuclear charge is not buried deep enough, the picture will be slightly different. The “damaged” and “crushed” zones will not appear as round as in the prior example. They will be rather elliptic – whereby the longer end is directed upward – like the shape of an egg. This happens because the pressure from the gases encounters less resistance in the direction of the Earth’s surface (given that it is so close), and both the “crushed zone” and “damaged zone” will expand upwards as well in the same fashion.
The drawing above is an illustration of the resistance of the surrounding rock when a cavity is located not very deep below the Earth’s surface. Evidently, the resistance of the rock towards the Earth’s surface will be much less than in any other direction.
Given that everything goes in the way of least resistance, it is understandable to note that the cavity will expand more towards the Earth’s surface and won’t look so “round”. It will look more like an egg. In other words, it will be ellipsoidal in shape.
When the pressure propagates upwards, the upper boundaries of the “damaged zone” and the “crushed zone” eventually reach the underground foundations of the Tower they are about to demolish, the picture is even more different.
This is because the actual materials the Tower is built of differ from the surrounding granite rock in the sense of their resistance. Besides, there is a lot of empty space inside the Tower, while the remaining granite rock in all other directions (to the sides and below the cavity) is solid. So, the expansion of the upper boundaries of the “damaged” and “crushed” zones by the Tower’s structure will be the furthest.
In the case of the WTC Twin Towers and the Sears Tower, the “damaged zone” could likely reach up to 350-370 meters, while the “crushed zone” which follows immediately, will likely reach up to 290-310 meters. However, in the case of the much shorter WTC-7, its entire length was well within the “crushed zone” – so it was pulverized completely from bottom to top. The ability of a nuclear demolition to pulverize steel and concrete alike is one of its unique features.
The picture above shows an example of the fine microscopic dust that covered all of Manhattan after the WTC demolition. Many people mistakenly believed that it was “concrete dust”. No, it was not. It was dust – but mainly pulverized steel. Despite the common misconception, the WTC structures did not contain much concrete at all.
Concrete was used only in some limited quantities to make very thin floor slabs at most. It was not used anywhere else. The majority of the WTC Twin Towers was steel, not concrete. So accordingly, the majority of this ultra-fine dust is represented by steel dust.
However, it was not only “steel dust” alone – it was also “furniture dust”, “wood dust”, “paper dust”, “carpet dust”, “computer parts dust” and even “human dust”, given that human beings were left to be pulverized in the Towers the same manner in which the steel, concrete and furniture were.
Some may wonder how WTC-7 collapsed so neatly into its own footprint, and in its entirety, while the Twin Towers came down not only scattering dust, but even larger debris and ejecting them to such far distances. This question is very easy to answer – you just have to look at the distribution of the “crushed” and “damaged” zones within the Twin Towers structures and the answer will become obvious.
The picture above represents the approximate distribution of the damaged zones in the scenario of a nuclear demolition of a skyscraper using a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge positioned 50 meters deeper than the lowest underground foundations of the building.
Don’t forget that the demolition charges in this particular case were buried not “ideally deep”, which is why the formations of the “crushed” and “damaged” zones were not “ideally round” either – they were elliptic, with their sharper ends facing upwards – like an egg – in the way of least resistance.
It is easy to understand that the entire length of the WTC-7 fit well into the “crushed zone” alone so there were not any undamaged areas on top of it that might produce the effect of an undamaged top falling down like we saw during the collapse of the North and South Towers.
The particular distribution of damage within the skyscrapers’ structures inflicted by such a process could be better understood when you watch the videos that show the details of the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers and of WTC-7. These contemporary videos are widely available on YouTube.
The North Tower just began to collapse a moment ago.
These two pictures show the North Tower’s collapse (which collapsed 2nd). It is clearly seen that the Tower was reduced to a fine fluffy dust. In the lower right corner it is clearly visible that WTC-7 (the glassy shining nice brownish building) was not damaged at all. On the right picture WTC-7 appears to be a little bit “shorter” than in the left one, but this wasn’t because WTC-7 was “collapsing” in any way, is was because the helicopter taking the picture was on the move and the second picture had been taken from a slightly different angle and with the photographer himself being at that moment slightly further away from the WTC location. WTC-7 did not collapse until 7 hours later.
VIDEO – YouTube direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcsBQHvggnU
VIDEO 2:
This video contains a very good compilation of the detailed view (3 different view points) of the collapse of the WTC North Tower. It leaves no doubt that the steel structure of the Tower was reduced to complete microscopic dust. The pattern of collapse of the heavy and undamaged Tower’s top clearly shows that nothing solid remained under it, except only complete, fluffy steel dust. Note also that the heavy top of the Tower falls down at freefall speed – as if there were no remnants of steel underneath, just air alone.
VIDEO – YouTube direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY3qYr3dpdU
VIDEO 3:
This video is a very good view of the collapse of the WTC South Tower that was completely ‘dustified’. This footage leaves no doubt that the steel structure of the Tower was reduced to complete microscopic dust. The pattern of collapse of the heavy and undamaged Tower’s top clearly shows that nothing solid remained under it, except complete, fluffy steel dust.
VIDEO – YouTube direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXeAPcsD3-o
VIDEO 4:
This is a very HQ video from the recently released NIST Cumulus Video Database. Excerpt from file “WNBC Dub10 54”. This video clearly shows a strong earthquake (well over 5.5 on the Richter scale – telling us that an underground nuclear explosion of no less than 100 kilotons is responsible). The earthquake consists of one shock and one aftershock and took place exactly 12 seconds before the top of the North Tower started to move down. This coincides with the North Tower’s shaking on the famous Etienne Sauret video show.
Aside from showing the clear details of the North Tower’s complete pulverization during collapse, this video also clearly displays details of the pulverization of the remaining steel spear visible to the right that was missed by the Tower’s top falling downwards and was pulverized under its own pressure a few seconds later (pulverization of the steel spear is clearly seen after the passing by of a truck). This footage leaves no doubt that the steel structure of the Tower was reduced to complete microscopic dust. The pattern of collapse of the heavy and undamaged Tower’s top clearly shows that nothing solid remained under it, except for complete, fluffy steel dust.
This is a detailed view of that remaining steel spear, turning into steel dust, but filmed by another camera and at a different angle.
VIDEO – YouTube direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM88xJX5FsA
VIDEO 5:
This is the famous video by Etienne Sauret. It clearly shows a strong earthquake (well over 5.5 on the Richter Scale – telling us that an underground nuclear explosion of no less than 100 kilotons is responsible). This is clear proof of the WTC nuclear demolition. The actual earthquake caused by the nuclear explosion underneath it – the one that took place 12 seconds before the top started to move downwards.
These 12 seconds were required for the nuclear explosion to vaporize the rock, accumulate sufficient pressure and then create the “breaking point” at which the “primary” cavity expands to its “secondary size” which results in a “compressing wave” that propagated with supersonic speed up the Tower’s body “dustifying” it instantaneously. Note – this is the very same earthquake which is seen on the previous video above.
These photos show in detail how the steel WTC South Tower (which fell first, despite being hit second by a “plane” hijacked by “terrorists”, and despite the fact that the fire in it lasted a much shorter period of time than in the North Tower) was instantly transformed into fine dust.
It should also be noted that despite the apparently insufficient 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge used to attempt to pulverize the Twin Towers in their entirety (as shown in the above sample where the Twin Towers were pulverized to only about 80% of their entire lengths, leaving the very tops heavy and intact), nuclear charges of higher yields could not have been used in the nuclear demolition industry due merely to legal reasons.
The problem is that in accordance with the USA – Soviet “Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty of 1976”, the yield of nuclear munitions used for non-military purposes was limited to 150 kilotons /per individual nuclear explosion and to a maximum of 1.5 megaton aggregate yield for group explosions.
So, the nuclear demolition industry had to fit into these legal frames: in the case of the WTC demolition, it was possible to use as many charges as necessary, but not in excess of 150 kiloton per charge. That is why the WTC nuclear demolition schema consisted of three of such charges – whose aggregate yield was 450 kilotons. For those people who have difficulty in imagining how powerful 150 kilotons is, you should be reminded that the atomic bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was less than 20 kilotons.
The “planes”.
Now, as I presume the reader has already understood how strong the Twin Towers were and that it was not even possible to bring them down using any conventional demolition and only possible by huge underground thermo-nuclear explosions, it would be interesting to consider another question: If aluminum-made passenger planes would ever be capable of penetrating the Twin Towers like it was shown to us on TV?
This is the second terrorist “plane” which is about to penetrate the thick double-walled steel perimeters and completely disappear into the South Tower.
VIDEO – YouTube direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXxZNHrtyuU
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDJmSLQ2IqE
VIDEO 6:
This video is the most shameless 9/11 concoction by Evan Fairbanks. It shows an aluminum plane cuting through the steel perimeters of the WTC South Tower (that were as thick as a tank’s armor) with as much ease as if the plane itself were made of steel, and the Tower made of butter.
Besides, a man that was accidentally caught in the frame reacted to neither the sound of an approaching plane, nor to the sound of aluminum crashing through steel. The man reacts to the actual explosion inside the Tower only. It is clearly noticeable.
When it comes to the plane – you can see that the plane merely digitally erases itself upon disappearing inside the Tower – not even the tiniest part of the plane falls back onto the sidewalks. And what is even more ridiculous is that the plane does not even reduce its speed upon “penetrating” the Tower….
First of all, to make this understanding easier, let’s briefly come back to the point I started this article with: since the Twin Towers collapsed not due to “kerosene”, but because of huge underground thermo-nuclear explosions, moreover, they collapsed in the “wrong order”, and, in addition to that, WTC-7, which was not even hit by a “terrorist plane”, also collapsed, we can presume that the planes were not actually needed. They were redundant because they had no contribution whatsoever to the actual collapse of the World Trade Center (kerosene for the fires could have been as well brought in in barrels).
Since the planes were redundant it would be safe to presume that the 9/11 perpetration could have been performed even if there were no planes involved – the Twin Towers and the WTC-7 had to go, because someone had decided so and it had absolutely nothing to do with any “planes”.
Therefore many reasonable 9/11 researchers began to question the allegation the US Government put forth saying it was “planes” striking the Twin Towers that supposedly caused the demolitions.
Many researches exist now on the Internet (especially famous video presentations such as “September Clues” and “FOXED OUT” which are available on YouTube) that include the analyzing of various contemporary 9/11 “plane” footage and they prove in the most satisfactory manner that the “planes” were merely digitized into the frames.
However, the author of these lines prefers a different approach. Instead of analyzing various inconsistencies of the said 9/11 videos, which many people might doubt, the author of these lines prefers to go straight to the self-evident point: that aluminum cannot penetrate steel. Period. To believe that two aluminum Boeing 767’s were indeed able to penetrate those thick double-walled perimeter columns as shown in the above picture is no different than believing that the laws of physics suddenly decided to take holiday on the 11th day of September, 2001, AD.
Some people, understandably, could ask the question: since the planes, even though aluminum-made, were flying at almost 500 mph, due to their tremendous mass and speed would they not have had enough kinetic energy to penetrate the Twin Towers even if the Twin Towers were made of steel?
This is the wrong approach, however.
Yes, intuitively, it seems that a large, fast moving aircraft represents a lot of energy, and one would think it would be reasonable for an aircraft to do a lot of damage to a building on impact.
But what do you think would happen – hypothetically – if the aircraft were stationary in the air, and someone picked up one of the enormously massive WTC Tower, swung it violently, and hit the aircraft at an impact speed of 500 mph ?
Would it flatten the aircraft, do you think, or would the aircraft go clean through the moving building without even the slightest part of the aircraft remaining outside of the outer skin of the Tower (which was twice as thick as the front armor of a tank)?
Give that a thought for a moment, because whether the aircraft was hitting a stationary Tower, or the Tower hitting a stationary aircraft, the physics of the situation is identical.
The intuitive response to the damage from a “fast moving aircraft” may not be quite so intuitive.
In the photo above, you can see damage inflicted to the neighboring “Verizon-Building” by such a piece of steel perimeter assembly.
Now, look at the photo above and imagine that such a steel perimeter assembly fell on a Boeing-type aircraft parked right under the building. What would happen with such an aircraft? Yes, you guessed it – the aircraft would be flattened. You will lose all doubts as to how a passenger aircraft is flattened if you watch the video below (it is enough to watch only the first one and a half minutes of it in order to understand what I mean – the rest of the video you can skip):
VIDEO – YouTube direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTytIbuAg9U
spare link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inXhxm47JrY
VIDEO 7:
or, if this video is no longer available, you could probably find it on YouTube by searching for the following keywords “Filmtricks und falsche Zeugen”.
Many people who at first didn’t pay much attention to the actual Twin Towers’ construction and at first thought that the outer faзades of the Twin Towers were simply made from huge glass panes alone (which would, understandably, allow planes to break in) later, to their utter dismay, discovered that the Twin Towers were in reality made of thick steel columns – no different than its steel core columns and that such densely positioned steel columns indeed constituted their outer perimeters.
Once this becomes clear, it then becomes obvious that no plane could have ever sliced in its entirety (even including the ends of its wings and tail, not to mention the large turbofan engines beneath its wings) through such densely positioned thick steel perimeter columns and completely disappear inside the Towers without even the slightest part falling back onto the street.
Our previous generation may remember the effect of Japanese kamikaze pilots hitting American main battle ships and aircraft carriers and what happened when the planes hit the side of the ship: the plane was just broken apart (without even penetrating the ship’s wall) and simply fell back into the ocean. In the example of a non-armored ship – the only thing that could penetrate into the ship was the steel motor, but never any other parts of the plane – such as the wings, tail or fuselage.
Above is a WWII photo showing damage inflicted by a kamikaze plane to a non-armored US ship. Note: an armored ship (like a main battle ship) could not have been penetrated whatsoever.
Based on this premise, one can make his own estimation looking at the pictures of core columns below:
Above: profiles of the remaining core WTC columns found at “Ground Zero”; their comparative thickness can be easily estimated; actually they feature walls that are 2.5 inches thick; such thick columns made of steel constituted both – the cores and the entire perimeters of the Twin Towers.
In this official sketch, you can see how the thick core structures were positioned – not only in the Towers’ middles, as believed by many people, but also along their entire perimeters.
Does anyone seriously believe that an aluminum-made “Boeing” could slice through, in its entirety (including its tail, wings and large turbofan engines), the above-shown steel perimeter columns? Placed only one meter apart of each other?
Above you can see the thickness of a steel perimeter column of the Twin Towers being examined at “ground zero”.
Actually, it might be a little difficult to comprehend that it is impossible for an aluminum object to penetrate steel; so, exclusively for this reason here is a hint – as a basic premise. It is well-known that an armor-piercing artillery shell is made of materials stronger than the actual armor it is intended to penetrate.
Typically, armor-piercing shells are made of Wolfram (Americans also produce armor-piercing shells which contain, instead of very expensive Wolfram, Uranium-238, which is an otherwise useless material, but capable of penetrating armor due to the fact that it is much heavier than steel).
Armor-piercing shells made of aluminum obviously don’t exist – this is quite obvious in of itself. Neither do aluminum swords nor any other cutting/piercing tool used to cut through steel. The mere notion that an aluminum object can slice through steel doesn’t just sound far-fetched, it sounds crazy.
It shall be also noted that any armor-piercing shell fired against a tank or against any other armored object needs to travel at a speed of at least three times the speed of sound – because even though they are made of Wolfram, this aspect alone is not enough to achieve the ability to pierce steel – a very high speed is the second factor required in order to pierce steel.
The speed of a typical armor-piercing shell fired from an anti-tank cannon is actually more than three times the speed of sound – it is at least 1000 meters per second and usually much faster than this, while the maximum cruise speed of a Boeing passenger jet is subsonic – meaning less than 250 m/sec even in its best scenario.
It is a good idea to look at these columns again and try and recognize the fact that their thick double walls are comparable to the armor used to make tanks. To penetrate one of these columns alone would be a challenge for even an armor-piercing shell fired from a long-barreled anti-tank cannon at point-blank range. In fact, the concept of “double-walls” is applicable only in the case of an armor-piercing shell because it faces the mere task of penetrating only two perpendicular walls that stand in its way.
However, an aluminum plane faces a much more difficult task – in addition to the two perpendicular walls standing in its way, it must also cut though two additional parallel walls because each of these tubes is actually comprised of 4 walls, not just two. And these two parallel walls, as you can see below, have a much greater “thickness” because they represent an entire 17 inch wide wall you have to slice through as well!
The picture above depicts the official diagrams showing the profiles of the peripheral columns of the Twin Towers of two types from the floors corresponding to the hits of the supposed “planes” and with arrows added by me that are illustrating the thickness of the steel being penetrated/sliced by the aluminum wings of the aircraft and of those by an armor-piercing artillery shell for comparison. The actual official diagrams of this kind can be found here:
http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data
Now, you can see how impossible it would be for the supposed armor-piercing capability of an aluminum “Boeing 767” – after seeing how difficult it is even for an artillery armor-piercing shell designed specifically for this purpose. Why then didn’t the “9/11 Commission” or the “engineers” from NIST dare not try to perform experiments in which they penetrated several steel columns with a Boeing (even a de-commissioned one)?
That kind of experiment would have been ideal in proving to non-believers that it was really “terrorist planes” which managed to demolish the World Trade Center… This particular realization led many people to believe that since aluminum planes simply can’t perform such a feat, that it must have been “digital” plane which managed to cut through the dense double-walled steel perimeters of the now defunct Twin Towers…
Above is a detailed view of the damage inflicted by the supposed “Boeing-767” to the WTC North Tower’s steel perimeter columns.
It is clearly observed that the perimeter bars were all cut in just a few ridiculously straight lines, moreover parallel to one another, such that the actual shape of the “impact hole” doesn’t even match the silhouette of a plane. In fact, the explanation to this ridiculous phenomenon is quite simple.
As you can see from this picture, the Twin’s perimeters were not made from steel columns alone. There was also additional aluminum coating fixed on the outer sides of the steel perimeter columns. And, unlike the steel columns (which were more or less solid from the bedrock all the way up to the Tower’s tops), the aluminum coating was arranged in much shorter vertical segments.
If you look at the above picture’s detail carefully enough, you will notice certain horizontal lines parallel to each other repeating on equal intervals which are slightly visible on the undamaged parts of the Tower’s faзade. These lines are nothing more than joining points where aluminum coating pieces connect together length wise.
The problem the 9/11 perpetrators had was that they needed to position the hollow-shaped charges of conventional explosives (which were designed to imitate the impact holes – the planes’ silhouettes) not inside the Tower, but OUTSIDE the Tower – because their explosive energy need to be directed inwards to make the entire set up look plausible.
If they positioned the charges inside the Tower, then the entire section of the Tower that was supposed to be “hit by a plane” would not fall inside the Tower as it was supposed to happen. It would have been blown out of the Tower and, instead of the “landing gear” and the “plane’s engine” simpletons would find on a sidewalk, they found pieces of the Tower’s own perimeters.
Apparently, this was not an option.
Attaching the cutting charges outside the Twin Tower’s facades was not an option either – they would be visible to the public.
Therefore, the tricky 9/11 perpetrators placed the hollow-shaped charges in between the outer aluminum coating and the actual perimeter steel columns. The explosive energy of the charges was directed inwards – in order to cut the steel bars precisely in the right spots. And, indeed, it worked – as you can see the inner steel bars (which appear to be a “rusty” color as opposed to the bluish-shiny aluminum coating) were indeed cut in the correct spots to imitate the planes’ silhouettes precisely. Moreover, the cut ends of these steel bars additionally bend inwards – exactly as it was supposed to look.
However, the 9/11 perpetrators miscalculated something.
Even though most of the explosive energy of the hollow-shaped charges was directed inwards (towards the steel), some relatively minor explosive energy was directed backwards – creating a kind of recoil effect. This managed to blow the aluminum coating outwards. However, instead of actually “cutting through” this aluminum coating, the unruly explosion simply tore out these entire full strip lengths of aluminum and threw them back outwards onto the sidewalks.
Therefore, depending on the vertical disposition of the hollow-shaped charges in some parts, it was single vertical length of aluminum bars that got torn out, and, in some other places – double vertical length ones, and, in some other portions – triple vertical length, etc. Therefore these “impact holes” look so ridiculously silly – displaying their “stepped” pattern, instead of the perfect silhouette of a “plane” like it would have been if there were only steel bars alone.
[The below insertion was missing in the original NEXUS-magazine version; it was added only to the Internet-version of this article.]
You can see in detail how these pieces of aluminum coating were blown outwards on the very last video which is at the end of this article and is designed to demonstrate the absence of the vortices from the planes’ engines.
At the very beginning of that video, you can clearly see multiple fixed length pieces of aluminum coating being blown outwards slightly ahead of the fireballs from the actual explosion which was supposed to have been caused by the “first plane” which supposedly penetrated the North Tower of the WTC.
Here is a screenshot of that video showing the pieces of same length aluminum coating flying outwards:
I have always dreamed of finding some good quality pictures which show the pieces of that outer aluminum coating flying away the moment of explosion. But because such pictures were considered “highly seditious” by the US authorities, they were all censored and it was nearly impossible to discover them anywhere on the Internet for many years. However, maybe because of my good luck, I was actually able to find one of such pictures by mere chance (or, perhaps by God’s grace).
On July 16, 2011, I stumbled upon a special edition of a certain magazine named “Life” in a book store in Bangkok.
The edition was titled “Brought to JUSTICE” and was devoted entirely to the then recent alleged “murder” of Osama bin Laden (who was claimed to have been allegedly “murdered” by US commandos somewhere in a sovereign territory in the independent state of Pakistan and whose body was hastily drowned in the nearest deep sea location some approximate 2,000 kilometers away).
Usually I have no interest in such propaganda material, especially of this kind, but this time I was waiting for a friend and had nothing better to do. So I took the magazine from the stand and lazily flicked through it.
The cover of the magazine I am talking about.
Aside from a few high quality portraits of Osama bin Laden and his relatives and of a few ridiculously propagandistic photos, on pages 8-9 of the magazine was placed a highly seditious shot of the explosion in the South Tower – exactly the one I had always dreamed of finding!
Of course, I immediately bought the magazine and scanned the photo out of it.
The photo belongs to a certain Naomi Stock. I feel that I have simply no right to deprive my reader of seeing this absolutely unprecedented shot and I sincerely hope that Ms Naomi Stock doesn’t mind if I place her photo here along with the claim that this is the most important 9/11 evidence that has long been hidden from the community:
This unique high-quality picture shows in detail those pieces of aluminum coating of equal length, projecting away from the explosion, just a split second ahead of the orange fireballs that originate from within the Tower.
Some of those pieces of aluminum coating are seen on that photo in more or less exact detail.
Another interesting thing is that here you can see the pieces of aluminum coating flying in both directions – to the right (i.e. by the supposed “course” of the “plane”), as well as to the left – i.e. in the direction that is exactly opposite of the supposed “course” of the “plane” (the “plane” according to the official story and according to the video shown on TV approached the South Tower from the left).
Let’s come back to the first photo above that shows the details of the damage and the peculiar “stepping pattern” hole that was supposedly created by the aluminum plane in the steel perimeter of the WTC North Tower (even including “narrow cuts” purported to have been made by aluminum wings and the aluminum tail of the aluminum “terrorist plane”).
Actually, I have an even better photograph of that spot than the above one. Here it is:
Since we now understand everything about the aluminum coating (that was positioned in same-length segments) and since we now understand everything about the whole steel columns under those pieces of coating, now we can clearly understand what happened in reality.
Regardless and aside from everything else, in this particular photo a woman can clearly be seen desperately holding onto one of the up-right columns; she is recognized as Mrs. Edna Cintron, who was hoping to be rescued at that last moment; unfortunately, she was killed in the collapse of the North Tower; but in that last moment of her life she demonstrated to the world (by her mere presence at the supposed “hot spot” where steel columns “melted”) that the US Government lied to the public.
Actually, many people reading this can quite reasonably ask: But what about the eye-witnesses who saw “planes”? The answer is this: the number of eye-witnesses who DID NOT SEE ANY PLANES is about equal to the number of “eye-witnesses” who said they saw “planes”.
NOTE: on my personal YouTube Channel there are a few “seditious” contemporary news releases pertaining to the very first minutes of the 9/11 tragedy. These videos show that NONE of the very first witnesses saw or heard any “planes”, but only saw and heard EXPLOSIONS on the upper floors of the Twin Towers. Here are direct links to these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YarBxlIzUk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y68DfCMQS7c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPiQf53TSr4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3LXJwI-7xY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA8xD9CFu40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT-Xa7rn7K4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VpWQ88Y9WM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI2lWZY869I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c8eT99_BAs
However, the mass media preferred to mostly air footage of “eye-witnesses” who claimed they had seen “planes”.
The entire 9/11 production was a grand deception. If somebody could manage to produce falsified images of “planes” cutting through the steel perimeters of the Twin Towers like the planes were steel and the Towers made of butter, and managed to feed this footage to every mass media outlet, would it not be reasonable to presume he couldn’t prepare some bogus witnesses ahead of time who would claim they saw “planes”? Of course, we have to presume so. All those “eye-witnesses” who allegedly “saw” how aluminum planes penetrated the steel double-walled perimeters of the Twin Towers with such ease were merely actors hired by the 9/11 perpetrators themselves to lie to the mass media and to the public in order to set the “official storyline” in motion.
And, finally, here are two more videos.
VIDEO – YouTube direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT1q0j5Pzr0 (second edition)
VIDEO 8:
This is so far the best and the most comprehensive research on the 9/11 “planes” made by a famous 9/11 researcher and a specialist in video compositing Collin Alexander alias “Ace Baker”. This video is an absolute “must see”.
And this final one is a brief video which, without having to say a word, clearly shows how we were tricked by “planes”. Regardless, at the beginning of this video you can see those same pieces of aluminum coating discussed above which fly outwards from the building.
VIDEO – YouTube direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlj1mVD2-HM
VIDEO 9:
[Description verbatim from the YouTube by the video’s creator:] On all Videotapes of the 1st and 2nd strike there is no Vortex visible. I came aware of this when Factfinder general on Pilots for Truth told me half a year ago. Back then Rob Balsamo, Pilot, made me skeptical saying that the Heat of the Explosion, is too hot to be affected by the Vortices.
But then I became aware of these Videos which clearly show that even in Napalm fire, Vortices are still present, as in normal air conditions. Watch the 911 Videos in HD and look closely, there is no turbulence in the smoke or fire. This is only possible when there are no Planes. This might look like a small piece to the perps, but is in fact hard evidence. Pre planted charges can look nice, but cannot reproduce the real effect of Jet Engines Turbulence/Vortices.
The laws of physics didn’t take a holiday on 9/11. But the common sense of gullible people watching TV appeared to have taken that holiday instead…
Nonetheless, older English dictionaries printed before September 11 which define the very special nuclear term “ground zero” could serve as the best medicine to overcome the 9/11 illusion and to regain your common sense…
Along with older English dictionaries, for the same reason, these photographs could also be used to show the molten rock left behind after the underground cavities were created by nuclear explosions under all three buildings of the World Trade Center. They eventually cooled down and were, at last, cleared of all remaining radioactive materials:
Perhaps, without an obligatory formal witness’s testimony the 9/11 picture drawn by me in this article would not be complete. Perhaps at least one testimony of a witness is indeed required. There are many of such testimonies available, but I selected the best and the most convincing ones.
There is one remarkable article titled “Rudy Tuesday” published by The New York Magazine online[4]. This article is not only remarkable because the term ground zero in relation to Manhattan’s “Ground Zero” is used in it “as is” – i.e. without any quotation marks and without any capitalization – as it would normally appear in any civil defense manual, but because of the actual statement by former Mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani.
I think it is such a masterpiece of the important 9/11 evidence and such an important witness’ testimony from the point of view of psychology, that I have to quote here the entire part of the article “as is”, without modifying anything.
The important things you should pay close attention to, however, are made in bold by me. Make sure to notice that in the aftermath of the unprecedented WTC kerosene-pancake collapse the Mayor of New York for no apparent reason “went nuclear” and began his speech with silly comments about nuclear reactors and continued it with his claims that he KNEW on top of WHAT the ground zero workers were actually standing on (meaning the same people he sent to clean up ground zero without having issued any of them lunar-looking haz-mat suits):
“Right, 9/11. Out in the dining room, after the salads are served, Delaware congressman Mike Castle takes the microphone. He talks about Rudy and the squeegee men. BlackBerrys continue scrolling. But then Castle tells of the ground-zero tour the mayor gave him and other congressmen in the days after the terror attacks. People start to pay attention.
“He attended most of the funerals; he was there in every way possible,” says Castle. “I don’t think we can ever thank him enough for what he did.” Now Rudy strides to the podium. The room rises. Suits at the cheap tables stand and a banker type sticks his fingers in his mouth and gives a loud whistle. Initially, Giuliani squanders the goodwill. A bit on immigration lands with a thud. He notes that China has built more than 30 nuclear reactors since we last built one.
“Maybe we should copy China.” What? You can see the thought bubbles forming over people’s heads: Can this be the same guy we saw on television? The guy who was so presidential when our actual president was MIA? But then Rudy finds his comfort zone. Along with McCain and Mitt Romney, his best-known fellow Republican presidential contenders, Giuliani is out on the thin, saggy pro-surge limb with the president.
But Rudy can spin the issue in a way McCain and Romney, not to mention Hillary and Barack Obama, cannot. And now he does just that: Iraq leads to 9/11, which leads to the sacred image of construction workers raising the flag over ground zero. “I knew what they were standing on top of,” Giuliani says. “They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days. And they put their lives at risk raising that flag.
” The room is silent. Not a fork hits a plate, not one gold bracelet rattles. “They put the flag up to say, ‘You can’t beat us, because we’re Americans.’ “The mayor pauses and, as if on cue, an old woman sniffles. He continues. “And we don’t say this with arrogance or in a militaristic way, but in a spiritual way: Our ideas are better than yours.””
I am not quite sure, of course, if “their ideas” are indeed “better than ours” because I don’t think that it was a good idea at all – to demolish skyscrapers in the middle of a populated city by thermonuclear explosions whereby each explosion is 8 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, but in principle I agree with Mr. Giuliani.
The poor ground zero responders were indeed standing on top of a cauldron and they indeed did put their lives at risk – as you may sincerely expect to be the case when gullible people visit the location of a fresh nuclear explosion and without wearing any protective gear.
From now on, I believe, the reader has more or less a complete picture of the events – what exactly took place at Manhattan’s “Ground Zero” and what the term “ground zero” used to mean in the pre-9/11 English language and this is even supported by important witness’ testimony.
I guess that many readers, of course, will have a lot of questions – what hit the Pentagon? If planes didn’t hit the Twin Towers, then where did the actual planes disappear to? What happened to the passengers? What happened with the alleged “hijackers”? What happened with Flight 93? Why was the Doomsday Plane seen flying on 9/11?
Why was it not possible to collapse the North Tower before the South Tower? Why did US officials demolish the Twins and WTC-7 at all? Why were there not a lot of cases of acute radiation sickness among ground zero responders, but rather cases of chronic radiation sickness? Who sent the anthrax letters, and why?
Why did the controlling services of other countries – for example, those of Russia, India and China – prefer to “look the other way” when the US Government demolished the World Trade Center using three 150 kiloton thermonuclear explosions and knowing that Afghanistan and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with it? Why was the IAEA silent? And, at last, who organized 9/11 and why?
As you can probably imagine, 9/11 was such a complicated operation and its separate aspects are so much intertwined that it is simply impossible to describe the entire 9/11 affair “in brief” while devoting such little attention to each of its aspect. It is quite difficult to fill in all the blanks regarding the entire 9/11 scenario in such a short article.
In September of 2009, I produced a more or less comprehensive video-presentation that lasts well over 4 hours and explains quite a bit about 9/11 in its entirety. This video can be found on the Internet by searching for “Dimitri Khalezov video”. Besides, I wrote a book that comprises well over 500 pages in A4 format.
This is just to illustrate that it is really impossible – to explain in a fully comprehensible manner, what really happened on 9/11 in its entirety and in such a limited article. Perhaps, just attempting to explain the technicalities of the 9/11 missile attack on the Pentagon and the circumstances surrounding the Pentagon attack alone would require about as much info as contained in this article. But, hopefully, this story can be continued here.
Therefore, from all the potential questions mentioned in the above paragraph, I can only answer the last one: the 9/11 perpetration was organized by those who wanted to drive the United States along with other countries into ridiculous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who want to strip the citizens of these countries of their last remaining civil liberties and human rights.
It should be understood that no Al-Qaeda and not any other Muslim organization could have afforded to feed falsified “plane” footage to the US mass-media, to hire witnesses who “saw” aluminum planes penetrate steel and to simultaneously demolish the World Trade Center by three 150 kiloton underground thermo-nuclear explosions, each of which was 8 times as powerful as the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
P.S. The most seditious diagram from the “old good days”…
The diagram below was discovered by one of my readers on the Wikipedia web site in an article describing nuclear tests here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing
The actual picture was published here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Types_of_nuclear_testing.svg
The picture file was originally named: 591px-Types_of_nuclear_testing_svg.png
Though this picture was not included into the original version of this article published by the NEXUS magazine, I loved this silly drawing and couldn’t resist adding it to the Internet-version of my article.
The diagram apparently represents four types of nuclear explosions conducted in various environments:
1) atmospheric; 2) underground; 3) exoatmospheric; 4) underwater.
Guess why they position a certain “tall structure” on top of the spot of an underground nuclear explosion (2)? Which one creates certain “waves” around itself?
This was a classic diagram of the ‘70s. Those days nuclear explosions were not “evil” yet and they were widely discussed. And it was not a big secret yet those days – that underground nuclear explosions could be successfully used for demolishing skyscrapers…
November 26, 2014 @ 12:44 am
my kids old dictionary stated free speech: noun the right to express yourself – removed
new oxford dictionary – no noun or right of free speech to be found – free spoken – the adjective may be found… as in I can be arrested for being free spoken,
My Aussie mate told me first thing he saw 911 bollocks – controlled demolition – he was ex army bomb expert.
I learned of 911 pre 911 thru canadian gov channels – my mate phil had a brother on nova scotia privy council who liked to brag about what he knew.
Coincidently, g8 came to visit halifax, summer before 911 and summer after to congratulate themselves and not seen befor or since again.
I called nypd cop shop and told them what i knew and got passed further and further up the food chain with comments like “dont worry mrs, there were thousands like you who knew before it happened”… direct quote i shit you fukin not. They all fukin well knew it was gov silly bollocks homegrown state terrorism.
I recieved a phone call back from augustus sugustus of fbi n didnt hear fuck all back from anyone again although there were other repercussions.
So canadian gov knew and nypd knew and many others who didnt get on planes or attend offices knew it was gonna happen and so did i… joe fukin public.
On 911, all the planes were diverted from NY and due to ‘bomb’ threats on planes; they would not allow them to fly to densely populated areas of ottawa or toronto so diverted to the fukin boonies of nova scotia where i lived for a spell as well as to newfoundland.
When you fly into YHZ halifax international airport, all that you see is lakes and fukin trees as the airport is way out the fukin country… half hour drive out of the city of what was formerly called Dartmouth.
I took my kids out to the airport to see the fuckin spectacle as YHZ had never seen so many planes on the tarmac as we were expecting the planes to open emergency doors and pop up the slides, folk kick off their shoes and slide down as in the emergency videos we and indeed everyone else has seen while in flight.
nope.
nar to the fuk…. not one fukin plane door opened for the eight hours they were being held for nor did anyone enter the planes to check for bombs or check passenger safety. WTF???
They diverted planes because of potential bombs on planes and yet not one passenger released immediately off any plane onto the tarmac and instead held on plane for eight hours??? …more evidence of the bullshit script they were playin out.
Apparently, they brought the patsy pilots through nova scotia also funny enough… canadian and nova scotian gov including then mayor kelly was as complicit as a motha fuka.
I had four families stay in my home off them 911 planes that we collected from red cross in dartmouth high school gymnasium set up on army cots cuz the inn was full and the call out for help was put out to the public. it was the only thing i could do…
cunts mate and thanks as always for highlighting state fukin terrorism – in reality we must all reside – the truth is an absolute must xxx
November 26, 2014 @ 7:04 am
Thanks maryanne, that is some very interesting info. I fail to see how anybody can believe the official 9/11 story, as it obvious that there are numerous anomalies. I don’t know what happened, but I’m bloody sure planes don’t knock down buildings! I tried explaining it to a guy that I’d worked overseas with, but he couldn’t get past the fact that he and his OH saw it happen on tv. Funny how tv stations in competition with themselves all had the same “live” feed.
http: //www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/162172/Busted_911_videos_were_FAKED__100__PROOF/
http: //www.metacafe.com/watch/875918/fake_9_11_witnesses_september_clues_part_4/
November 26, 2014 @ 12:57 am
Interesting hypothesis, however, it doesn’t explain the suicides, the destruction of buildings 3,4,5 and 6, the weird circles cut into the buildings footprints, lack of debris, molecular dissociation of different materials and of course the crazy fuck story of the firemen in B stairwell North Tower…
The no planes theory is proven by understanding the concept of the hardness of materials. The softer material cannot penetrate the harder material.
November 26, 2014 @ 8:30 pm
answer: controlled demo was used as well, for WTC7 also i believe
only the twin towers were wired with nukes bellow them, none of the others were.
November 28, 2014 @ 1:03 pm
The so called control demolition of building 7 produced no building debris and no seismic event was recorded above background. So how does your controlled demolition theory (and that is all it is) explain the evidence?
November 26, 2014 @ 8:35 pm
“Interesting hypothesis”
it’s not a ‘hypothesis’ IMO this man has proved not only nukes below the twin towers were used but also that there were no planes.
November 28, 2014 @ 1:06 pm
The scientific method (known to mankind as science) contains 3 parts. Hypothesis, repeatable experimental data and conclusion. If the data does not fit the hypothesis, the hypothesis is wrong!
The only thing this russian bloke has proved is that everyone has received a poor standard of education.
November 26, 2014 @ 1:05 am
Also, the bathtub never cracked and hurricane Geraldo fucked right off, which suggests witchcraft…. Nuclear bombs sounds a bit like the thermite disinformation from the truth movement. Hard to swallow and easily debunked
November 26, 2014 @ 8:38 pm
“easily debunked”
go on then . . .
November 27, 2014 @ 11:12 pm
WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr Judy Wood easily and TOTALLY debunks this drivel.
FACT 1 – The pictures used above to to show the “nuked” bedrock with the supposed workmen working on it are pure FAKE. You can see all of the pictures of the actual cleared bedrock from different periods at Dr Woods website, in her book and at many other places and especially in her COURT CASE DOCUMENTS – the ONLY place you will see these FAKE pictures is from this guy trying to pass of his drivel as fact.
FACT 2 – There was no corresponding seismic data for ANY type of explosions NOR for buildings hitting the ground.
FACT 3 – These MAGIC nukes were in the bedrock yet the building turned to dust from the top down so these MAGIC nukes managed to “explode” in the bedrock MAGIC it’s way all the way to the top of the building past the people coming down the stairs and without damaging anything then start to turn everything to dust from the top down and then MAGICALLY cause thousands of vehicles to spontaneously burst into flames for miles around and away from the towers without affecting the people, trees, buildings etc all around them. Oh mustn’t forget how these MAGIC nukes managed to get the Earth’s Magnetic Field to drop at the exact moment of each “planes” impact with the towers and at the exact moment of the three towers “collapse”.
Yes there is a lot of disinformation being put out there like the Nano-Thermite and this is another for the gullible to take the peoples attention away from the FACT that there is free energy out there and that they are using it for weapons.
November 28, 2014 @ 1:17 pm
The three main characteristics of a thermonuclear explosion is heat, pressure wave and ionized radiation.
There was no heat, hence all the unburned paper, no pressure wave, no damage to surrounding structures outside of wtc prefixed buildings and also, no ionized radiation. The dust would have been irradiated and caused all sorts of issues.
Nukes do not make steel and concrete break down at a molecular level (whilst leaving paper and aluminium untouched).
The firemen in B stairwell and the ambulance parked outside prove that the buildings did not hit the ground.
The basement car parks were not damaged at all yet everything above ground turned to dust.
This is not a nuclear event, it is something else entirely…
November 26, 2014 @ 1:09 am
Some seriously apocalyptic looking bedrock there. I know they can do Skyscrapers on Manhattan because of the dense Granite, but I would not have imagined it looking that contorted underneath where they had dug out foundations. Also, that video showing all those vortices, which are usually generated by the wings as well, is right in that it would have been still turbulent behind where they had flown. That is why commercial jets have a good separation when coming into land or when taking off, as the wake can travel for a mile or two, especially on the likes of the 767, and it could definitely disrupt the path and safety of another aircraft. So, I doubt those dust clouds would have been falling as they were if there was real air turbulence present. Which there would have been, given the 400+ mph approach.
November 26, 2014 @ 3:03 am
For me personally, i dont understand the physics or the engineering of how they did what they did and i do know that it was pre-planned… building to fall, insurance bought recently beforehand and insurance fraud at best, state sponsored terrorism at worst.
I personally was not a witness in new york so i dont have a scooby doo if planes flew into buildings or not cuz the media on the day was pure propaganda… were there witnesses to planes or actors lyin? fuk knows.
What explosives were used to bring down the buildings? fuk knows… but i bet the pentagon and the white house knows. Those building fell exactly as would any other controlled demolition and not by coincidence or because a supposed plane flew into them – that is an impossibility in reality. jet fuel or some fire did not create the circumstance for said controlled demolition.
The BBC reported the collapse of building 7 before it happened in reality if i remember correctly? wtf??? someone jumped the gun…
The BBC and UK gov ergo were also complicit in the terrorist act of 911.
I know 1000% positive is that it was pre-planned and canadian government were complicit and aware of it before the staged event.
November 26, 2014 @ 7:36 am
One day before the 9/11 attacks, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made the astonishing admission, “According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.” This astonishing fact is reported on the CBS website (below article provides link). As pointed out by CBS, “$2.3 trillion — that’s $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America.” In other key reports, we learn that this figure came from a report of the Pentagon’s inspector general.
Source is WantToKnow.info/corruptiongovernmentmilitary
Call me cynical, but I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that may be the reason that WTC7 had to go!
November 26, 2014 @ 2:02 pm
The people who were tasked with investigating this fraud were hit by the missile that hit the pentagon on 9/11. Building 7 housed (amongst others) the SEC people investigating the ENRON fraud. All evidence was destroyed..
It was a kill a thousand birds with one stone type scenario…
November 26, 2014 @ 3:21 pm
From Press TV, October 20, 2013
Several leading American mainstream journalists say that the US government is lying about 9/11 and the so-called war on terror. Unfortunately, media owners and editors won’t let them report their findings. Recently, Seymour Hersh, America’s top mainstream investigative reporter, broke the news that the US government’s claim to have killed Osama Bin Laden on May 2nd, 2011 is “a big lie. There is not one word of truth in it.” Hersh went on to harshly criticize his long-time employer, the New York Times, and other big media outlets: “We lie about everything, lying has become the staple.” He said all big US media outlets should be shut down for lying to the American people.
Other mainstream journalists agree that the US government’s story of Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 is a big lie. Sherwood Ross, an award-winning journalist who has worked for the City News Bureau of Chicago, the Chicago Daily News, and for Reuters and other wire services, told me in a recent radio interview:
“It’s very doubtful that Muslims were behind 9/11. Think about this for one minute: That President Bush’s family had done business with the family of the man who allegedly made the terrorist attack, Osama Bin Laden. The Bin Laden family was actually on the board of Bush’s oil company. How is it possible that of all the billions of families in the world, the one family that makes the attack on America has done business with the President of America. Ross explained that American journalists are no longer free to expose even the most outrageous official falsehoods and fabrications:
“You don’t see any serious questioning by the mainstream media. I thought one of the tip-offs that it was a put-up job was when a cameraman from a little weekly in Pennsylvania went to the site where this airliner had supposedly crashed (on 9/11). And he said, ‘I didn’t see any airliner. I saw a hole in the ground. I didn’t see any bodies. I didn’t see any luggage.’ All right, maybe that guy just made this up. But I don’t think so. I think he was just doing his job. And then at the Pentagon, you had the claim that airliner hit it. But again, there was no wreckage. Reporters who worked in the Press Room at the Pentagon went out there on the lawn, and they couldn’t see any airliner. So, over and over again, you have manufactured lies that the press largely is not reporting.”
I asked Ross whether he is allowed to express such views in his articles for the Miami Herald, the Chicago Daily News, or the wire services. He answered:
“Absolutely not. When I used to write for Reuters, covering workplace issues, for ten years, my columns were picked up from the New York Times to the L.A. Times. But if you write about ‘why did 7 World Trade Center collapse when it wasn’t hit by an airplane,’ nobody will pick it up. So, now my columns are used on the Internet by bloggers, and they’re used by Middle East wire services. I get phone calls from Press TV, and you can read my interviews there. But you won’t see me quoted by the Associated Press.”
False Flags, 9/11 – http://chrisspivey.org.uk.uk/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=444#p3417
November 26, 2014 @ 3:36 pm
The Operation Northwoods documents were approved in writing by the Joint Chiefs of Staff – the top generals of each branch of the US armed forces – and submitted to the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. The only reason they weren’t implemented is that the Kennedy administration rejected the plans. As you read, ask yourself if similar tactics to those listed below could have been used in regards to 9/11.
Pages 10-11 of 15-page GWU file on Northwoods (page 7-8 of Joint Chiefs report)
A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.
A. Incidents to establish a credible attack:
(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base: start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base.
(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires – naphthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims.
A “Remember the Maine” incident could be arranged: We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
Page 13 of 15-page GWU file on Operation Northwoods (page 10 of Pentagon report)
Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba.
It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday.
An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At the designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual aircraft would be converted to a drone.
The drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.
Planning False Flags – http://chrisspivey.org.uk.uk/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=728&hilit=planning+a+false+flag
November 26, 2014 @ 3:47 pm
“Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that’s why this is so important.”
– US Secretary of Defense William Cohen (1997)
“The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”
-Mark Twain, “The Mysterious Stranger” (1910)
In order to bring a nation to support the burdens of maintaining great military establishments, it is necessary to create an emotional state akin to war psychology. There must be the portrayal of external menace.—-John Foster Dulles secretary of state in the Eisenhower administration. (Superpatriotism, Michael Parenti, p93)
“International terrorism does not exist” Only secret services and their current chiefs – or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations – have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude. Generally, secret services create, finance and control extremist organizations. Without the support of secret services, these organizations cannot exist – let alone carry out operations of such magnitude inside countries so well protected. Planning and carrying out an operation on this scale is extremely complex. Osama bin Laden and “Al Qaeda” cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders. Thus, a team of professionals had to be created and the Arab kamikazes are just extras to mask the operation. – General Ivashov (2010)
source is whale.to/b/false_flag_q.html
November 26, 2014 @ 4:38 pm
excellent info Dogman…i think it was an insurance fraud job – easier to bomb them and have controlled demolition n claim back double bubble on insurance fraud while eliminating all records/cookbooks of what evidence they wanted eliminated… conniving cunts
November 26, 2014 @ 4:51 pm
I think this might be the sort of thing that went on. I recall AbelDanger did some articles about it. I posted some on our old forum.
DEFINITION of ‘Catastrophe Bond – CAT’
A high-yield debt instrument that is usually insurance linked and meant to raise money in case of a catastrophe such as a hurricane or earthquake. It has a special condition that states that if the issuer (insurance or reinsurance company) suffers a loss from a particular pre-defined catastrophe, then the issuer’s obligation to pay interest and/or repay the principal is either deferred or completely forgiven.
INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS ‘Catastrophe Bond – CAT’
Advantages of CAT bonds are that they are not closely linked with the stock market or economic conditions and offer significant attractions to investors. For example, for the same level of risk, investors can usually obtain a higher yield with CAT bonds relative to alternative investments. Another benefit is that the insurance risk securitization of CATs shows no correlation with equities or corporate bonds, meaning they’d provide a good diversification of risks.
November 26, 2014 @ 4:29 am
When I worked for Rockefeller Center back in 1970 and they were erecting the Standard Oil and McGraw Hill buildings on 7th Avenue just south of the Time Life Building I was privy to inspect the building plans as I worked for the General Building Manager of 5 of the Center’s buildings. Odd but I don’t recall any such “hidden” gem being present in the building plans but then these buildings were only 54 stories high and not 100 plus stories. They were all built around the same time as well.
I find this article most informative and well researched by the former Russian. Russia has some of the most intelligent men and women on the planet. The govt has used a lot of cph4 (the stuff from the movie Lucy – be sure to see so you can understand what I am telling you about ) on a lot of their citizens in small doses and medium doses and most who were experimented on have ended up having a very large learning capacity as well as psychic like abilities. They experimented on children, prisoners, pregnant mothers, orphans, and any and anyone they could during the 1960”s, 70’s, and 80’s. I think they officially abandoned the project but you could fool me on this. I still feel they are still doing this today. I would not be surprised if the USA had a similar project and is still working on it as well. Super humans. Most of us normal people can only wonder what those poor people who were experimented on see or hear or think.
November 26, 2014 @ 12:43 pm
Getting 404 page not found for you article regarding SS WTF ?!
November 26, 2014 @ 4:07 pm
And why the date of 9/11?
Because 9/11 is 666 in encryption. Don’t believe me? Just watch.
the sign of 666
= the sine of 666 degrees
= the sine of 54 degrees
= 0.81
= 9/11 ths
Planned right down to the last detail.
November 26, 2014 @ 4:41 pm
Hi William. The date 9/11 was also chosen by our evil rulers to carry out the twin towers outrage because these satanic scum place high importance on the number eleven. Also 9 + 1 + 1 =11. As you say, they plan everything down to the last detail when incorporating their sick luciferian beliefs. tc, lorraine,
ps.. The towers themselves were a symbolic number eleven as well.
November 26, 2014 @ 5:53 pm
it’s advertising – 911 is emergency number in north america instead of uk 999 – it subconsciously registers as emergency in the mass mentality – fear programming – 911 immediately registers emergency in the mob mentality – social engineering
November 26, 2014 @ 6:10 pm
Hi maryanne, hope you are well. And of course here in cesspit Britain the emergency number is 999……3 sixes upside down. Hidden in plain view hey? tc mate, lorraine, x
November 26, 2014 @ 4:36 pm
That is a fucking awesome article. Thank you.
November 26, 2014 @ 5:03 pm
Hi Jay, you obviously love the late, great Marley just like I do. Redemption song is another of his masterpieces telling the story of oppressed people:
Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds, have no fear of atomic energy, cos none of them can stop the time, how long shall they kill our prophets while we stand aside and look? Some say it’s just a part of it, we’ve got to fulfil the book………..
lorraine
November 26, 2014 @ 7:41 pm
listened to the album earlier, almost bought tears to my eyes.
Re: this article, my god i’m in awe its just so, so fucked up and saddening. this is the ‘best’ most convincing article on 9/11 i’ve ever seen.
theres no way every single person viewing this article isn’t on a watch list.
justice in our lifetime? i truly fucking hope so. wow. just wow.
November 26, 2014 @ 8:07 pm
. . in fact i don’t believe a level of justice exists on this planet that is suitable for the perpetrators ?
that poor woman standing in the gap caused by a “plane” . . and thats just one woman . R.I.P
November 28, 2014 @ 1:21 pm
Bob was a zionist so FUCK BOB
November 28, 2014 @ 1:31 pm
Bob Marley was a zionist, are you serious?
What gives you that idea?
November 28, 2014 @ 2:23 pm
Rastafarians believe Zion is “the promised land”, in the song referring to Ethiopia. The lion refers to the Lion of Judah, which appeared on the old royal Ethiopian flag, and represents Haile Selassie I, the former Ethiopian emperor whom Rastafarians regard as their Messiah.
From the forum:
Beta Israel lived in North and North-Western Ethiopia, in more than 500 small villages spread over a wide territory, among Muslim and predominantly Christian populations. Most of them were concentrated in the area around Lake Tana and north of it, in the Tigray Region, among the Wolqayit, Shire and Tselemt and Amhara Region of Gonder regions, among the Semien Province, Dembia, Segelt, Quara, and Belesa.
Beta Israel spiritual leaders, including Liqa Kahnet Raphael Hadane, have argued for the acceptance of the Falash Mura as Jews. The Israeli government decided by a resolution in 2003 that descendants of Jewish mothers’ lineage have the right to emigrate to Israel under the Entry Law; they may become citizens only if they formally convert to Orthodox Judaism. This resolution has been controversial within Israeli society.
The Ethiopian history described in the Kebra Negast, or “Book of the Glory of Kings,” relates that Ethiopians are descendants of Israelite tribes who came to Ethiopia with Menelik I, alleged to be the son of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (or Makeda, in the legend) (see 1 Kings 10:1–13 and 2 Chronicles 9:1–12). The legend relates that Menelik, as an adult, returned to his father in Jerusalem, and then resettled in Ethiopia, and that he took with him the Ark of the Covenant.
Tribe of Dan
To prove the antiquity and authenticity of their own claims, the Beta Israel cite the 9th-century testimony of Eldad ha-Dani (the Danite), from a time before even the Zagwean dynasty was established. Eldad was a Jewish man of dark skin who suddenly turned up in Egypt and created a great stir in the Egyptian Jewish community (and elsewhere in the Mediterranean Jewish communities he travelled to) with claims that he had come from a Jewish kingdom of pastoralists far to the south. The only language he spoke was a hitherto unknown dialect of Hebrew. Although he strictly followed the Mosaic commandments his observance differed in some details from Rabbinic halakhah, so that some thought he might be a Karaite, even if his practice differed from theirs too. He carried Hebrew books with him that supported his explanations of halakhah, and he was able to cite ancient authorities in the sagely traditions of his own people.[44] He said that the Jews of his own kingdom derived from the tribe of Dan (which included the Biblical war-hero Samson) which had fled the civil war in the Kingdom of Israel between Solomon’s son Rehoboam and Jeroboam the son of Nebat, by resettling in Egypt. From there they moved southwards up the Nile into Ethiopia.
Some Jewish legal authorities have also asserted that the Beta Israel are the descendants of the tribe of Dan, one of the Ten Lost Tribes.
In 1973 Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, then the Chief Sephardic Rabbi, based on the Radbaz and other accounts, ruled that the Beta Israel were Jews and should be brought to Israel. He was later joined by a number of other authorities who made similar rulings, including the Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Shlomo Goren.
More here for those that are interested – http://chrisspivey.org.uk.uk/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=190&t=504
November 28, 2014 @ 2:39 pm
You should read John Hamers take on the music industry… They are all bent as fuck…. I see all my afro-caribbean mates walking around singing Iron, Lion, Zion and then i have to go over and explain the Hamitic curse to them… They hate me even more…
Where is the PRIDE people!!! (i aint talking about the gay shit)
November 28, 2014 @ 4:20 pm
Iv read it mate its sums up the industry perfectly, unfortunately i don’t think Bob can be counted with those people who were in on the subversion and manipulation, if he was, given his powerful and loyal following he would still be alive, he would be a very useful tool to them. Bob was everything the establishment hated, young brown and with a message that taught people to step away from all that crap and one of unity. Nothing scares the pub more than people standing together. IMO we see battles between good and bad all the time in the various medias, Bob was on the light side and for a while and he was winning and because of this he was killed.
November 28, 2014 @ 4:46 pm
Danny Malpas
Hi Danny. There is no way that Bob Marley was a zionist sympathiser. He despised all bigotry and believed in equality for ALL people….not just for some. It is RUMOURED that he was injected with the cancer that killed him because the elites were becoming terrified of his influence upon the oppressed people of the world…..his mantra of ‘get up stand up, don’t give up the fight’ was a war cry to everyone in the world who were being shit on by ‘The Man’ (the ‘Man’ being the elite scumbags who rule the world). Can I prove this ‘rumour?’ No I can’t, but it certainly has the ring of truth to it. lorraine, xx
November 28, 2014 @ 5:22 pm
Im with you Lorraine, he was a good guy.
Bob explains Cannabis and why the powerful hate it –
November 28, 2014 @ 5:53 pm
Its been a long time but i read some fucked up shit about Bob. Obviously, i never met him but ol’ zig zag married an israeli and produced israeli children, so if his message was pro humanity, then his son ain’t fukkin listening.
November 28, 2014 @ 10:05 pm
Danny Malpas
Danny, I haven’t a clue who Ziggy Marley was married to and neither do I care….it is BOB marley that we were discussing. IF, as you seem to believe, Bob was an advocate of zionism, why did he die at the young age of 36? Wouldn’t his ‘elite’ mates have kept him around for a bit longer? And honestly Danny, using a Man’s children to discredit him is below the belt. Is that your best argument for slagging Marley off? That his son Ziggy married a Jewish Woman? Now who sounds like a petty and small-minded ignoramous? lorraine
November 28, 2014 @ 10:57 pm
Bob Marley’s father, Norval, from whom Marley was estranged, was the son of Ellen Broomfield, a white Jewish Syrian Jamaican.
Ziggy’s wife Orly Agai, is a Jew of Iranian descent.
Ashkenazi Jews bear the closest similarity to Europeans, while Iranian, Iraqi, and Syrian Jews are closer to Druze, Bedouins, and Palestinians.
Quote from Ziggy:
The history of our connection to the root of Israel—David, Solomon—goes way before I met my wife. My father, my Rastafarian culture, is tightly linked to Jewish culture. We have a strong connection from when I was a young boy, reading the Tanach, the Bible, the Old Testament
November 29, 2014 @ 12:47 pm
@raine
He sung pro zionist propaganda!!!
I got the same reaction when Mandela died and everyone was like, dont dis the Mandela and i was like, FUCK MANDELA cos he was a zionist, terrorist muddafukka. Everyone fell out with me big time.
November 26, 2014 @ 5:12 pm
Thanks for posting this excellent article. Having just read Christopher Bollyn’s ‘Solving 9-11’ I am troubled by his adamant belief in nanothermite as the explosive means of bringing the towers down. I am now reading that nanothermite doesn’t even exist. The rest of the book, regarding Israeli involvement, surely rules him out as a disinfo agent?
Khalezov’s assertions seem quite plausible to this lay person but some corroborative evidence of the initial sub foundational nukes would be the clincher.
Let’s hope something turns up.
November 26, 2014 @ 6:03 pm
nosucherror, I agree, I also found it very well put together.
The problem with some of the other theories, is that what the Military Ind Complex has at it’s disposal is a long way from what is in the public domain, so it’s a bit of a stretch for many of us to be fully convinced. Any investigative author also runs the risk of info coming to light, at ANY time after he goes to print that might change his and his audience’s minds. The writer is stuffed once it goes to print and is out there. Of course, the critics will jump on that because they are negative energy individuals. It’s always been easier to destroy than to build. The AM is awash with disinfo and that’s hardly surprising considering its origins.
November 27, 2014 @ 12:11 am
HI Dogman,
what I find troublesome is Bollyn still clings to the nanothermite theory and considers proponents of the nukes theory to be disinfo agents. It could be his pride getting in the way of his judgement but he doesn’t seem like that sort of bloke. It’s a shame cos the book is highly convincing in its premise that Israel ‘dunnit’ and is a really good read. The plot thickens…
November 27, 2014 @ 6:53 am
It appears everybody with a theory calls all the other theories disinfo. Being perfectly honest, I couldn’t really give a fuck how they did it. The fact that it happened and was falsely blamed on other parties to fulfil an agenda, is what makes me angry. I’ve said as much to people that question other false flags. A lie is always a lie. How they carried it out is interesting but unprovable as we don’t have access to the technology that the Military Ind Complex has. Tesla could create earthquakes with a device that fitted in his pocket, and that was in 1887/1888.
Russian Physicists Launch Campaign To Rebuild Tesla’s Wardenclyffe Tower
“Tesla was right and we are ready to prove it!” So say the two Russian physicists who launched an Indiegogo campaign to rebuild Nikola Tesla’s Wardenclyffe Tower. Tesla believed that the tower could transmit power wirelessly but this was never definitively proven in his lifetime. If he was right, and after extensive study the team are convinced he was, the project could provide an efficient, worldwide energy transmission system that would distribute all the clean energy we can use.
http://chrisspivey.org.uk.uk/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=2471&hilit=tesla
On his birthday in 1937, Tesla announced: “I have devoted much of my time during the year past to the perfecting of a new small and compact apparatus by which energy in considerable amounts can now be flashed through interstellar space to any distance without the slightest dispersion.” (New York Times, Sunday, I I July 1937.)
Aside from his work on electromagnetism and electromechanical engineering, Tesla contributed in varying degrees to the establishment of robotics, remote control, radar, and computer science, and to the expansion of ballistics, nuclear physics, and theoretical physics.
However, despite all of his contributions to science, his name is little remembered outside the field of electronics and physics. In fact, Thomas Edison is often mistakenly credited in school textbooks with inventions that were developed and patented by Tesla.
Tesla – http://chrisspivey.org.uk.uk/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1073
November 29, 2014 @ 12:53 pm
As Dogman says, it really isn’t that important how it was done, but who was behind it. And I think we all know the group that were.
Personally I think it is unlikely a nuclear device was used. Whatever method was employed, it affected the structure all over, at the same time, directly, and at the molecular level. Just look at the videos again of the collapse. An exploding nuke under the foundation could not affect the structure 200 metres above ground turning it to powder. Also the technique of a ripple-charge effect (one floor after another in succession) that appears to have been used on building 7 was not used on the two big towers. It doesn’t account for the amount of fine powder.
There have been many theories put about, but all of this has been meant to muddy the waters and get all of us tinfoil hat wearers arguing about the ‘HOW’ and not the ‘WHO’ (the most important thing). The ‘WHY’ I think that’s pretty clear by now too.
November 28, 2014 @ 1:25 pm
The russian blokes seismic data contradicts the official seismic data. It would be helpful if we could have his source. He claims a 5.5 tremor before the tower dustifies, but all the data i have seen suggest less than 2.5.
November 26, 2014 @ 6:23 pm
Fantastic !
I am longer at the mercy of any cunt regarding 9/11.
Fuck me, it’s stuff like this that needs pushing. It’ll bring their pack of cards crashing
down ….. The end to their corrupt peedough paradise.
dofornow
November 26, 2014 @ 7:44 pm
i have trouble believing the people, the actors, and the technicians who set this up, the plane footage makers, surely they can’t be human.
no pay-off would help sooth the minds of these lies unless you were actually a follower of ‘satan’ or whatever dipshit fuckwit thing it is these people follow.
November 26, 2014 @ 7:38 pm
oh my fucking god
November 26, 2014 @ 9:41 pm
Having trouble with the “nukes” theory. If the towers were built actually in the river, inside the bathtub, then why did it not break and flood manhattan?
Also there are pictures of the underground car parks and shops showing little damage. There is also a photo taken at ground level from the front, there is an ambulance almost intact, it was parked right outside! It’s not buried and neither is it in a hole.
Stairwell b is another, they were in the centre of the building, 13 people walked out of there.
For me it’s not really about knowing how they really did it but the fact they did it at all, which we all agree on. There is most definitely technology available that the general population is unaware of, if something like this was used then it would be impossible to come to a conclusion.
A perfect crime with endless theories that would all be wrong.
November 26, 2014 @ 10:22 pm
bobcat, have a look at Jim Stone’s article about Fukushima.
ht tp://www.jimstonefreelance.com/camera.jpg
This from the forum:
At the closed-door 9/11 Commission hearing, Rodriguez testified under oath that explosions were going off in the basement of the North Tower before the first plane impacted the building.He explained in great detail to the Commissioners the numerous cases of serious injuries he had personally witnessed that were caused by these explosions.He even provided the panel with a list of firsthand witnesses to the explosions, people who were ready to testify under oath.One of the individuals Rodriguez recommended the panel summon was his friend and fellow employee, John Mongello.Mongello was in the lobby of the neighboring South Tower when the first aircraft plowed into the North Tower where Rodriguez was located.It would be another sixteen minutes before the second aircraft would rip into the one Mongello was in.Yet, within a minute of the first plane hitting the North Tower, an elevator in the South Tower exploded to smithereens right before his eyes!
How could a plane crashing into the North Tower possibly have caused elevators in the South Tower to explode?The esteemed 9/11 Commission never bothered to ask. Worse, and to his utter disbelief, Rodriguez later discovered that his statements were completely omitted from the official record. As a result, not one word of this decorated hero’s startling testimony appeared in the much-ballyhooed 9/11 Commission Report, a document that continues to be touted as “the most detailed, definitive study of the events of 9/11.”
Rodriguez started to look into the security company in charge of the WTC complex, Securacom, and was more than a little surprised by the identities of two of its top executives.President George W. Bush’s brother Marvin Bush and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were both principals of the company. Further, he found this very same company was in charge of security at Dulles airport and United Airlines—both central to the attacks.Brushing this curious connection aside as coincidence, he began to wonder about the practical difficulties the perpetrators would have encountered in gaining access to the buildings. He tried to recall having seen any suspicious people, or strange occurrences.Pieces began to slowly come together.He recalled seeing small teams of men in white “HazMat” coveralls busily moving about the building in the weeks preceding the attacks. Their presence didn’t strike him as particularly odd at the time, except for the fact that they used the stairwells almost exclusively and avoided using the service elevators. But he now began to wonder about these men’s real identities and true purpose.One particularly bizarre incident snapped into focus, one that was so frightening he recalls it made his “hair stand up.”A few weeks prior to the attacks, he was working in a stairwell on the 34th floor, which he knew to be completely vacant. Suddenly, he heard the strangest sound—one he’d never heard inside the tower in his nearly twenty years there.It was a powerful, ominous, “rumbling” sound of something extremely heavy being rolled about. It sounded like a “huge metal dumpster on steel wheels, containing something extremely heavy—tons—being rolled around” a floor that he knew to have been totally empty—devoid even of furniture.Yet, Rodriguez categorically maintains there was “someone” on that floor moving some monstrous contraption about.Oddly, he admits to having been gripped by intense fear at the time, but he was having difficulty verbalizing to me the exact nature of his apprehension. While this didn’t strike me as having been a particularly inauspicious occurrence, it was clear he had been deeply affected by it. He immediately reported the incident to the main office, but was reassured it was a vacant floor.Rodriguez was emphatic that he felt so frightened by this incident he didn’t dare open the door to look inside because he literally feared for his life
http://chrisspivey.org.uk.uk/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=292&t=444#p2508
November 26, 2014 @ 10:26 pm
Rob Balsamo – Commercial airline pilot. Co-founder, Pilots for 9/11 Truth. 4,000+ total hours flown
John Lear – Retired commercial airline pilot with over 19,000+ total hours flown in over 100 different types of planes for 10 different airlines in 60 different countries around the world. Flew for over 40 years. Holds every certificate ever offered by the FAA and has 23 different FAA type ratings. Held 17 world records including speed around the world in a Lear Jet Model 24, set in 1966. He was presented with the PATCO award for outstanding airmanship in 1968, and the Symons Wave memorial. Flight experience includes Boeing 707 and 727, McDonnell Douglas DC-8, Lockheed L-1011 and many others. Son of Bill Lear, founder of Lear Jet Corp.
•Audio interview with Rob Balsamo 3/9/07: Regarding the Flight Data Recorder information for Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon, released by the NTSB
John Lear: There’s a lot things in that tape that came up, that if you’re a pilot, you say, “Hey, wait a minute. That’s bull****. That could never happen in a million years.” …
Rob Balsamo: What did you think about 9/11 after you saw it?
John Lear: Well, you know, five minutes after it happened, I knew that it was a scam. … No Boeing 757 ever crashed into the Pentagon. No Boeing 757 ever crashed at Shanksville. … And no Arab hijacker, ever in a million years, ever flew into the World Trade Center. And if you got 30 minutes I’ll tell you exactly why he couldn’t do it the first time. Now, I’d have trouble doing it the first time.
Rob Balsamo: Yeah, same here.
John Lear: Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few building, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or 600 miles an hour.
Rob Balsamo: Yeah, as a matter of fact, one of our members, he was a 737 Check Airman. He was in the sim at the time on September 11 and right after it happened they tried to duplicate it in the simulator and they said they couldn’t do it. They were trying to hit the Towers and they couldn’t do it. …
John Lear: Yeah, it would be an amazing feat of airmanship. …
John Lear: People ask, you know, why do I think that 9/11 was a scam. They say, “Why would the government do that?” And I said, there’s three basic reasons. Number 1; they wanted to take away all our liberties and they had to pose a threat to do that. Number 2; they wanted a reason to go into Afghanistan. … Then the third thing was we had to have a pretext for going into Iraq. http: //video.google.com
•Member: Pilots for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: “Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn’t seem to be very forthcoming with answers.”
November 26, 2014 @ 10:28 pm
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.
•Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: “I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.” http: //americanbuddhist.net
•Article 7/17/05: “The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”…
“For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.” http: //www.arcticbeacon.com
•Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. “The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous…
It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile.” http: //911underground.com
November 26, 2014 @ 10:33 pm
Have a look at the Heiwa challenges:
ht tp://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm
and John Lear’s affidavit:
http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground-zero/2012/03/911-airplane-affidavit-by-john-lear-son-of-learjet-inventor-1935777.html
November 27, 2014 @ 3:02 pm
Whatever people believe is up to them, the fact remains they did it and they have the power and the expertise to commit atrocities and get away with it. As long as it makes them richer they will use whatever explosives necessary. It was tailor-made to suit the occasion. I have seen evidence to prove that there were many dry runs before the big event.
November 28, 2014 @ 3:04 pm
The fact that Rodriguez was in the basement and survived a few metres away from a thermonuclear explosion suggests to me the nuke theory is weak.
November 29, 2014 @ 4:05 am
Going back to those noises that Rodriguez heard, consider this (and I know VT is a questionable source, by their own admission):
In an exclusive interview with Truth Jihad Radio, Wayne Madsen explained that pseudonymous source Dave Adam came forward during the past two weeks, apparently first contacting Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and then Madsen. According to Madsen, Adam “claimed he was involved in placing vending machines containing detonation and relay switches inside the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center” and that Calabrese, a former Navy Seal, was part of the operation.
Calabrese was found dead on May 24 2012, floating in a harbor in Camden, North Carolina. The odd thing was that his body was floating vertically, not horizontally, indicating it had been weighed down. Though Camden County Sheriff Tony Perry called the death “suspicious,” it was officially ruled an accident. Apparently the longer a body is in the water, anything like poison or any sort of injection basically disappears.
November 27, 2014 @ 12:08 am
I know that all of Chris’ loyal supporters would want to ensure that everything that appears on this site and in his name should be verifiable forensic evidence. With that in mind I am more than conscious that those who would seek to twist Chris’s impeccable reputation, work and evidence regarding Rigby, Boston and so many other topics too numerous to mention would happily employ misinformation tactics regarding 9/11 in order to try to discredit him. I fear that this is one such occasion.
Although, on the surface, Khalezov appears to give credible evidence, there are many aspects of the ‘mini-nukes’ theory that do not explain all of the phenomena observed on 9/11/01
To be fair, this has been documented for many years now, and Khalezov himself stated that he could not explain the evidence!
ht tp://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=288&Itemid=60
There are some 40 points that should be addressed when considering the observed events on 9/11, many of which do not fit in with the notion of nuclear weapons eg. seismological evidence, levitation effects both witnessed and described in eye-witness testimony, the Alaskan magnetometer fluctuations, the behaviour of Hurricane Erin, unburnt paper in the streets while cars ignited etc. None of these observed effects ‘fit in’ with the idea of multiple nuclear detonations.
I agree that John Lear’s affidavit is significant but no one seems to dare mention that it formed part of Dr Judy Wood’s Qui Tam case which went all the way to The Supreme Court, along with corroborating evidence from Dr Morgan Reynolds and Andrew Johnson.
ht tp://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml
The facts support the evidence that free-energy technology was employed on 9/11 and that the rabbit hole goes far deeper than nuclear weaponry.
ht tp://drjudywood.co.uk/
ht tp://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php
November 27, 2014 @ 3:18 am
You’re absolutely right Neil. The evidence completely disproves the nukes/mini-nukes theory. Dimitri Khalezov lied in email exchange with Andrew Johnson and lied in another exchange with Abe Rodriguez (the man who also confronted Richard Gage about why he was banned from AE911 simply for referring to Dr. Judy Wood’s work and pointing it out to people), which Johnson briefly discussed in this recent interview – ht tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmIxhyJIluI
It is obvious to anybody who is familiar with Dr. Wood’s forensic analysis (not a theory) that Dimitri Khalezov has just used bits of Dr. Wood’s work e.g. using some of the same images, and then omitted vital information and attached provbly false disinformation to it. This is the essence of counter-intelligence. The fact that Nexus magazine has run with it tells us that Nexus magazine continues to promote disinformation, as you’d expect.
I hope Chris can find the time to look into Dr. Wood’s work some time soon. Dr. Wood’s work is connected to free energy. Many people know that free energy technology exists, but the people who have looked like getting free energy out to the general public – and there’s no good reason why everybody on the planet cannot have unlimited free energy – often get paid off or destroyed in one way or another e.g. Dr. Eugene Mallove. But Dr. Wood’s work shows that 9/11 was actually a worldwide demonstration of free energy technology, albeit in a weaponised form. This fact (and it is a fact, not a theory) means that everybody who knowingly continues the 9/11 cover-up and/or promotes disinformation to further that cover-up is actively participating in the ongoing suppression of free energy technology.
This winter, many thousands of people will die in this country alone because they won’t be able to afford heating. This is effectively mass murder, on an annual basis. The 9/11 cover-up facilitates this mass murder. To say that it’s immoral doesn’t quite get there, does it.
Dr. Wood’s work is a game-changer, hence the continued mass promotion of red herrings that add a lot of noise and drown out the signal.
November 27, 2014 @ 10:43 am
“The facts support the evidence that free-energy technology was employed on 9/11”
they are THEORIES not facts.
November 27, 2014 @ 4:41 pm
No, it is evidence leading to facts. If you want to see how tall someone is, you can use a tape measure to find that they are 6 feet tall (or whatever). Calling Dr. Wood’s work a theory is like saying that it’s a theory that that person is 6 feet tall.
Dr. Wood’s work is irrefutable because it’s only evidence and a forensic analysis of that evidence. The only thing that the perpetrators can do to cover up the truth – and the people who unknowingly work on behalf of the perpetrators, as well as those who know very well that that’s what they’re doing – is to misrepresent it by calling it a theory, or to outright lie about her work, and of course to massively promote disinformation, the most effective form of which includes an element of truth.
It is not a theory that the Twin Towers turned to dust. It is not a theory that both kinetic energy and thermal energy are ruled out by the evidence as the destructive mechanism, leaving directed energy. It is not a theory that the seismic signal proves that the buildings did not collapse. People who call these things theories don’t understand what they are talking about, at best.
November 27, 2014 @ 6:02 pm
Hi Matt Hancock
Dr. Judy Wood has certainly done some superb work on investigating 9/11, but I’m afraid her “directed energy weapon” solution is still only a theory – not an established fact.
We still don’t know where this “energy” was generated from; how it was harnessed into a weaponised form; and by what method was it directed on to the Twin Towers in order to cause their destruction.
A basic question is this;- Were the directed energy weapons placed inside the towers, or were they located externally ?
And were the perpetrators using an electro-magnetic device; a micro-wave weapon; a more exotic “force field” configuration, or perhaps some kind of “molecular disintegration” process ?
But until Judy Wood and her supporters provide a convincing description of how directed energy weapons were used on 9/11, then we cannot just accept her account as the final word on the matter.
Just by saying “The buildings turned to dust”, is not final proof of the use of Direct Energy Weapons. This is because we know that nuclear energy reactions can also cause the dustification process that Judy Wood keeps emphasising.
So – at the present time – none of us have solved the method of how the WTC was destroyed. It is very frustrating, I know, but we are still working hard to get there!
November 27, 2014 @ 11:55 pm
G.Travers – Dear! Dear! You just have to look at the buildings with the huge 24 foot round holes burned through them to tell you that a directed energy beam was used on 9/11 – from above because there are many of these holes around the site through the ground as well so that tells you that these weapons were NOT in the buildings or under the bedrock.
You arrogantly expect Dr Wood and others to provide a convincing description of how the directed energy weapons were used on 9/11 – are you dumb? Her book tells you EXACTLY how they were used on 9/11 – she nor anyone else can tell you anything else about the actual weapons used because they are TOP SECRET she can and does show you the effects of these weapons because of her QUALIFICATIONS and EXPERIENCE of which she has more than everyone put together who has investigated 9/11 and you have a cheek to call it a theory. Please enlighten the world as to how your Qualifications and experience compares to hers.
We do know how this energy was generated – Hurricane Erin – that giant Tesla Coil plus the fact that the Earth’s Magnetic Field dropped at the EXACT moment that each of the three buildings collapsed. Hurricane connected to Earth’s Magnetic Field – Earth’s Magnetic Field drops at the EXACT moment of each of the three towers collapse – no co-incidence and tells you EXACTLY what happened. SO nothing to do with theory and everything to do with EVIDENCE and FACTS.
Dr Wood has provided you with all of the EVIDENCE and FACTS about what happened that day and it is not her fault that you are incapable of working it out for yourself or are one of the people who are there to muddy the waters to take people away from the FACT that there is FREE ENERGY out there.
November 29, 2014 @ 4:13 pm
For goodness sake, Billy Carlin – just because you are prepared to accept everything that Judy Wood says as gospel truth, the rest of us are not prepared at this stage to take her book as the final word on the subject.
There is no doubt that Dr. Wood has done some excellent research on the destruction of the WTC, but for her work to be universally acknowledged as the official version of the event, then her book would have to be scrutinised methodically by her peers in the field of science and engineering.
But just saying that “her qualifications and experience are greater than everyone else put together” is no argument at all. This would be like saying that a certain religion is absolutely true because a devoted follower gained top marks in the examinations in a seminary, and then spent a lifetime in study and devotion. But it wouldn’t make that religion any more true than somebody else’s belief.
Are you absolutely certain that Judy Wood claims that “energy beams” were directed down on to the WTC from above, because I have heard her talk about other methods including Cold Fusion, the “Hutchinson Effect”, radio, or even micro-wave beams directed from various positions in nearby buildings.
I’m afraid you can’t just hide behind the lame excuse that its all “Top Secret” – Judy Wood must give us some viable, coherent description of how this tesla-coil effect was harnessed into a weaponised form. Otherwise we are just left with a plate full of gravy – with precious little meat!
November 29, 2014 @ 4:33 pm
Well said GT. As much as I enjoyed her explanations, I don’t have the nouse to fully understand or believe the scientific claims. I’m not a fan of blind faith…just look at religion. Lots of variations upon a theme.
November 29, 2014 @ 5:49 pm
To G. Travers:
No, it is not a theory. It doesn’t matter how many times people say it is a theory, it’ll never become true. Most of the people who say it’s a theory don’t even know what her work is actually about, having been reduced to repeating the misrepresentations of the so-called “9/11 truth movement”.
You said: “We still don’t know where this “energy” was generated from; how it was harnessed into a weaponised form; and by what method was it directed on to the Twin Towers in order to cause their destruction.
A basic question is this;- Were the directed energy weapons placed inside the towers, or were they located externally ?”
To believe that knowing these things is a pre-requisite for knowing that a directed energy weapon was used is not to understand logic at all. Do I need to know where you are in order to conclude that you’ve just replied to my comment? Obviously not. If a child finds a gun and shoots somebody with it, would you conclude that the gun cannot possibly exist because the child doesn’t understand how it works? Maybe you don’t like that analogy because there are grown-ups who do understand how the gun works, but that’s also true of the weapon that was provably used on 9/11, obviously. And we are the children who still don’t understand how it works. But we do know that it was used because the evidence of its use was all over the place. You can either choose to study the evidence – and Dr. Wood’s 500+ page book is not the easiest book you’ll ever read – or you can spend the rest of your life pretending that you’ve justified not having to do so because there’s no evidence. It’s amazing how many people argue that there’s no evidence before they’ve bothered looking all of the evidence, simply because there are various liars who have convinced them that there’s no evidence. Is it really that easy to derail you?
At this point your willful ignorance is an immoral act. The truth is known and it is easily accessible, so access it.
You said: “Just by saying “The buildings turned to dust”, is not final proof of the use of Direct Energy Weapons. This is because we know that nuclear energy reactions can also cause the dustification process that [Dr.] Judy Wood keeps emphasising.”
Not without heat, ionic radiation and a corresponding seismic signal. If the evidence doesn’t matter to you, at least admit that it doesn’t matter to you. Don’t ignore the evidence and then pretend that you care what the evidence shows.
You said: “There is no doubt that Dr. Wood has done some excellent research on the destruction of the WTC, but for her work to be universally acknowledged as the official version of the event, then her book would have to be scrutinised methodically by her peers in the field of science and engineering.”
So you believe that facts are not facts until various selected people tell you that they’re facts? Do you realise what that reveals about you?
You said: “Are you absolutely certain that [Dr.] Judy Wood claims that “energy beams” were directed down on to the WTC from above,”
This is a common misunderstanding made by people who have not looked at Dr. Wood’s work for themselves but just believe what they have been told about her work by various liars and obfuscators. Dr. Wood’s work is not about energy beams being directed down from above.
You said: “because I have heard her talk about other methods including Cold Fusion, the “Hutchinson Effect”, radio, or even micro-wave beams directed from various positions in nearby buildings.”
This is all parallel evidence and analogies. I suggest you read Dr. Wood’s book and actually study the evidence because it’s abundantly clear that you haven’t yet done so – ht tp://wheredidthetowersgo.com
Again, this is not about which 9/11 truth “tribe” you belong to, and who has been duped and re-duped and who can’t admit to having been duped twice etc. This is about free energy versus the continued and perpetual enslavement of the human race.
November 29, 2014 @ 6:45 pm
G.Travers/Dogman
I do not accept what she says as gospel truth – I go by the EVIDENCE she presents. I used to be one of the many who thought these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition but I have been researching 9/11 for years looking at the different “theories” including this mini-nukes nonsense which is total drivel for the reasons I have replied in the comments including the FAKE photos of the bedrock just like the nano-thermite drivel as well and I have changed my mind because of the mass of EVIDENCE that she presents and I do have the ability to understand where she is coming from with regard to the science.
Yes G.Travers I am certain that she claims they used energy beams – she just does not like the rest of us know if they were satellite or plane etc based and she is not privy to what they used to create these beams as John Hutchinson uses surplus military radios, radar etc to create the EXACT same effects she just knows they must have used one or more of these together like Hutchinson did plus the the outcome of the buildings etc turning to dust and all of the vehicles turning spontaneously bursting into flames was Cold Fusion – it was nuclear at the atomic level but not the hot nuclear with mini nukes that this misinfo guy is putting out these.
There is also the HUGE issue of the TWO – Three if you include Boeing itself – Direct Energy Weapons manufacturers being involved in the US Governments (NISTs) investigation into the “collapse” of the Twin Towers. Inspecting their handiwork perhaps?
I am not of blind faith about anything either Dogman – especially with religion or politics. Give me evidence and I will look at it and if it is better than what Dr Wood has shown I will change my mind and put that forward. But with regard to this mini-nukes and nono-thermite rubbish I can easily take apart. I am actually surprised with some of the people who have fallen for this on here as the 7 undamaged below street levels should have had the alarm bells ringing not to mention the fake photos of the bedrock.
November 29, 2014 @ 11:43 pm
Now, Mike Hancock says;- “Dr. Wood’s work is not about energy beams being directed down from above”.
But Billy Carlin says that;- “I am certain that she (Judy Wood) claims they used energy beams – she just does not, like the rest of us, know if they were satellite or plane etc…
But if Dr. Wood’s own zealous supporters cannot agree amongst themselves about these Direct Energy Weapons, then why should the rest of us become loyal converts to her cause ?
I personally find Judy Wood’s work very interesting – compelling even, but until she puts more “meat on the bones” as it were, then I must reiterate my observation that she is putting forward a theory, and not a proven fact.
November 30, 2014 @ 12:11 am
Apologies – Mr Hancock, I meant to say Matt Hancock.
November 30, 2014 @ 12:17 am
I think we can gloss over that , POA , Legal Advisor to Tittsworth & Grabbe and Goodnight.
November 30, 2014 @ 9:19 pm
To G. Travers,
not a problem. I should also mention that Andrew Johnson (who has been helping Dr. Wood get the word out for the past 8 years or so) also sells her book from the UK for £31 including shipping – ht tp://www.checktheevidence.com/911/orderpage.html
There are also various DVDs, booklets etc. he sells at cost price. There is also a copy of the book in circulation for people to borrow and then send on to the next person on the list when they’ve finished. If you want to read the book but don’t want to buy it, you can just contact Andrew Johnson about borrowing that copy.
Much of the information in the book is also on Dr. Wood’s main website, although obviously it is not as well organised as it is in the book – ht tp://drjudywood.com/
Finally (I hope posting these links is not taking the piss) there are dozens of interviews that Dr. Wood and Andrew Johnson have done over the last few years. Here’s a youtube playlist with a load of them – ht tp://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvaxr0OSBw2ANDa57doosnQBI1A2fGi8t
People need to understand the truth about 9/11 and the truth about the cover-up, which has a mainstream media layer and an alternative media layer. This event was probably planned decades in advance, maybe more – after all, it kicked off the new millennium. As Dr. Wood says herself, do you think the perpetrators would have forgotten to plan a cover-up?
There are several different high-profile (mis)leaders of the so-called “9/11 truth movement”. They rarely attack each other (at least not in a particularly forceful way) yet they are all united in their smear campaign and misrepresentation of Dr. Wood’s work. Why is that? When you study her work and you understand the free energy connections, it all becomes very clear. This is a game-changer.
Her court case went to the Supreme Court. She tried to put, among others, Applied Research Associates (ARA) and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC, or a backwards CIA’s) on the stand and under oath but there was zero support from the so-called “9/11 truth movement”. Most people still don’t know this even took place, thanks to the ongoing cover-up. What do these corporations have in common? They have strong ties to the military-industrial-complex and they also have ties to directed energy weaponry. In the case of ARA, they are contracted to know about what weapons exist and who has them. Why don’t more people know about this?
They tried to impose sanctions on Dr. Wood, but the judge would not allow it. He actually said, on the record, that the law (Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act) applied to her case but for ease of dismissing the case, he was going to ignore the law. Dr. Wood has said that she took that as a sign of respect from the judge, because he was not obliged to say that, let alone put it in the public record. You don’t get to the Supreme Court based on a theory, and again, they tried to impose sanctions on Dr. Wood and were unsuccessful.
Dr. Wood discussed the court cases in a recent 4-hour interview. The whole thing is in this playlist – ht tps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5ba7eLBN3Yu9o711NTaoQn15lRALLycZ
The court cases are discussed in parts 12 and 13.
Obviously the people who don’t want to know the truth and don’t care either way will just not bother listening, but I know that there are people who do care but have just been kept ignorant of the facts by people they’ve been led to believe were genuinely trying to uncover the truth. God only knows how I’ve ended up being one of the people who has stumbled upon it, but stumble upon it I have, and there it is for all to see.
The documentation is still up on her main website, but you won’t hear about it from the so-called “9/11 truth movement”, for obvious reasons.
November 27, 2014 @ 7:25 pm
“It is not a theory that both kinetic energy and thermal energy are ruled out by the evidence as the destructive mechanism”
completely untrue . no thermal energy? you serious?
MI6 must pay well congratulations you.
November 28, 2014 @ 2:20 pm
@jay
Where is this thermal energy? Can you provide an example? Besides, of course, the self igniting cars parked half a mile behind a load of buildings!
November 27, 2014 @ 7:15 am
What an interesting article. After reading it, you almost feel like it is the perfect explanation of how the twin towers were brought down. Other factors like the use of thermite and explosions occuring on the outside of the buildings as they collapsed could be explained by assuming they were used as red herrings, to distract people from looking for other reasons.
Nuclear explosions might then explain why, for days after, long convoys of large trucks, transported top soil to ‘ground zero’, spread it all over the area, scooped it back up again and took it away, only for the process to be repeated a few more times. Something to do with helping to reduce the amount of nuclear contamination.
But after reading Dr Judy Woods research myself, there remains lots of unanswered questions, which gets me to thinking that the ‘nuclear explosion’ explanation could be another red herring, meant to keep us from looking elsewhere.
The fact that:-
Former Mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, for no apparent reason “went nuclear” when giving a talk seems a bit strange. He seemed to be providing to big a clue as to what ‘actually’ happened, which, when you consider he was most likely in on it, would be almost like him trying to get himself arrested. I don’t think he’s that stupid.
The authorities being so quick to get ‘ground zero’ into the public domain, would be an act of clumsiness/stupidity, as it would alert certain people to it’s meaning and further uncovering of the nuclear option. Somehow, I don’t think they’re that stupid.
I know these cunts are very clever, and plan things years in advance, even generations, so it wouldn’t be too difficult to see this explanation as another red herring, meant to distract. Rudolph Giuliani speech, the deliveries of topsoil, the alterations to dictionary’s, the well produced theory of some russian geezer, could all be parts of the same elaborate trick to deceive those looking for answers. Thermite and maybe a much smaller ‘dirty bomb could’ve been used to leave false clues, produce certain effects/illnesses and muddy the waters even more. Why have one red herring when you can have two (or more?) Sneaky Bastards!!!
One thought. If the dustification of the buildings was caused by the “compressing wave” that propagated with supersonic speed up the Tower’s body “dustifying” it instantaneously”, wouldn’t the buildings have collapsed from the bottom upwards, rather than top downwards, as seen in many videos? I can’t see how this “compressing wave” could’ve travelled all the way up to the impact floors without destroying/collapsing the Ground Floor, 1st Floor etc first.
Or, because it happened so fast, had they all been turned to dust and were just waiting for some force to bring about a collapse, which would’ve happened when the undamaged part of the building suddenly had nothing supporting it, so fell with no resistance.
Would the building have collapsed in an ‘orderly’ fashion, floor by floor, or would the whole building have crumbled and caved in randomly?
November 27, 2014 @ 2:14 pm
“Rudolph Giuliani speech, the deliveries of topsoil, the alterations to dictionary’s, the well produced theory of some russian geezer, could all be parts of the same elaborate trick to deceive those looking for answers.”
it gets to the point where , fuck , i’m exhausted with 9/11 , sure thats part of the plan – to wear people out . Am i prepared to dedicate another 8yrs of my life to 9/11 and reading and watching every source on the internet?
no. the deception, smoke and mirrors is too large. this was the most convincing 9/11 explanation i’ve read yet, the comments are full of nay-sayers with their own theories, i’ve just had enough
November 27, 2014 @ 2:45 pm
Well that’s up to you. Maybe you should have taken the blue one. As long as you know it is a lie then why would you give up on flagging it? doesn’t make any sense to me. Truth is truth and a lie is a lie it’s as simple as that, no matter what your theory on it is or how old that lie may be. Should we also just forget about all the horrific stuff these freaks have been inflicting on us since way back in history because we don’t have definitive proof of how they were done?
https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEbAx-79ayg
https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5hBwCYVdPw
November 27, 2014 @ 5:10 pm
“Well that’s up to you. Maybe you should have taken the blue one”
thats a bit arrogant of you, not to mention rude. you have no idea who i am or what i study or how many videos i’ve made and the research i’ve done. no idea at all.
go blue pill yourself. i was red pill before the matrix, bud.
November 27, 2014 @ 5:15 pm
“Truth is truth and a lie is a lie it’s as simple as that, no matter what your theory on it is or how old that lie may be”
ah it’s that easy, do excuse me i didn’t realise. well since it’s so simple could you then please point out all lies and truths regards every single 9/11 theory? surely you’ve got it totally sorted?
in waiting, thanks x
November 28, 2014 @ 12:52 am
Err right. what I’m saying is it’s pretty pointless trying to prove whose of the theories are correct as we can’t usually prove any of them absolutely and more often than not leads to squabbling and divisions, but just as long as you, I and many others can smell the bullshit then we’re all on side right? Well we should be. Dogman says it best below though.
btw jay are there any links to all your research and vids? would be interesting to check them out..
November 27, 2014 @ 3:22 pm
That’s what all the disinfo is designed to do, and that is why my response when asked how or why a false flag is carried out, is to point out that I donn’t know for sure and probably never will know, but they have been caught lying and that’s enough for me. Proving it is a lie is surely the most important thing, but the trolls demand to know how it happened. Well, they can fuck off and find out for themselves…not my problem!
From the forum topic Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation:
12. Enigmas have no solution.
Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
14. Demand complete solutions.
Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs.
This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld.
20. False evidence.
Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
22. Manufacture a new truth.
Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably.
All 25 here for anybody that wants to play spot the troll – http://chrisspivey.org.uk.uk/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=271&t=519#p4116
November 28, 2014 @ 12:19 am
Dear! Dear! Jay! First of all the pictures of the “nuked” bedrock used by these Mini Nuke disinfo folk are FAKE AS FUCK just like the rest of the drivel about the nukes and 9/11.
You can see the actual cleared bedrock at different stages at Dr Woods site and in her book and in her EVIDENCE documents in her court cases against the US Government and the over 20 US Companies involved in putting out the FAKE NIST report – funny how at least TWO of these companies were DIRECT ENERGY WEAPONS manufacturers taking part in an investigation into how these buildings collapsed.
Dr Woods totally trashes any controlled explosives being used in 9/11 – the seismic records destroys this argument fro a FACT. If you think that this is the most convincing explanation you have read yet please explain to the world how these MAGIC nukes in the bedrock managed to explode in the bedrock and then jump up all way through the building to the top without damaging anything or harming any of the people and then start to turn the buildings to dust from the top down and then MAGICALLY stop at ground level.
Please enlighten the world as to how these nukes managed to MAGICALLY make the Earth’s Magnetic Field drop at the EXACT moment that each of the three buildings “collapsed”?
Please enlighten the world as to how these MAGIC nukes managed to make thousands of vehicles for miles around the towers spontaneously burst into flames without affecting the people, tress, buildings etc around them?
I could go on and on picking this most convincing evidence that you have seen yet to pieces with EVIDENCE and FACTS but you have obviously not seen Dr Woods WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO or are simply incapable of investigating the evidence for yourself or are simply a disinfo agent out to take the spotlight away from the FACT that there is FREE ENERGY out there that is being used for secret weapons instead.
November 27, 2014 @ 6:20 pm
“”The authorities being so quick to get ‘ground zero’ into the public domain, would be an act of clumsiness/stupidity, as it would alert certain people to it’s meaning and further uncovering of the nuclear option. Somehow, I don’t think they’re that stupid.””
but 13 yrs have passed . its been over a decade and someone JUST picked up on that.
November 28, 2014 @ 10:18 am
No, someone hasn’t JUST picked up on it. Your russian mate has been touting his nuclear explosion theory for at least 4 years. Simple to verify as it was published in German by NEXUS magazine, October-November 2010. If you are exhausted with 9/11, you poor thing, why not try something different, like ‘The Loch Ness Monster’, that must be due for a revival soon. Or better still, go do your trolling somewhere else lad.
November 27, 2014 @ 11:11 am
Interesting to think about and like Jay said – these things are all theories, as plausible as they sound, we will likely never know exactly HOW it was done but there are plenty of facts which lead to WHY it was done and this is almost undisputed how things were arranged to fail on that day and many things covered up and ignored afterwards. My theory is that perhaps Hillary Clinton visited WTC and decided to take off her make up in the toilets and the building was so disgusted and what it saw, it disintegrated itself in horror?!?
November 27, 2014 @ 1:33 pm
the ground zero term being used then officially changed, ok, the blast both sides going out, ok, but if two nukes were used and posioned people and were many times that as dropped on Hiroshima, why doesn’t everyone in south manhattan have cancer and radiation poisoning?
people were being born for years in Hiroshima with deformities – no such thing happened or is happening in NYC
no planes – i believe there were none. but when he says about the guy not reacting to the plane but the blast in that vid – WRONG – he’s clearly seen turning to ‘the sound of a “plane’ before the explosion. and of course its the explosion thats make people jump.
November 27, 2014 @ 2:15 pm
From the Telegraph:
Three 9/11 firefighters die of cancer in one day
More than 2,500 New York police, firefighters, ambulance and sanitation workers now have the disease
Related Articles
9/11 death toll rises as cancer cases soar among emergency workers -27 Jul 2014
Cancer rates triple among 9/11 police officers -06 Feb 2012
9/11 firefighters more likely to get cancer, study finds – 02 Sep 2011
Fears over cancer cluster among 9/11 rescue workers – 12 Nov 2009
ht tp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11122614/Three-911-firefighters-die-of-cancer-in-one-day.html
Jay, Hiroshima was in 1945 and technology has moved on a long way, so if micro-nukes were used, it may take longer to notice related deaths and I’d expect far less casualties!
November 27, 2014 @ 5:55 pm
but still – no deformed babies. but then it was an underground explosion.
HANG ON. – how do we know there WERE nukes there in the first place, for sure?
from there the next step would be to find out if they’re still even there (probably not but you get my drift)
November 27, 2014 @ 2:14 pm
The non human vermin who do this are Unaccountable Mass Murdering fraudster scum. Try changing your insurance policy before blowing up buildings and see how far you get.
These are the scum who have the audacity to persecute a 90 year old elderly gentleman who was fighting their bankster scam war to make the poison vermin Rockefellers and Rothschild monsters richer, who feeds the homeless in the Corrupt State of Florida. The State where you can murder any black man and the Judge will turn a blind eye. The Victims will never get justice because the corrupt fraudsters who control Florida will make sure they wont.
The American Puppet Government reward this wonderful 90 year old veteran by making sure he is harassed and persecuted with the help of the Corrupt legal system in Florida. Welcome to Florida where corruption is alive and well.
Usless Obummer is too Mind Controlled to know what day of the week it is let alone what he is really doing.
Help 90-Year-Old Activist Arnold Abbott Continue Feeding the Homeless in Florida
by Ximena RamirezNovember 26, 20145:30 pm
Help 90-Year-Old Activist Arnold Abbott Continue Feeding the Homeless in Florida
It’s that time of year when we think about the people who we are thankful for, like so many of the Care2 members who start petitions to make a difference in their communities. This year I’m particularly thankful for Arnold Abbott, the 90-year-old activist who was arrested for serving meals to the homeless in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. You can show Abbott you are thankful for his brave efforts by signing a petition he put together on Care2 with fellow member Randy Mcquade.
For the last 24 years Abbot has been handing out food to the homeless, a tradition he began with his “angel wife,” as he calls her. He even started his own non-profit, an all volunteer organization called Love Thy Neighbor, in her honor. The mission of the organization is to embrace “the vision and passion of one woman, Maureen Abbott, who devoted her life to caring for as many poor, hungry, and homeless as she could reach.”
At the beginning of the month, however, tighter city restrictions, including a new measure that requires feeding sites to be more than 500 feet away from each other and 500 feet from residential properties, has made it difficult for Abbot to continue doing his life work. In fact, he has received a citation and has been arrested for, as he says, “practicing my rights to help my neighbors.”
But Abbott is not deterred:
As long as there is breath in my body, I will continue to serve my brothers in the areas where they can be found. I’m not afraid of jail; I spent two and a half years in war. I am afraid of allowing a law like this to stand…I am trying to allow homeless people to have the same rights as everyone else. There is no rug big enough to sweep them under.
And he is not alone. Abbott started his petition with Randy Mcquade, a formerly homeless Florida resident, who is also passionate about the issue as well:
This issue is important to me because people matter! ALL people…I have been briefly homeless twice in my life and I attend church with and am friends with several homeless people. People are people no matter what and deserve to be treated with love, compassion, understanding and respect.
With nearly 60,000 signatures, Mcquade has been inspired by his experience starting a Care2 petition:
Writing this petition has affected my perspective on activism by giving me hope. I have always been fairly pessimistic about just what one person can do and the effectiveness of activism, but maybe, just maybe…Regardless of the end result in the city of Ft. Lauderdale, at least we will have made our voices heard and hopefully changed many people’s hearts.
You can help turn that “maybe” into a yes by signing Mcquade and Abbott’s petition today to let city leaders know that homeless people are people, too.
ww w.care2.com/causes/help-90-year-old-activist-arnold-abbott-continue-feeding-the-homeless-in-florida.html
November 27, 2014 @ 3:48 pm
Surprisingly the NIST report into the twin towers does not attempt to describe the collapse of the twin towers. The entire report concentrates on the conditions that caused the initial collapse of the very top of the twin towers into the section supposedly damaged by the planes and fires. As for the rest of collapse of over 2 thirds the building including 2 sky lobbies. All NIST says is a that following the initial collapse a progressive collapse followed. That is it that’s the entire analysis and description ‘a progressive collapse followed’. Or the building was weakened resulting in a progressive collapse is another example of a detailed description that explains everything.
November 27, 2014 @ 5:33 pm
As has been mentioned, this might be an untrustworthy article.
The author makes much of the 2.5 inches thick steel in the perimeter columns but doesn’t seem to mention the fact that it wasn’t the same thickness all the way up – at the top it was a tenth of that thickness.
http:// 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
November 27, 2014 @ 6:05 pm
And he makes much of the term ‘ground zero’ being a nuclear thing in dictionaries, but doesn’t mention that it was also widely used in a totally non-nuclear way. I remember shortly after 9/11 some emergency worker type explaining the meaning of the term for them, which was something along the lines of ‘the centre of the disaster and the place where everything would have be started over etc’
‘In May 2001, actor Morgan Freeman and a Mississippi lawyer opened the Ground Zero Blues Club here. “Ground zero” meant something different in those days.
From that year, through September 10, this newspaper used “ground zero” to describe everything from a revitalization project at Stax Records to wildfires in the western United States. There were ground zeroes as far as the eye could see.’
http://www. commercialappeal.com/news/local-news/911-altered-meaning-of-ground-zero
November 27, 2014 @ 6:32 pm
“this might be an untrustworthy article”
but you can’t deny theres some great info in it
November 28, 2014 @ 12:40 am
I would deny that there is any great info in it as you can see by my replies posted about this post.
November 28, 2014 @ 2:27 pm
Me too
November 28, 2014 @ 2:38 pm
Danny Bob was not a zionist in the way you think, he hated all beliefs that placed one set of humans above another, he’s message was of love and unity.
November 27, 2014 @ 9:23 pm
I don’t really buy the nuke theory. The original theory of shaped charges and nano-thermite not only explains how it could have been done, but it also conforms to Occam’s Razor in that all things considered, it is usually the simplest means which were employed. A recent disclosure in Veterans Today said that the charges laid in the floors and walls were relayed to a vending machine on each floor, and so the detonation sequences wasn’t for thousands of independent explosives around the building – difficult to get right – but for those 100-odd relays to be triggered at approximately free-fall speed, which was much easier to achieve.
There doesn’t seem to be enough radiation residue to account for nukes, and those chambers beneath Ground Zero don’t look big enough, and they do seem natural to me.
December 1, 2014 @ 6:15 pm
The one thing occams razor does not apply to is top secret military technology
November 28, 2014 @ 12:38 am
Hi Chris – Not been active due to illness for a while now so hope to get back into things now although it is taking me all my time to catch up with all of your and every one else’s stuff just now.
A big hint Chris that will show this mini nuke stuff as the nonsense it is especially as you are good at spotting the fake photos – go compare the photos these mini nuke people use of ground zero above to the photos at Dr Woods site at the different stages of the clean up and after – she gives the info for where all the originals can be found unlike these people. You can also get photos of the cleared out bedrock from elsewhere and all of this will prove that the above photos are utterly FAKE just like the rest of the mini-nuke and nano-thermite misinfo.
Not one bit of the bedrock was damaged nor was the FRAGILE bathtub nor the subway trains etc under the Twin Towers and neither was the 7 below street level floors with only a little damage to part of these.
November 28, 2014 @ 4:13 pm
The “bathtub” wasn’t damaged until the earthmovers started to clear away the comparatively small amount of rubble
200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex
425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex
1,500,000 tons—the weight of the Twin Towers
198 miles of heating ducts in the Twin Towers
3,800 gold bars weighing 12 tons and worth $100 million stored in the basement vaults
60,000 tons of cooling capacity generated by the World Trade Center’s refrigeration plant—the largest in the world
87 tons of food delivered daily to the complex (anyone checked the deliveries for that day?)
70 feet of foundation excavated so that the Twin Towers rested on solid bedrock
Source is w ww.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html
The removing of grounD zero from dictionaries is interesting though!
Dr Woods mentioned that no evidence or plumbing ceramics was found in the remains. Whatever caused the disintegration, it wasn’t planes and I freely admit that the scientific theories are beyond my understanding. Bin Laden denied responsibilty for what would have been the biggest terrorist coup in history, no why would he do that if he WAS responsible AND ESPECIALLY IF HE WAS AT DEATH’S DOOR!
Discovering how it was done is very interesting but just provokes arguments…funny that. As I said before, it’s a false flag and that’s enough for me. Everything else is a distraction. Suit yourselves, but we have no idea of the technology that the Mil. Ind Complex possess and it is probably decades ahead of what is available in the public domain.
Eisenhower warned about the growth of a ‘military-industrial complex,’ and the risks it could pose. “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power,” Ike said, “exists and will persist.” His anxieties back then were prompted by the ten-fold expansion of the US military after two world wars, and by the development of a “permanent arms industry of vast proportions”.
According to the specialist website of the same name that tracks US defence spending, the total value of contracts issued by the Pentagon since October 2006 exceeds $1.1 trillion, while total military spending in that period tops $2.5 trillion. They have the top scientists in their pocket.
November 29, 2014 @ 7:01 pm
Hi Dogman. Agreed about how it was done causes arguments but this is why the nano-thermite and mini-nukes etc stuff is put out there to do just that. The major reason I defend the evidence of Dr Wood is because it proves the existence of FREE ENERGY which the powers at be do not want the masses to know exists.
Tesla proved this exists and he was shut down. John Hutchinson has proved it exists with his experiments although he is no Tesla as he just plays about with his equipment. Dr Woods has proved that it exists and is what they used on 9/11 and it is important for everyone to know about this as it is another way of pissing the people off and waking them up to what is going on by letting them know that these people are using this for weapons instead of FREE CLEAN ENERGY for everyone.
November 29, 2014 @ 7:14 pm
Hi Billy Carlin, I found Dr Wood’s version extremely interesting but as I’ve said before, the arguments for and against are well over my head. I have read about Tesla’s free energy and I’m sure that this technology is available but deliberately suppressed. They want us struggling to survive, not enjoying life, although ultimately there will be enough rope and lampposts…just a matter of time when it starts happening. I found this info, which I present purely for people to consider. IT IS NOT MY OPINION.
ht tp://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/505-ae911truth-faq-6-whats-your-assessment-of-the-directed-energy-weapon-dew-hypothesis.html
December 2, 2014 @ 10:58 pm
Hi Dogman,
Would not trust anything that Gage or AE911 Truth comes out with as it is so easy to trash everything they say.
This guy was exposing Direct Energy Weapons for decades before Dr Wood and their use on 9/11:
ht tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_3HWLdRbQM
What he says about there being no light coming from the Sun/Moon etc can be confirmed by the Electric Universe people and Eric Dollard.
November 28, 2014 @ 2:03 pm
It was all a total accident – waiting to happen.
THERE !
Now fuck off
dofornow
November 28, 2014 @ 9:41 pm
This is old stuff and originates from Gordon Duff and Veterans Today. Anything from there is highly suspect. A discussion on ‘how’ the buildings came down is just a diversion. Some more pertinent questions are: why did the BBC report that WT7 had collapsed twenty minutes before it did so? Why did they wipe the tapes? Despite there being 80+ CCTV cameras outside the Pentagon, how come no footage was released showing a plane crashing into it? Old questions and still no answers. Anyone still not up to date on this subject, 9/11 Ripple Effect contains the early, on the spot reactions as the event unfolded and before the government mouth pieces were in place. On you tube, or cheap buy on ebay.
November 29, 2014 @ 2:14 pm
Danny Malpas
Danny you are RIGHT about Mandela…he was a zionist puppet. But I think that you have got it VERY wrong about Bob Marley. The fact that Marley died at a very young age speaks for itself doesn’t it Danny? The elite allow their ‘own’ to live to old age…..i.e. queenie and the old nonce-ponce philip, the paedo queen mother who lived to over 100, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Dick Cheney….the list of evil old pieces of shit goes on and on. But I think that you and I are never gonna agree where Marley is concerned and like I always say to everyone Danny , you have the right to your own views, tc, lorraine, x
November 29, 2014 @ 7:32 pm
The elephant in the room should of been the temp. of all that melted steel at the bottom of the pit. Jet fuel and furniture wont go over 2000 degrees. Steel melts at just under 3000 degrees. After dumping water all over the site for 7 weeks, still red hot steel, and temps in excess of 1000 degrees.
Nukes, Incendiaries, Energy weapon. One, two, or all three of these are most plausible.
This is just one of to many to count ridiculous scenarios were told to believe. 10 stories a second?? Roadrunner cut outs?? Cruising altitude speeds at sea level? Black box and no plane?? Just like the guy that couldn’t fly doing a 8000 foot descent, corkscrew turn, and coming in at ground level at over 500 mph. A FA-18 Hornet would have a hard time doing that one if it really could. Maybe the best, of the best, of the best.
All involved should not only have all there wealth confiscated, but also get the Nuremburg treatment. All complacent should be delt with as in any other capitol crime, times 3000! I want to see Dicky cheney get waterboarded on TV!!
Wtc Constructed To Be Nuclear Device Chimneys
http: //funimarts.info/videos/wtc-constructed-to-be-nuclear-device-chimneys-please-copy-?v=4YZ8wVBQycY
No one Might Permit a Final Exact Outcome of 9-11 But The Event With ” Internet Communications ” Seem to have Caused an UN For seen ” Awakenings ” Which Even IF Crushed Will Resound For Years to come ….. The Internet is Something the Elite Did NOT Factor into Their Plans.
peacex
November 29, 2014 @ 11:09 pm
No mention of the asbestos, which had condemned the towers.
Could vapourised asbestos be causing all the cancers among fire-fighters and first responders?
Building 7 is about as clear cut an example of controlled demolition as you will see, so again, this article is not conclusive.
It is a good premis, though; the idea that demolition had to be ‘built in’ at the design stage. The architect was a Japanese. I wonder if he is still alive?
If the foundations were on pure bedrock, then getting a nuclear bomb the size of 8 hiroshimas down below, and ensuring no corrossion/damage would be a major feat.
We are talking idiots and greed basically. Everyone paid off, the patriot act rolled out and passed on emotion and bullying and ignorance.
This is an incredible false flag demolition and I am amazed that it simply does not hold the attention of ordinary folks long enough for them to suss out how STUPID the official story is.
There are so few photos of workers or offices or pictures of the inside of the WTC, or ANY of the buildings in the WTC. They really do not like emphasising how ENORMOUS the buildings were, or how ridiculous it would be for them all to fall down because a ‘bee’ flew against them.
The thermal images 3 months after the event showed molten lava beneath the rubble, which delayed the clean up. That sure sounds ‘nuclear’ to me…and I distinctly recall a ‘live’ BBC radio broadcast which was constantly suffering strange interference, almost as if the radio activity was still impacting on the radio frequency transmitted.
The German composer who called the event ‘art’ and who subsequently had to ‘retire’ from public life…all the paid monkeys who championed the Report – and who believed NIST…follow the money and you get stupid peanuts.
All these years later someone finally accepted that I had been right all along about 9/11 not being what everyone else thought it was – “but where did that bring you?”
Silverstein said “pull it” and the wife of the American Attourney General was making phone calls on one of the doomed planes…even though she appeared alive and well several weeks later. She was a shout downer on CNN…and not one of her ‘colleagues’ missed her in any of the last 7 9/11 remembered specials…
A crime scene that no-one wanted to be very near to. How convenient!
November 30, 2014 @ 2:49 am
I hate to just blandly recco a book without qualifying it’s salient points,but the author SK Bain’s book-9/11 The Most Dangerous Book In The World, posits the idea of the entire event as a collosal mass trauma psycho-drama,embracing multiple masonic symbolisms evoking demonologies and alluding to the twin towers as emblamatic of the dual towers of Solomons temple.
Bearing in mind they (masons) love nothing more than signalling their deeds to fellow trouser rollers across the globe,it makes sense the deed was in line with the concept of ‘revelation of the method’ that they promulgate.Even the barge carrying residues across the river was emblazoned with the logo ‘Freshkills’ I believe this is how these guys roll,any mass psychotrauma event to them is only justifiable when sly humour is woven into the narrative.The jack the ripper masonic rituals being another notable example.
The book is pretty damn convincing.
November 30, 2014 @ 9:10 am
just ask people what time they heard about 9-11 in the U.K .they fxxxxd up big time http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread970095/pg1
go on i double dare you , i saw it on tv in the uk at 11.20 am 6 .20 am in new york
December 9, 2014 @ 3:39 am
does anyone know what happens in courts when one piece of your evidence is found out to be falseified?
yep, THEY THROW THE LOT OUT. untrusted source.
you mention september clues briefly, why not mention the vicsims research or indeed the nuke hoax research, god forbid you search september clues for Dimitri himself?
forget nukes, missiles, beam weapons etc, question the news corporations.. question if they work for you or for the goverments..
i notice the judy woods club jump in on every topic like this, dosent she say “if you want to know what happened on 9/11, buy my book!” alot? (about 40 odd dollars in hardback)
also they rebadge theory for fact by shouting it loud over and over yawn..
do yourself a favour, read stilldiggin `s blog from a few years back and ignore tube`s gatekeepers
December 9, 2014 @ 3:41 am
as google downplays stilldiggin i refer to
http:/ /911logic.blogspot.co.uk/ (to avoid confusion)