Go Back   Let's Roll Forums > The U.S. Government Conspiracy of 9/11 > The World Trade Center - Hollow & Empty on 9/11 > World Trade Center - Molten Steel & Other Unexplainable Oddities
Connect with Facebook

Reply
 
Bookmark and Share Thread Tools
Old 21 Feb 2011 , 11:17 AM   #1
Julia.M.Lazare
 
Join Date: 28 Apr 2010
Posts: 177
Threads: 32
Thanked 351 Times in 128 Posts
Julia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant future
Arrow GROUND ZERO - the TRUTH has been right in front of us

http://www.what-is-ground-zero.com/

2 Manhattan projects: ground zero and Ground Zero.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right
to tell people what they do not want to hear."
- George Orwell, Preface to Animal Farm (1946)

Have you ever heard that a site in Manhattan where the former World Trade Center used to stand bears a truly strange name: "Ground Zero"?

If you haven't heard it yet, here is information for you: starting from about 4 PM, September 11, 2001 (even before the WTC-7 has collapsed) the site where the Twin Towers used to be has been dubbed "ground zero" - both officially and unofficially.

Almost immediately after the Towers' collapse (precisely at 11.01 AM) the then New York Mayor R. Giuliani has urged all citizens to stay at home if they can and ordered an immediate evacuation of the entire population of Manhattan south of Canal Street.

When his order for evacuation was re-transmitted via TV-channels (for example by CNN) it sounded very strange: it reminded nothing else than a typical civil defense alert - used during a real war in which weapons of mass destruction supposed to be used.

About the same time some strange guys dressed in full "lunar-looking" haz-mat suits were first noticed at that ground zero. And it was actually them - these strange "lunar-looking" guys who first began to call that spot by that strange name: "ground zero".

Usage of this strange term in connection with demolition grounds of the former World Trade Center continued even up this day.

However, a certain transformation occurred with this strange term soon, as if someone has realized his mistake and wanted to correct it: the term was elevated to be written with Capital Letters and as such it eventually found its way into many post-9/11 dictionaries and encyclopedias.

Now it is no longer "ground zero", but "Ground Zero". But what about pre-9/11 English language? Do you know what this strange term "ground zero" used to mean before the WTC destruction and how many different meanings it used to have prior to 9/11? I guess you don't know. So, here is it:

All possible meanings of "ground zero" term as defined by The New International Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition 1999, ISBN 1-888777796), page 559.

There are few more definitions from various sources. Here are entire, unabridged definitions - "as is" - exactly as provided by respective dictionaries:

"ground zero" n. a point on the surface of land or water at or directly above or below the center of a nuclear explosion.
Collins English Dictionary, Major New Edition (Third Edition 1991, ISBN 0 00 433286-5 Standard).

"ground zero" n. a point on the ground directly below the center of a nuclear explosion.
Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus, 21 Century Edition (second edition 2000, ISBN 0 00 472502-6).

"ground zero". The place on the earth's surface directly at, below, or above the explosion of a nuclear bomb.
The American Heritage Desk Dictionary (Edition 1981, ISBN 0-395-31256-6).

"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" - the point on the ground vertically beneath or above the point of detonation of an atomic or thermonuclear bomb.

The New International Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition 1999, ISBN 1-888777796).

"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 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. (This is a post 9/11 edition, widely available).

You can download genuine high-quality photographs of the original pages of all main pre-9/11 dictionaries with former 'ground zero' definitions packed in a single zip-archive (1.5 Mb file size). Click here to download.

Are you surprised? If you don't believe your eyes and prefer to run to the nearest book store to buy some dictionary, don't be in a hurry. When you arrive to such shop you will be surprised even more, because it is no longer possible to find any dictionary with pure old definition of this strange term.

Those dictionaries printed before 9/11, such as mentioned above, that contained the only true meaning of "ground zero" term have been long time ago removed from book-shelves and replaced with some newer ones.

Unfortunately, the very English language was one of the first victims of the 9/11 perpetration… So, instead of rushing to a book store, try to ask some of your friends if they have any - in case of good luck you might succeed in finding some old big English dictionary that was not victimized by the linguistic part of the 9/11 cover-up.

Now, at last, you know what the "ground zero" is and you might guess about true meaning of the "Ground Zero" term when used with Capital Letters... As well as you might guess about true causes of a strange sickness - leukemia - endemic to that place, that majority of the Ground Zero responders suffer from. Click here to download an archive (14 Mb file size) with contains 40 articles describing health problems among the responders.

However, this is not all. Strangely enough, "Ground Zero" was used with capital letters even before the WTC thermo-nuclear demolition. Many people know about it - especially those from the US military.

The very middle of the huge Pentagon building complex used to bear the same strange name: "Ground Zero". Even before the September 11. This name survived from the Cold War times.

There used to be the so-called "Ground Zero Plaza" and the "Ground Zero Cafe"- right in the middle of the Pentagon. Guess why? Because the Pentagon was absolutely rightfully expected to be the main target of a Soviet nuclear strike in case of a major nuclear war. That is why the central yard of the Pentagon was mockingly dubbed "Ground Zero" in advance. And it was used with capital letters, of course, because it was proper noun - the name of the cafeteria.

Usage of the "Ground Zero" term in connection with the central yard of the Pentagon is described in a fairly good manner in this Wikipedia article. Ironically, this mocking name narrowly missed to become the true one on the very same day - September 11, 2001 - when the last greeting from the Cold War era has delivered to that place a half-megaton thermo-nuclear warhead that "luckily" failed to explode.

Click here (opens in a new window) to watch the first 9/11 news release where the strangest nuclear term "ground zero" has been first indiscreetly introduced to general public. Note, that it happened even before the WTC-7 collapse, since NBC's Anne Thompson (who was the first reporter to use this nuclear name) referred in this clip to the Twin Towers' collapse as the "first explosion" and the "second explosion", while the "third explosion" (the WTC-7 demolition) was yet to occur, according to her.

Here (opens in a new window) is yet another revealing video-clip about usage of the term "ground zero" on September 11, 2001, evening. And here (opens in a new window) you can see one of 9/11 contemporary news articles where seditious words "ground zero" are used "as is" - with low case letters, i.e. still as a definition, not as a proper noun. Should the abovementioned web page disappear, you can always download this September 12, 2001, CNN article saved in either PDF ( here) or in CHM ( here) formats.

To read more about "ground zero" and "Ground Zero" in pre-9/11 English language and about mutation of this strange term in modern English dictionaries following 9/11 events, go here.
__________________
[COLOR="Blue"][FONT="Courier New"]‎"Little good is accomplished without controversy,
[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][/FONT]and no civic evil is ever defeated without publicity."
The Daily Anthem Newspaper
Morgantown, West Virginia[/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
Julia.M.Lazare is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Julia.M.Lazare For This Useful Post:
Old 21 Feb 2011 , 11:38 AM   #2
Julia.M.Lazare
 
Join Date: 28 Apr 2010
Posts: 177
Threads: 32
Thanked 351 Times in 128 Posts
Julia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant future
Re: GROUND ZERO - the TRUTH has been right in front of us

http://members.beforeitsnews.com/sto...ound_Zero.html

Reality is Stranger Than Fiction: Dimitri Khalezov discusses 9/11 with George Mapp in Bangkok
[/IMG]
A must read for anyone who has any interest, connection or whose life has been touched or affected by September 11, 2001. Dimitri Khalezov explains in layman terms eye-opening and riveting truths concerning that catastrophic day. I know for myself, watching live both towers collapse with many of my friends still inside, that September 11, 2001 is permanently scarred into my memory. They say that reality is stranger than fiction, in the case of 9/11 it especially holds true as the real events that transpired on that day are extraordinarily strange.



A couple of days ago in Bangkok, I met up with Dimitri Khalezov and we sat down and discussed his theories and conclusions in regards to 9/11.

We met over several days as there was an enormous amount of interesting topics and discussions. Dimitri and I could have probably kept talking for a week about 9/11. Instead of having an endless discussion, we kept it brief so that it would be more interesting and intriguing to our readers. Here is what Dimitri had to say:



Dimitri, please tell me briefly about your background and how it relates to 9/11?

It is not so easy to make it brief, especially describing my personal acquaintance with one of the chief planners of 9/11. Perhaps, you will need to read my book, since a few chapters of it are entirely devoted to this matter. But to be able to answer your question I would put it this way: first of all at the end of the ‘80s I served as a commissioned officer in the so-called “Special Control Service” of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the former USSR, which is otherwise known by its code-name “military unit 46179”. This organization was responsible for gathering various kinds of nuclear intelligence, primarily for the detection of nuclear tests of various adversaries of the former USSR. In addition, this organization was tasked with official controlling functions regarding the observance of various international treaties related to nuclear explosions, nuclear tests, etc.

During my service in that organization it has come to my knowledge (still at the end of the ‘80s – more than 10 years prior to the 9/11 events) that under the Twin Towers of the WTC in New York there were two huge thermo-nuclear charges intended for emergency demolition of the WTC. This fact does not have any actual relation to 9/11 except only that it gave me some understanding to what actually happened with the WTC, why nearly all of the structural steel was pulverized and why the site of the WTC demolition bears the strange nuclear name “ground zero”.

However, due to the above knowledge of mine later I got acquainted with the real 9/11 perpetrators – those who planned the entire affair. And due to this acquaintance yes, we can say that I have some relevance to 9/11. In fact this relevance seemed to be so important to the American secret services that they even attempted to get me arrested and extradited to America in 2003 – together with one of the chief 9/11 planners. Ironically, neither he, nor I were actually extradited, despite the fact that both of us were indeed arrested for that reason by the request of the Americans. After making such a request the Americans wisely preferred not to let the truth of the WTC nuclear demolition be discussed in the U.S. court-room and so they dropped the extradition claims against me.

I have been to Ground Zero many times, the first time was just several days after 9/11. Before I met you, I did not know its true meaning. Please discuss the actually meaning of Ground Zero.



You simply have to get any unabridged English dictionary printed before 9/11 and you will see the meaning. Don’t make this mistake – don’t look for it in any newer, post-9/11 dictionary. Go only for a pre-9/11 one. I mean that only in a pre-9/11 English dictionary you could find the true meaning of this strange term. Because after the 9/11 events and in the ensuing cover-up the U.S. authorities had no choice than to re-print all dictionaries without exception in order to re-define the term “ground zero”.


Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language - Edition 1989, printed in 1994, ISBN 0-517-11888-2.

Thus if you look for the definition of “ground zero” in any newer dictionary you will only find modified definitions. However, when Civil Defense specialists designated the WTC demolition spot as “ground zero” (that time still in low-case letters) they apparently used the pre-9/11 definition of this strange term, not the post-9/11 one. So, you have to do the same thing – just go for any large unabridged dictionary printed before September, 2001, and see what is the definition of “ground zero”.

I guess it is not so easy to find such an old dictionary right away, so to satisfy your curiosity immediately, you can go to this web site: www.what-is-ground-zero.com/ since it contains photo-copies of several pages from pre-9/11 dictionaries that show the true definition of “ground zero”. Hope you will find it interesting.

Dimitri, please tell me about the infamous Flight 93.

I don’t know much about Flight 93. At least I don’t know about this affair as much as I do about the WTC nuclear demolition scheme (which was known to me in the ’80s due to my military service). All that I know about Flight 93 is this. When I watched the contemporary news on September 11, 2001, I remember that a few news agencies reported that one of the passenger flights was shot down by a U.S. fighter-jet over Pennsylvania because the U.S. authorities believed that it was hijacked and was heading towards a specific high-priority target.

I remember it clearly because some news agencies on that day had even shown a pilot who actually shot down the alleged 4th passenger aircraft. Several of my friends and acquaintances remember this fact as well – I especially asked several people who watched the 9/11 news in real time and almost all of them remember that the 4th flight was shot down by the U.S. fighter-jet. However, after some time this story was completely forgotten. A new story was quickly invented – that the passengers in the Flight 93 allegedly “rebelled” against the “hijackers” and allegedly “overpowered” them and thus caused the plane to crash thus “preventing” the plane from being used as a missile.


Screen shot from the said video – the US Air National Guard servicewoman Lt.Col Phyllis Phipps-Barnes confirms to the FOX reporter the 4th passenger aircraft was shot down by her unit.

The entire U.S. propaganda machine was set in motion to bulldoze all doubts to the contrary. Due to the fact that You Tube, where everyone could post videos freely and conveniently did not come into existence until the year 2005. Not many accidentally saved 9/11 videos by individuals could be made publicly available and shared widely before 2005. Thus you could not hope to get any genuine video footage confirming the original news release where it was openly stated that the 4th flight was shot down. In fact even after 2005 it was not so easy to discover that seditious piece of contemporary news. It appears that the U.S. authorities took very good care of that. Most probably they carefully monitored You Tube and once anything of this kind was uploaded for public view they quickly contacted the original owner of the video and offered him some huge some of money to redeem the seditious footage in order to hide it from the public.

In fact, many 9/11 researchers who remembered the original news about Flight 93 were desperately hunting this seditious footage for years after 9/11. But to my knowledge none of them succeeded in finding any. But when it came to me, I was really lucky. In June 2010 I accidentally encountered an original 9/11 news footage on one Russian web site. It was in Russian, from a Russian news channel. I watched it all carefully and at one moment I noticed a part where a news reporter talks (apparently citing his colleagues from CNN) about the 4th passenger plane being shot down by the US fighter-jet. I cut this part of the video and uploaded it to my own You Tube channel here:



I would say that it was a huge success, because out of all the 9/11 researchers, I was the first who was lucky enough to find such a thing as the confirmation of the Flight 93 being shot down. However, this was a limited success, since this piece of news was in Russian and not many people could truly appreciate it. I continued my search for the same thing and may be by the grace of God (because I can’t even attribute it to merely “good luck”) I managed to find a similar confirmation in English. In August 2010, I managed to get original FOX news footage where it was repeated twice, moreover by some real U.S. Air National Guard official, that their unit has indeed shot down the 4th passenger aircraft.

I cut two important pieces of FOX news, made them into a video clip, adding my explanation and some additional third-party confirmations of this fact and uploaded it to my You Tube channel here:
This video was very popular for the first few days after uploading. It got something like 1000 views per days during the first few days. However, it seems that the You Tube and Google did something so that this most seditious video would not appear in search results and since then not too many new visitors have watched this clip.

Nonetheless, this video is still there and you can watch it right now. Besides this I don’t know much more about Flight 93. In addition to these two news videos I found some other interesting materials discovered by other 9/11 researchers. Some interesting materials regarding Flight 93, that even include a photo of a pilot who shot it down, were made into a zip archive that you can download from here:

http://www.911-truth.net/911_more_do..._shot_down.zip

When the World Trade Center was being designed in the late 1960′s, nuclear technology was not taboo, in fact you could say at the time it was en vogue. Could you please discuss this as well as the building code for demolition plans for skyscrapers at that time?

Since I am not a demolition expert, neither an architect, nor an official of the Department of Buildings, I don’t know much about it. My knowledge is limited to only what I got to know from the Soviet Special Control Service back in the ‘80s. All I know is this: in the ‘60s, ‘70s, and ‘80s in the United States (at least in New York and in Chicago, but perhaps elsewhere too) Building Codes did not allow to permit the building of skyscrapers unless a developer of the construction project could submit a satisfactory demolition scheme of his would be skyscraper. Since traditional demolition methods were designed to deal with old type of brick-walled and concrete-paneled buildings (since in the second half of the 20th century they used to demolish buildings built in the first half of the 20th century or in 19th century), nobody knew how to demolish the new type of incredibly strong steel-framed buildings that came into existence only in the end of the ‘60s.

Traditional controlled demolition methods did not work with these steel-framed buildings due to their excessive strength. So, developers of the new skyscrapers could not get permission from the Department of Buildings to build their project, since they were unable to submit any satisfactory demolition scheme to deal with their skyscrapers in the future. Hence their desire to implement the nuclear demolition schemes of the skyscrapers. These awful nuclear demolition schemes were not to actually demolish the buildings in the middle of the populated cities by huge nuclear explosions underground, please don’t get me wrong. It was merely to satisfy bureaucratic demands of the Department of Buildings officials and to get the permission to build the steel-framed skyscrapers whatsoever. At least this is what we believed back then in the Soviet Special Control Service where I used to serve as an officer.

I will not go into exact details of the actual nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC, because it will take time, but if you are interested in details you can see them in my book. To answer the first part of your question: yes, those days the nuclear explosions were not as “evil” as they are now and it was perfectly acceptable – to use them for civil purposes such as demolishing of civil infrastructure. To get an additional confirmation you can look at a seditious diagram of the ‘70s that was used in a Wikipedia article dealing with nuclear tests: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_tests . The diagram has its own web address : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Types_of_nuclear_testing.svg



Just look at Figure (2) – an underground nuclear explosion as depicted on that diagram. And pay particular attention to a skyscraper for some truly strange reason shown right above the spot of the underground nuclear explosion. The problem is that in the ‘70s (this diagram is from the ‘70s) the nuclear demolition of skyscrapers was a well-known fact, so the concept of it managed to find its way even to such diagrams… Hope I have answered your question?

Is it possible for a nuclear explosion to occur in lower Manhattan without devastating and destroying the entire population of New York City?

Yes. Because it occurred deep underground. If it were on the surface level or above it, the 150 kiloton bomb would almost destroy New York City in its entirety, as well as making the rest of it uninhabitable. Just imagine that 150 kiloton is 8 times the size of the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. However, since the 150 kiloton bombs detonated deep under each of the WTC Twin Towers and under the WTC-7 they did not cause much damage – just only the damage you can see in the immediate aftermath of the actual WTC demolition on 9/11.

You have to understand that physical properties of deep underground nuclear explosion (not to be mistaken with shallow sub-surface nuclear explosion) are distinctly different from an atmospheric nuclear explosion. A deep, fully-contained underground nuclear explosion produces neither penetrating ionizing radiation (because its primary radiation is stopped by surrounding rock and can not reach the earth’s surface), nor air-blast wave (because there is no air around the nuclear explosions hypo-center), nor thermal radiation (because this one too requires air while air is absent in underground conditions), nor even Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), because EMP is an aftereffect of electrons’ flow, while in the underground conditions all electrons are stopped by surrounding rock – along with gamma-rays, X-rays, and neutrons. Thus an underground nuclear explosion (if it is only not shallow sub-surface one, but really deep and contained) would not cause anything noticeable on the ground: no sound, no flash, not thermal radiation, no air-blast wave, no penetrating ionizing radiation, no EMP, not even the trademark mushroom cloud.

It will only cause an earthquake – that is the only noticeable factor. And indeed right at the WTC Twin Towers collapse (precisely 11-12 seconds prior to the beginning of collapse) a strong earthquake that corresponded to a nuclear explosion of well over 100 kiloton was observed and felt by anyone around (and also recorded by several video cameras).

However, I must make one correction: even though none of the well-known destructive factors of a typical atmospheric atomic blast were present in the WTC demolition case, radioactive contamination of the surrounding area was still there. The levels of gamma-radiation after the three underground nuclear explosions were well over 200 roentgens per hour during the first hours, and tens of roentgens per hour during first few days after 9/11.

While alpha- and beta-contaminated radioactive particles (especially radioactive vapors that were ascending from beneath the WTC debris from extremely overheated cavities under them) were present for at least 4 months time – until the hot radioactive matter in the underground cavities was cooled down. And these radioactive vapors caused extreme damage to the health of those who worked without gas-masks on ground zero. Now almost all ground-zero responders suffer from leukemia and other secondary effects of chronic radiation sickness – mainly from various cancers. Also many of these responders have died since then and many more are dying right now.

Please tell me briefly how according to the science of physics that it is absolutely impossible for a jumbo-jet to penetrate the frame of the former World Trade Center.

Many people naively think that the WTC facades were made from huge panes of glass – because the “planes” shown in 9/11 footage appear to penetrate in too easily – without even reducing their speed upon the impact. However, it is not so simple in reality. In reality the facades of the Twin Towers were made from densely positioned thick steel perimeter columns.


Core- and perimeter columns of the WTC Twin Towers.

There were 59 of such columns on each of the 4 facades and these columns were positioned every one meter from one other. Each column represented a hollow tube square in cross-section. Each of the four walls of such perimeter column was as thick as the front armor of a tank.

Do you think that an aluminum plane could penetrate steel thick as tank’s front armor? Try to be realistic… Yes, intuitively it might appear to some people that a massive, fast-flying aircraft, even though it is made from aluminum, has a lot of kinetic energy to penetrate steel. But this is a very wrong perception. You intuition badly cheats you in this particular case. Aluminum can not penetrate steel irrespectively of its mass and its speed. Because if it were so simple then artillery armor-piercing shells would be made from aluminum. However, anti-tank rounds are not made from it. They are made from Wolfram (Tungsten) or from Depleted Uranium. Because either of these materials is harder than steel.


Official diagram of the Twin Towers’ structure.

I will try to illustrate this to you. From the point of physics it does not matter – if a moving car A hits a stationary car B, or, vice versa – a moving car B hits a stationary car A. As long as we are talking about the speed of the moving car relative to the stationary car and the speed is the same, the physics of the process is the same. From the point of view of physics it is the same if the moving plane hits stationary Twin Tower or some fabulous giant took the Twin Tower and hits with it (as it were a huge baseball bat) a stationary plane – the physics of this process is the same. Now we move further. Let’s imagine that we have a plastic swatter to kill flies. And we hit a fly with the swatter at an impact speed of 1 meter per second. It will flatten the fly. Now we increase the speed of the swatter to 10 meters per second and hit the fly – it will again flatten the fly. We increase the speed of the swatter to 100 meters per second and hit the fly – it will again flatten the fly. And even if we increase the speed to 1000 meters per second or to any other speed, the result will be the same – the hit of the swatter will flatten the fly. I think it is very obvious. Now, we imagine that the swatter now is stationary and the fly is attempting to “penetrate” it by flying into it. If the fly hit the swatter at the speed of 1 meter per second what will happen? Apparently the fly will be flattened without being able to penetrate the plastic swatter (because it does not matter if the moving swatter hits a stationary fly or the moving fly hits a stationary swatter – the physics of this process is the same). If the fly increases the speed to 10 meters per second? The result is the same. 100 meters per second? The same. 1000 meters per second? The same: the fly will be flattened without being able to penetrate the plastic swatter irrespective of the speed of impact. The very same consideration is applicable to the aluminum planes hitting the enormously strong steel Twin Tower boasting its outer skin as strong as the front armor of a tank. An empty aluminum plane would be flattened on impact without being able to penetrate the Tower and the flattened plane will fall back to sidewalks. Add here an additional logical confirmation of what I have said. Imagine that a certain bridge collapses killing people on the bridge and under the bridge. Would you see an architect of the bridge arrested and brought before the court of law? No doubt. Have you seen an architect of the Twin Towers arrested and brought tried for his failure to provide an adequate strength to his construction? No. Now you get the point. The WTC architect is not guilty. Neither in a sense that aluminum planes could penetrate his steel building, nor in a sense that fires caused by kerosene could collapse his steel building. The architect is clearly innocent because neither of the two suggestions has taken place in reality: the aluminum planes have never penetrated the Twin Towers and “fires” did not cause the Twin Towers to collapse. Therefore there is no reason to arrest and try the architect. Do you agree with this logic?

Please tell me what really took down World Trade Center buildings 1,2 and 7?


Steel structure of the WTC South Tower was reduced to complete microscopic dust.



Three underground nuclear (to be more precise “thermo-nuclear”) explosions 150 kilotons each. Hence the “ground zero” name, promptly awarded by the Civil Defense officials to the WTC demolition site.

Do you still doubt it was nothing else by the nuclear explosions that determined the “ground zero” designation awarded by the U.S. Civil Defense servicemen to the former WTC site? Then look at this:


The definition of “ground zero” as defined by The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language.



Many firefighters, EMT and rescue workers who spent time at ground zero are disabled, terminally ill or dead. You claim this is not from smoke inhalation, please explain.

No, it is not from “smoke” inhalation. It is from radioactive vapors inhalation. Radioactive vapors were ascending from deep cavities left by underground nuclear explosions. Make sure to notice that “smoke” (if any) is not white. It is much darker. But vapor (to be exact radioactive vapor in this case) is white.


Vapors rising from ground zero on October 17, 2001.

Because the cavities were filled with extremely hot radioactive materials in liquid state and the firefighters were ordered to poor water into the WTC debris (and through them – into the cavities underground).


Deep underground cavity under one of the WTC buildings; molten rock could be clearly observed.

This, understandably caused vapors. And the vapors were radioactive – each particle of vapors carried alpha- and beta- particles that were extremely dangerous when inhaled or ingested. Because they would continue to irradiate the victim’s body from inside for extended periods of time and eventually cause chronic radiation sickness.

According to your video that you produced, you claim that the television footage was edited to add the frames of the planes. How can you prove that?

Several such videos show black frames right at the time of impact. There are other multiple signs of digital manipulations. You can see some of such videos on my You Tube channel that is www.youtube.com/user/DimitriKhalezov there I have a few videos dealing with “planes”. Here are direct links to these videos:











The first two videos deal with black frames, the rest – with real witnesses who claim there were no planes, but only explosions.

***********************

Dimitri, if you don’t mind I would like to interject here. I was an international equities trader working for RBC Securities in Jersey City on September 11, 2001. The office was located at Hudson Street directly on the water front. We watched the catastrophic events live from our 30 foot long windows, from almost beginning til end.

I will never forget that day, it was just two days after I watched the Williams sisters compete against each other at the U.S. Open Womens Tennis Final. It was one of the most beautiful days in recent memory. Clear blue skies, I didn’t see a trace of a cloud. The weather was perfect, if there is an ideal temperature, it existed on that Tuesday morning. I remember being still extremely tired from the weekend and a long tiring Monday. I was extremely happy that morning because my screens were all green that morning, nearly all my stocks were up in the European, Asian, Russian and South African markets. I wasn’t usually long stocks being mostly a short-seller but I was anticipating a nice bounce and a week long rally. I didn’t want to sell at that time because I anticipated when Wall Street opened, the rally would continue and my stock levels would increase further. I was up approximately $50,000 before the disaster occurred. But less than two hours later when we had to evacuate the building and the New York Sock Exchange was shut, my positions were now costing me about $200,000.00 in losses that would only get worse as the week progressed.

I was one of the first people in the room to notice the fire burning. There were simultaneous reports of a small prop jet hitting the tower that caused the fire. Since we were in a trading room, we had several televisions on constantly tuned to CNN, CNBC, Blomberg etc. I remember how one guy was laughing about the fire while I was asking out loud to everyone, “what tower is Cantor in?” I was very concerned and understood that from our window the flames appeared very big thus in reality the fire was growing quite rapidly. I had many friends that worked at Cantor Fitzgerald, some who I have known over a decade, none had made it out alive. As I was glued to the window, others were watching the reports on TV. Thus, I heard people yelling another plane, another plane is coming but I did not see it live, I just saw an explosion. It never occurred to me until I met Dimitri that perhaps the people shouting in the trading room about a 2nd plane were all watching TV as opposed to watching it live.




An explosion rips through the south tower of the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001.

You see, watching four monitors from 7am til 4pm and watching for small discrepancies and arbitrage opportunities as well as being able to dischipher the name of one of my stocks in a room with 30-40 people talking, yelling and sometimes screaming at once gave me the impression that I was extremely observant and alert. Until recently I simply thought that I missed the 2nd plane hitting even though I was starring directly at the WTC buildings. Our view was so magnificent and crystal clear of lower Manhattan from our over sized windows, it was always the highlight of any visitor to our offices. In fact, if you go to Google images and search for pictures of the WTC towers, many will be from Jersey City.

I will save the rest of my eye witness observations for another time. I will finish with that we evacuated the building after the first tower collapsed, I yelled out audibly, “is it being imploded?” It came down so orderly that at the time, I naively thought in 30 minutes the NY firefighters imploded it with explosives so it did not topple left or right and cause massive damage. I did as well as many others notice a tremor an our building in New Jersey that shook from what I thought was the tower collapsing but according to Dimitri, it was the underground nuclear explosion and the aftershocks that I felt.

My trading assistant Charlie lost his best friend and college room mate from Cantor. Charlie who I ended up taking home with me as well as three other co-workers who could not return to Brooklyn due to closed bridges and tunnels was devastated and in shock over worry about his missing best friend Greg (as well in denial). The day before I had a long conversation with Greg, who called to speak with Charlie who was off the desk. Greg was unhappy at Cantor, he was waiting for his December bonus and would then leave to another firm. Unfortunately, Greg did not make it til December, he was approximately 27.


The Twin Towers engulfed in flames on September 11, 2001.

The same person that was in the early moments of the fire that was laughing was crying quite heavily when the the first tower fell, no need to mention his name. I would in the weeks and months (many families delayed the process holding on to false hope that a loved one would be found or at least some remains to bury) to come attend many memorial services, unfortunately they could not be called burials since in almost all cases there were no bodies or remains to bury, mostly pictures.

Harry Ramos’ service was extremely emotional for me, the Mayor of Newark was there, since so many people knew Harry thus it was extremely well-attended. Standing room only. Every memorial service that I attended reminded me of all the previous ones before and the ones yet to occur but a reminder of broken families and the premature death of many of my friends.

Walking to the parking lot to my car with my co-workers, we stopped briefly at a Light Rail station,we heard a women screaming and yelling. We all turned and saw the 2nd tower falling. I remember distinctly that the entire area of lower Manhattan looked like it was sinking into a sea of clouds and smoke and for a short time I couldn’t see anything but smoke. I then thought if my best friend Curtis who has 3 children and a wife was still alive, since he worked across the street from the WTC. Luckily, my best friend Curtis and many others escaped, unfortunately many others did not.

********************************

Dimitri, could you please tell me your thoughts about what really happened at the Pentagon?




Picture taken immediately after the missile impact – before the Pentagon’s wall was collapsed and before the lampposts were toppled to imitate the “plane’s wings”.





The Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile. It is not even my thoughts; it is a matter of fact. You can get a confirmation of my words if you look at this picture showing penetrating details in the case of the Pentagon strike.


Penetration details of the Pentagon; 6 capital walls were penetrated and the final punch-out hole.

Do you think this type of damage could have been caused by a Boeing-767? Of course it was a missile. Moreover, the missile was equipped by a real thermo-nuclear warhead (although unexploded due to its intentionally broken detonator). This fact caused an extreme panic in the U.S. government and caused various high-ranking officials to search for weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq. It is widely believed that Saddam Hussein was the actual owner of the missile that struck the Pentagon. It is a long topic do discuss, so I suggest that you read my book – at least three full chapters are devoted to this missile attack. Or you can get more ideas about the Pentagon missile attack if you read my interview on Victor Bout that is available here:

http://www.911-truth.net/Victor_Bout...ew_English.pdf

Okay, Dimitri, let us really delve into what really happened on 9/11. Who were the actually perpetrators and what were there motives?

De-facto perpetrators are some individuals from the Mossad and from French secret services. But it is only an outward appearance. The real planners and the real perpetrators are, of course, those folks who promote the New World Order, so-called “globalization”, and other means of the final enslavement of humanity on this Planet. Basically they are the very same guys who stood behind the United Nations Organization, Bilderberg Club, the WTO, the so-called “Council on Foreign Relations”, “Trilateral Commission”, Olympic Games enterprise, “Greenpeace”, “Amnesty International”, and other well-known and little-known instruments of the so-called “globalization”. The 9/11 job was conceived and ordered by these guys, of course. The Mossad and the French are merely hired executors – similar to contract killers in the common sense; they are by no means the masterminds.

Was the Bush administration directly involved in the 9/11 cover-up?




George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Yes, of course. Can’t you just see this obvious fact with your own eyes? Doesn’t the infamous Report of the 9/11 Commission look like a desperate cover-up to you? But the 9/11 Commission is definitely not a circus and not a bunch of freelance comedians. It is a governmental entity, isn’t it?

I know you are very close to Viktor Bout and his family as well as his Thai lawyer Lak. You were also extremely involved in the actually court case in Thailand. Is there any connection to Viktor Bout’s extradition to America and 9/11?


Dimitri Khalezov (in a black shirt in the background) and Victor Bout (in an orange prison garb) in the Thai Criminal Court during one of the last hearing on Victor’s extradition case in Thailand.



Yes, of course. The Americans do not even hide this. They openly state that Viktor Bout is “bad guy” in connection to 9/11. But they do not go into details. However, I will. Viktor is actually wanted in America because the U.S. security officials are gullible enough to believe that Victor has allegedly sold the nuclear-tipped missile that hit the Pentagon on 9/11 to “terrorists”. In addition they believe that Viktor also sold several portable mini-nuclear devices (known as “mini-nukes”) to the so-called “Al-Qaeda” prior to 9/11, and they also believe that he sold weapon-grade Uranium to various terrorists who used the Uranium to produce home-made nuclear bombs that were used in several acts of nuclear terror – particularly in the infamous mini-nuke’s bombing at El-Nogal, in Bogota, Columbia, in 2003, that was presented to plebes as a “car-bombing”. If you need to know more about this affair with Viktor Bout’s extradition from Thailand and my involvement with it, you can read my interview given to Daniel Estulin, that is available for download as a pdf file here:

http://www.911-truth.net/Victor_Bout...ew_English.pdf

This one is in English, but it is also available in several other languages. You can find these files and many more interesting files related to Victor Bout and his extradition here:

www.911-truth.net/Victor_Bout/

A MUST READ ARTICLE:

DIMITRI KHALEZOV: BIO-TERRORISM AND ANTHRAX

Dimitri, on behalf of our readers and myself, I want to thank you for these last several days and the wonderful and insightful discussions that we had as well as for your time. I am sure that since I have written quite a bit about Viktor Bout, that many readers would like to know more details about the Viktor Bout case and how it relates to 9/11. Perhaps we will have another discussion soon. Thank you again!

Further Reading:

BY: Dimitri Khalezov

Bio-terrorism — anthrax attacks following September 11

Arms Trafficking, Stolen Missiles, Soviet Submarines, Nuclear Detonations and 9/11: Interview with Dimitri Khalezov in Bangkok (Exclusive)

The most provocative, prohibited and proven 9/11 book written:

911thology by Dimitri Khalezov

Important information and download links: www.dimitri-khalezov-video.com
__________________
[COLOR="Blue"][FONT="Courier New"]‎"Little good is accomplished without controversy,
[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][/FONT]and no civic evil is ever defeated without publicity."
The Daily Anthem Newspaper
Morgantown, West Virginia[/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
Julia.M.Lazare is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Julia.M.Lazare For This Useful Post:
Old 21 Feb 2011 , 11:43 AM   #3
Dr FUBAR
Admin
 
Dr FUBAR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 4 Jan 2011
Location: Hollow Town
Posts: 3,388
Threads: 137
Thanked 10,751 Times in 2,985 Posts
Dr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: GROUND ZERO - the TRUTH has been right in front of us

Who was the first "person" and spoke the wise words Ground Zero??

Was it the media, who used the word Ground Zero for the first time, was it Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condoleezza??

Anyone a clue?
__________________
“Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories…...?” George Walker Bush .
Dr FUBAR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 Feb 2011 , 11:43 AM   #4
Julia.M.Lazare
 
Join Date: 28 Apr 2010
Posts: 177
Threads: 32
Thanked 351 Times in 128 Posts
Julia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant futureJulia.M.Lazare has a brilliant future
Ground Zero - Nukes, witnesses

http://members.beforeitsnews.com/sto...ound_Zero.html

Reality is Stranger Than Fiction: Dimitri Khalezov discusses 9/11 with George Mapp in Bangkok
[/IMG]
A must read for anyone who has any interest, connection or whose life has been touched or affected by September 11, 2001. Dimitri Khalezov explains in layman terms eye-opening and riveting truths concerning that catastrophic day. I know for myself, watching live both towers collapse with many of my friends still inside, that September 11, 2001 is permanently scarred into my memory. They say that reality is stranger than fiction, in the case of 9/11 it especially holds true as the real events that transpired on that day are extraordinarily strange.



A couple of days ago in Bangkok, I met up with Dimitri Khalezov and we sat down and discussed his theories and conclusions in regards to 9/11.

We met over several days as there was an enormous amount of interesting topics and discussions. Dimitri and I could have probably kept talking for a week about 9/11. Instead of having an endless discussion, we kept it brief so that it would be more interesting and intriguing to our readers. Here is what Dimitri had to say:



Dimitri, please tell me briefly about your background and how it relates to 9/11?

It is not so easy to make it brief, especially describing my personal acquaintance with one of the chief planners of 9/11. Perhaps, you will need to read my book, since a few chapters of it are entirely devoted to this matter. But to be able to answer your question I would put it this way: first of all at the end of the ‘80s I served as a commissioned officer in the so-called “Special Control Service” of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the former USSR, which is otherwise known by its code-name “military unit 46179”. This organization was responsible for gathering various kinds of nuclear intelligence, primarily for the detection of nuclear tests of various adversaries of the former USSR. In addition, this organization was tasked with official controlling functions regarding the observance of various international treaties related to nuclear explosions, nuclear tests, etc.

During my service in that organization it has come to my knowledge (still at the end of the ‘80s – more than 10 years prior to the 9/11 events) that under the Twin Towers of the WTC in New York there were two huge thermo-nuclear charges intended for emergency demolition of the WTC. This fact does not have any actual relation to 9/11 except only that it gave me some understanding to what actually happened with the WTC, why nearly all of the structural steel was pulverized and why the site of the WTC demolition bears the strange nuclear name “ground zero”.

However, due to the above knowledge of mine later I got acquainted with the real 9/11 perpetrators – those who planned the entire affair. And due to this acquaintance yes, we can say that I have some relevance to 9/11. In fact this relevance seemed to be so important to the American secret services that they even attempted to get me arrested and extradited to America in 2003 – together with one of the chief 9/11 planners. Ironically, neither he, nor I were actually extradited, despite the fact that both of us were indeed arrested for that reason by the request of the Americans. After making such a request the Americans wisely preferred not to let the truth of the WTC nuclear demolition be discussed in the U.S. court-room and so they dropped the extradition claims against me.

I have been to Ground Zero many times, the first time was just several days after 9/11. Before I met you, I did not know its true meaning. Please discuss the actually meaning of Ground Zero.



You simply have to get any unabridged English dictionary printed before 9/11 and you will see the meaning. Don’t make this mistake – don’t look for it in any newer, post-9/11 dictionary. Go only for a pre-9/11 one. I mean that only in a pre-9/11 English dictionary you could find the true meaning of this strange term. Because after the 9/11 events and in the ensuing cover-up the U.S. authorities had no choice than to re-print all dictionaries without exception in order to re-define the term “ground zero”.


Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language - Edition 1989, printed in 1994, ISBN 0-517-11888-2.

Thus if you look for the definition of “ground zero” in any newer dictionary you will only find modified definitions. However, when Civil Defense specialists designated the WTC demolition spot as “ground zero” (that time still in low-case letters) they apparently used the pre-9/11 definition of this strange term, not the post-9/11 one. So, you have to do the same thing – just go for any large unabridged dictionary printed before September, 2001, and see what is the definition of “ground zero”.

I guess it is not so easy to find such an old dictionary right away, so to satisfy your curiosity immediately, you can go to this web site: www.what-is-ground-zero.com/ since it contains photo-copies of several pages from pre-9/11 dictionaries that show the true definition of “ground zero”. Hope you will find it interesting.

Dimitri, please tell me about the infamous Flight 93.

I don’t know much about Flight 93. At least I don’t know about this affair as much as I do about the WTC nuclear demolition scheme (which was known to me in the ’80s due to my military service). All that I know about Flight 93 is this. When I watched the contemporary news on September 11, 2001, I remember that a few news agencies reported that one of the passenger flights was shot down by a U.S. fighter-jet over Pennsylvania because the U.S. authorities believed that it was hijacked and was heading towards a specific high-priority target.

I remember it clearly because some news agencies on that day had even shown a pilot who actually shot down the alleged 4th passenger aircraft. Several of my friends and acquaintances remember this fact as well – I especially asked several people who watched the 9/11 news in real time and almost all of them remember that the 4th flight was shot down by the U.S. fighter-jet. However, after some time this story was completely forgotten. A new story was quickly invented – that the passengers in the Flight 93 allegedly “rebelled” against the “hijackers” and allegedly “overpowered” them and thus caused the plane to crash thus “preventing” the plane from being used as a missile.


Screen shot from the said video – the US Air National Guard servicewoman Lt.Col Phyllis Phipps-Barnes confirms to the FOX reporter the 4th passenger aircraft was shot down by her unit.

The entire U.S. propaganda machine was set in motion to bulldoze all doubts to the contrary. Due to the fact that You Tube, where everyone could post videos freely and conveniently did not come into existence until the year 2005. Not many accidentally saved 9/11 videos by individuals could be made publicly available and shared widely before 2005. Thus you could not hope to get any genuine video footage confirming the original news release where it was openly stated that the 4th flight was shot down. In fact even after 2005 it was not so easy to discover that seditious piece of contemporary news. It appears that the U.S. authorities took very good care of that. Most probably they carefully monitored You Tube and once anything of this kind was uploaded for public view they quickly contacted the original owner of the video and offered him some huge some of money to redeem the seditious footage in order to hide it from the public.

In fact, many 9/11 researchers who remembered the original news about Flight 93 were desperately hunting this seditious footage for years after 9/11. But to my knowledge none of them succeeded in finding any. But when it came to me, I was really lucky. In June 2010 I accidentally encountered an original 9/11 news footage on one Russian web site. It was in Russian, from a Russian news channel. I watched it all carefully and at one moment I noticed a part where a news reporter talks (apparently citing his colleagues from CNN) about the 4th passenger plane being shot down by the US fighter-jet. I cut this part of the video and uploaded it to my own You Tube channel here:



I would say that it was a huge success, because out of all the 9/11 researchers, I was the first who was lucky enough to find such a thing as the confirmation of the Flight 93 being shot down. However, this was a limited success, since this piece of news was in Russian and not many people could truly appreciate it. I continued my search for the same thing and may be by the grace of God (because I can’t even attribute it to merely “good luck”) I managed to find a similar confirmation in English. In August 2010, I managed to get original FOX news footage where it was repeated twice, moreover by some real U.S. Air National Guard official, that their unit has indeed shot down the 4th passenger aircraft.

I cut two important pieces of FOX news, made them into a video clip, adding my explanation and some additional third-party confirmations of this fact and uploaded it to my You Tube channel here:
This video was very popular for the first few days after uploading. It got something like 1000 views per days during the first few days. However, it seems that the You Tube and Google did something so that this most seditious video would not appear in search results and since then not too many new visitors have watched this clip.

Nonetheless, this video is still there and you can watch it right now. Besides this I don’t know much more about Flight 93. In addition to these two news videos I found some other interesting materials discovered by other 9/11 researchers. Some interesting materials regarding Flight 93, that even include a photo of a pilot who shot it down, were made into a zip archive that you can download from here:

http://www.911-truth.net/911_more_do..._shot_down.zip

When the World Trade Center was being designed in the late 1960′s, nuclear technology was not taboo, in fact you could say at the time it was en vogue. Could you please discuss this as well as the building code for demolition plans for skyscrapers at that time?

Since I am not a demolition expert, neither an architect, nor an official of the Department of Buildings, I don’t know much about it. My knowledge is limited to only what I got to know from the Soviet Special Control Service back in the ‘80s. All I know is this: in the ‘60s, ‘70s, and ‘80s in the United States (at least in New York and in Chicago, but perhaps elsewhere too) Building Codes did not allow to permit the building of skyscrapers unless a developer of the construction project could submit a satisfactory demolition scheme of his would be skyscraper. Since traditional demolition methods were designed to deal with old type of brick-walled and concrete-paneled buildings (since in the second half of the 20th century they used to demolish buildings built in the first half of the 20th century or in 19th century), nobody knew how to demolish the new type of incredibly strong steel-framed buildings that came into existence only in the end of the ‘60s.

Traditional controlled demolition methods did not work with these steel-framed buildings due to their excessive strength. So, developers of the new skyscrapers could not get permission from the Department of Buildings to build their project, since they were unable to submit any satisfactory demolition scheme to deal with their skyscrapers in the future. Hence their desire to implement the nuclear demolition schemes of the skyscrapers. These awful nuclear demolition schemes were not to actually demolish the buildings in the middle of the populated cities by huge nuclear explosions underground, please don’t get me wrong. It was merely to satisfy bureaucratic demands of the Department of Buildings officials and to get the permission to build the steel-framed skyscrapers whatsoever. At least this is what we believed back then in the Soviet Special Control Service where I used to serve as an officer.

I will not go into exact details of the actual nuclear demolition scheme of the WTC, because it will take time, but if you are interested in details you can see them in my book. To answer the first part of your question: yes, those days the nuclear explosions were not as “evil” as they are now and it was perfectly acceptable – to use them for civil purposes such as demolishing of civil infrastructure. To get an additional confirmation you can look at a seditious diagram of the ‘70s that was used in a Wikipedia article dealing with nuclear tests: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_tests . The diagram has its own web address : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Types_of_nuclear_testing.svg



Just look at Figure (2) – an underground nuclear explosion as depicted on that diagram. And pay particular attention to a skyscraper for some truly strange reason shown right above the spot of the underground nuclear explosion. The problem is that in the ‘70s (this diagram is from the ‘70s) the nuclear demolition of skyscrapers was a well-known fact, so the concept of it managed to find its way even to such diagrams… Hope I have answered your question?

Is it possible for a nuclear explosion to occur in lower Manhattan without devastating and destroying the entire population of New York City?

Yes. Because it occurred deep underground. If it were on the surface level or above it, the 150 kiloton bomb would almost destroy New York City in its entirety, as well as making the rest of it uninhabitable. Just imagine that 150 kiloton is 8 times the size of the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. However, since the 150 kiloton bombs detonated deep under each of the WTC Twin Towers and under the WTC-7 they did not cause much damage – just only the damage you can see in the immediate aftermath of the actual WTC demolition on 9/11.

You have to understand that physical properties of deep underground nuclear explosion (not to be mistaken with shallow sub-surface nuclear explosion) are distinctly different from an atmospheric nuclear explosion. A deep, fully-contained underground nuclear explosion produces neither penetrating ionizing radiation (because its primary radiation is stopped by surrounding rock and can not reach the earth’s surface), nor air-blast wave (because there is no air around the nuclear explosions hypo-center), nor thermal radiation (because this one too requires air while air is absent in underground conditions), nor even Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), because EMP is an aftereffect of electrons’ flow, while in the underground conditions all electrons are stopped by surrounding rock – along with gamma-rays, X-rays, and neutrons. Thus an underground nuclear explosion (if it is only not shallow sub-surface one, but really deep and contained) would not cause anything noticeable on the ground: no sound, no flash, not thermal radiation, no air-blast wave, no penetrating ionizing radiation, no EMP, not even the trademark mushroom cloud.

It will only cause an earthquake – that is the only noticeable factor. And indeed right at the WTC Twin Towers collapse (precisely 11-12 seconds prior to the beginning of collapse) a strong earthquake that corresponded to a nuclear explosion of well over 100 kiloton was observed and felt by anyone around (and also recorded by several video cameras).

However, I must make one correction: even though none of the well-known destructive factors of a typical atmospheric atomic blast were present in the WTC demolition case, radioactive contamination of the surrounding area was still there. The levels of gamma-radiation after the three underground nuclear explosions were well over 200 roentgens per hour during the first hours, and tens of roentgens per hour during first few days after 9/11.

While alpha- and beta-contaminated radioactive particles (especially radioactive vapors that were ascending from beneath the WTC debris from extremely overheated cavities under them) were present for at least 4 months time – until the hot radioactive matter in the underground cavities was cooled down. And these radioactive vapors caused extreme damage to the health of those who worked without gas-masks on ground zero. Now almost all ground-zero responders suffer from leukemia and other secondary effects of chronic radiation sickness – mainly from various cancers. Also many of these responders have died since then and many more are dying right now.

Please tell me briefly how according to the science of physics that it is absolutely impossible for a jumbo-jet to penetrate the frame of the former World Trade Center.

Many people naively think that the WTC facades were made from huge panes of glass – because the “planes” shown in 9/11 footage appear to penetrate in too easily – without even reducing their speed upon the impact. However, it is not so simple in reality. In reality the facades of the Twin Towers were made from densely positioned thick steel perimeter columns.


Core- and perimeter columns of the WTC Twin Towers.

There were 59 of such columns on each of the 4 facades and these columns were positioned every one meter from one other. Each column represented a hollow tube square in cross-section. Each of the four walls of such perimeter column was as thick as the front armor of a tank.

Do you think that an aluminum plane could penetrate steel thick as tank’s front armor? Try to be realistic… Yes, intuitively it might appear to some people that a massive, fast-flying aircraft, even though it is made from aluminum, has a lot of kinetic energy to penetrate steel. But this is a very wrong perception. You intuition badly cheats you in this particular case. Aluminum can not penetrate steel irrespectively of its mass and its speed. Because if it were so simple then artillery armor-piercing shells would be made from aluminum. However, anti-tank rounds are not made from it. They are made from Wolfram (Tungsten) or from Depleted Uranium. Because either of these materials is harder than steel.


Official diagram of the Twin Towers’ structure.

I will try to illustrate this to you. From the point of physics it does not matter – if a moving car A hits a stationary car B, or, vice versa – a moving car B hits a stationary car A. As long as we are talking about the speed of the moving car relative to the stationary car and the speed is the same, the physics of the process is the same. From the point of view of physics it is the same if the moving plane hits stationary Twin Tower or some fabulous giant took the Twin Tower and hits with it (as it were a huge baseball bat) a stationary plane – the physics of this process is the same. Now we move further. Let’s imagine that we have a plastic swatter to kill flies. And we hit a fly with the swatter at an impact speed of 1 meter per second. It will flatten the fly. Now we increase the speed of the swatter to 10 meters per second and hit the fly – it will again flatten the fly. We increase the speed of the swatter to 100 meters per second and hit the fly – it will again flatten the fly. And even if we increase the speed to 1000 meters per second or to any other speed, the result will be the same – the hit of the swatter will flatten the fly. I think it is very obvious. Now, we imagine that the swatter now is stationary and the fly is attempting to “penetrate” it by flying into it. If the fly hit the swatter at the speed of 1 meter per second what will happen? Apparently the fly will be flattened without being able to penetrate the plastic swatter (because it does not matter if the moving swatter hits a stationary fly or the moving fly hits a stationary swatter – the physics of this process is the same). If the fly increases the speed to 10 meters per second? The result is the same. 100 meters per second? The same. 1000 meters per second? The same: the fly will be flattened without being able to penetrate the plastic swatter irrespective of the speed of impact. The very same consideration is applicable to the aluminum planes hitting the enormously strong steel Twin Tower boasting its outer skin as strong as the front armor of a tank. An empty aluminum plane would be flattened on impact without being able to penetrate the Tower and the flattened plane will fall back to sidewalks. Add here an additional logical confirmation of what I have said. Imagine that a certain bridge collapses killing people on the bridge and under the bridge. Would you see an architect of the bridge arrested and brought before the court of law? No doubt. Have you seen an architect of the Twin Towers arrested and brought tried for his failure to provide an adequate strength to his construction? No. Now you get the point. The WTC architect is not guilty. Neither in a sense that aluminum planes could penetrate his steel building, nor in a sense that fires caused by kerosene could collapse his steel building. The architect is clearly innocent because neither of the two suggestions has taken place in reality: the aluminum planes have never penetrated the Twin Towers and “fires” did not cause the Twin Towers to collapse. Therefore there is no reason to arrest and try the architect. Do you agree with this logic?

Please tell me what really took down World Trade Center buildings 1,2 and 7?


Steel structure of the WTC South Tower was reduced to complete microscopic dust.



Three underground nuclear (to be more precise “thermo-nuclear”) explosions 150 kilotons each. Hence the “ground zero” name, promptly awarded by the Civil Defense officials to the WTC demolition site.

Do you still doubt it was nothing else by the nuclear explosions that determined the “ground zero” designation awarded by the U.S. Civil Defense servicemen to the former WTC site? Then look at this:


The definition of “ground zero” as defined by The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language.



Many firefighters, EMT and rescue workers who spent time at ground zero are disabled, terminally ill or dead. You claim this is not from smoke inhalation, please explain.

No, it is not from “smoke” inhalation. It is from radioactive vapors inhalation. Radioactive vapors were ascending from deep cavities left by underground nuclear explosions. Make sure to notice that “smoke” (if any) is not white. It is much darker. But vapor (to be exact radioactive vapor in this case) is white.


Vapors rising from ground zero on October 17, 2001.

Because the cavities were filled with extremely hot radioactive materials in liquid state and the firefighters were ordered to poor water into the WTC debris (and through them – into the cavities underground).


Deep underground cavity under one of the WTC buildings; molten rock could be clearly observed.

This, understandably caused vapors. And the vapors were radioactive – each particle of vapors carried alpha- and beta- particles that were extremely dangerous when inhaled or ingested. Because they would continue to irradiate the victim’s body from inside for extended periods of time and eventually cause chronic radiation sickness.

According to your video that you produced, you claim that the television footage was edited to add the frames of the planes. How can you prove that?

Several such videos show black frames right at the time of impact. There are other multiple signs of digital manipulations. You can see some of such videos on my You Tube channel that is www.youtube.com/user/DimitriKhalezov there I have a few videos dealing with “planes”. Here are direct links to these videos:











The first two videos deal with black frames, the rest – with real witnesses who claim there were no planes, but only explosions.

***********************

Dimitri, if you don’t mind I would like to interject here. I was an international equities trader working for RBC Securities in Jersey City on September 11, 2001. The office was located at Hudson Street directly on the water front. We watched the catastrophic events live from our 30 foot long windows, from almost beginning til end.

I will never forget that day, it was just two days after I watched the Williams sisters compete against each other at the U.S. Open Womens Tennis Final. It was one of the most beautiful days in recent memory. Clear blue skies, I didn’t see a trace of a cloud. The weather was perfect, if there is an ideal temperature, it existed on that Tuesday morning. I remember being still extremely tired from the weekend and a long tiring Monday. I was extremely happy that morning because my screens were all green that morning, nearly all my stocks were up in the European, Asian, Russian and South African markets. I wasn’t usually long stocks being mostly a short-seller but I was anticipating a nice bounce and a week long rally. I didn’t want to sell at that time because I anticipated when Wall Street opened, the rally would continue and my stock levels would increase further. I was up approximately $50,000 before the disaster occurred. But less than two hours later when we had to evacuate the building and the New York Sock Exchange was shut, my positions were now costing me about $200,000.00 in losses that would only get worse as the week progressed.

I was one of the first people in the room to notice the fire burning. There were simultaneous reports of a small prop jet hitting the tower that caused the fire. Since we were in a trading room, we had several televisions on constantly tuned to CNN, CNBC, Blomberg etc. I remember how one guy was laughing about the fire while I was asking out loud to everyone, “what tower is Cantor in?” I was very concerned and understood that from our window the flames appeared very big thus in reality the fire was growing quite rapidly. I had many friends that worked at Cantor Fitzgerald, some who I have known over a decade, none had made it out alive. As I was glued to the window, others were watching the reports on TV. Thus, I heard people yelling another plane, another plane is coming but I did not see it live, I just saw an explosion. It never occurred to me until I met Dimitri that perhaps the people shouting in the trading room about a 2nd plane were all watching TV as opposed to watching it live.




An explosion rips through the south tower of the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001.

You see, watching four monitors from 7am til 4pm and watching for small discrepancies and arbitrage opportunities as well as being able to dischipher the name of one of my stocks in a room with 30-40 people talking, yelling and sometimes screaming at once gave me the impression that I was extremely observant and alert. Until recently I simply thought that I missed the 2nd plane hitting even though I was starring directly at the WTC buildings. Our view was so magnificent and crystal clear of lower Manhattan from our over sized windows, it was always the highlight of any visitor to our offices. In fact, if you go to Google images and search for pictures of the WTC towers, many will be from Jersey City.

I will save the rest of my eye witness observations for another time. I will finish with that we evacuated the building after the first tower collapsed, I yelled out audibly, “is it being imploded?” It came down so orderly that at the time, I naively thought in 30 minutes the NY firefighters imploded it with explosives so it did not topple left or right and cause massive damage. I did as well as many others notice a tremor an our building in New Jersey that shook from what I thought was the tower collapsing but according to Dimitri, it was the underground nuclear explosion and the aftershocks that I felt.

My trading assistant Charlie lost his best friend and college room mate from Cantor. Charlie who I ended up taking home with me as well as three other co-workers who could not return to Brooklyn due to closed bridges and tunnels was devastated and in shock over worry about his missing best friend Greg (as well in denial). The day before I had a long conversation with Greg, who called to speak with Charlie who was off the desk. Greg was unhappy at Cantor, he was waiting for his December bonus and would then leave to another firm. Unfortunately, Greg did not make it til December, he was approximately 27.


The Twin Towers engulfed in flames on September 11, 2001.

The same person that was in the early moments of the fire that was laughing was crying quite heavily when the the first tower fell, no need to mention his name. I would in the weeks and months (many families delayed the process holding on to false hope that a loved one would be found or at least some remains to bury) to come attend many memorial services, unfortunately they could not be called burials since in almost all cases there were no bodies or remains to bury, mostly pictures.

Harry Ramos’ service was extremely emotional for me, the Mayor of Newark was there, since so many people knew Harry thus it was extremely well-attended. Standing room only. Every memorial service that I attended reminded me of all the previous ones before and the ones yet to occur but a reminder of broken families and the premature death of many of my friends.

Walking to the parking lot to my car with my co-workers, we stopped briefly at a Light Rail station,we heard a women screaming and yelling. We all turned and saw the 2nd tower falling. I remember distinctly that the entire area of lower Manhattan looked like it was sinking into a sea of clouds and smoke and for a short time I couldn’t see anything but smoke. I then thought if my best friend Curtis who has 3 children and a wife was still alive, since he worked across the street from the WTC. Luckily, my best friend Curtis and many others escaped, unfortunately many others did not.

********************************

Dimitri, could you please tell me your thoughts about what really happened at the Pentagon?




Picture taken immediately after the missile impact – before the Pentagon’s wall was collapsed and before the lampposts were toppled to imitate the “plane’s wings”.





The Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile. It is not even my thoughts; it is a matter of fact. You can get a confirmation of my words if you look at this picture showing penetrating details in the case of the Pentagon strike.


Penetration details of the Pentagon; 6 capital walls were penetrated and the final punch-out hole.

Do you think this type of damage could have been caused by a Boeing-767? Of course it was a missile. Moreover, the missile was equipped by a real thermo-nuclear warhead (although unexploded due to its intentionally broken detonator). This fact caused an extreme panic in the U.S. government and caused various high-ranking officials to search for weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq. It is widely believed that Saddam Hussein was the actual owner of the missile that struck the Pentagon. It is a long topic do discuss, so I suggest that you read my book – at least three full chapters are devoted to this missile attack. Or you can get more ideas about the Pentagon missile attack if you read my interview on Victor Bout that is available here:

http://www.911-truth.net/Victor_Bout...ew_English.pdf

Okay, Dimitri, let us really delve into what really happened on 9/11. Who were the actually perpetrators and what were there motives?

De-facto perpetrators are some individuals from the Mossad and from French secret services. But it is only an outward appearance. The real planners and the real perpetrators are, of course, those folks who promote the New World Order, so-called “globalization”, and other means of the final enslavement of humanity on this Planet. Basically they are the very same guys who stood behind the United Nations Organization, Bilderberg Club, the WTO, the so-called “Council on Foreign Relations”, “Trilateral Commission”, Olympic Games enterprise, “Greenpeace”, “Amnesty International”, and other well-known and little-known instruments of the so-called “globalization”. The 9/11 job was conceived and ordered by these guys, of course. The Mossad and the French are merely hired executors – similar to contract killers in the common sense; they are by no means the masterminds.

Was the Bush administration directly involved in the 9/11 cover-up?




George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Yes, of course. Can’t you just see this obvious fact with your own eyes? Doesn’t the infamous Report of the 9/11 Commission look like a desperate cover-up to you? But the 9/11 Commission is definitely not a circus and not a bunch of freelance comedians. It is a governmental entity, isn’t it?

I know you are very close to Viktor Bout and his family as well as his Thai lawyer Lak. You were also extremely involved in the actually court case in Thailand. Is there any connection to Viktor Bout’s extradition to America and 9/11?


Dimitri Khalezov (in a black shirt in the background) and Victor Bout (in an orange prison garb) in the Thai Criminal Court during one of the last hearing on Victor’s extradition case in Thailand.



Yes, of course. The Americans do not even hide this. They openly state that Viktor Bout is “bad guy” in connection to 9/11. But they do not go into details. However, I will. Viktor is actually wanted in America because the U.S. security officials are gullible enough to believe that Victor has allegedly sold the nuclear-tipped missile that hit the Pentagon on 9/11 to “terrorists”. In addition they believe that Viktor also sold several portable mini-nuclear devices (known as “mini-nukes”) to the so-called “Al-Qaeda” prior to 9/11, and they also believe that he sold weapon-grade Uranium to various terrorists who used the Uranium to produce home-made nuclear bombs that were used in several acts of nuclear terror – particularly in the infamous mini-nuke’s bombing at El-Nogal, in Bogota, Columbia, in 2003, that was presented to plebes as a “car-bombing”. If you need to know more about this affair with Viktor Bout’s extradition from Thailand and my involvement with it, you can read my interview given to Daniel Estulin, that is available for download as a pdf file here:

http://www.911-truth.net/Victor_Bout...ew_English.pdf

This one is in English, but it is also available in several other languages. You can find these files and many more interesting files related to Victor Bout and his extradition here:

www.911-truth.net/Victor_Bout/

A MUST READ ARTICLE:

DIMITRI KHALEZOV: BIO-TERRORISM AND ANTHRAX

Dimitri, on behalf of our readers and myself, I want to thank you for these last several days and the wonderful and insightful discussions that we had as well as for your time. I am sure that since I have written quite a bit about Viktor Bout, that many readers would like to know more details about the Viktor Bout case and how it relates to 9/11. Perhaps we will have another discussion soon. Thank you again!

Further Reading:

BY: Dimitri Khalezov

Bio-terrorism — anthrax attacks following September 11

Arms Trafficking, Stolen Missiles, Soviet Submarines, Nuclear Detonations and 9/11: Interview with Dimitri Khalezov in Bangkok (Exclusive)

The most provocative, prohibited and proven 9/11 book written:

911thology by Dimitri Khalezov

Important information and download links: www.dimitri-khalezov-video.com
__________________
[COLOR="Blue"][FONT="Courier New"]‎"Little good is accomplished without controversy,
[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][/FONT]and no civic evil is ever defeated without publicity."
The Daily Anthem Newspaper
Morgantown, West Virginia[/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
Julia.M.Lazare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 Feb 2011 , 12:16 PM   #5
Dr FUBAR
Admin
 
Dr FUBAR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 4 Jan 2011
Location: Hollow Town
Posts: 3,388
Threads: 137
Thanked 10,751 Times in 2,985 Posts
Dr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond reputeDr FUBAR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: GROUND ZERO - the TRUTH has been right in front of us

Quote:
Here's another question: Something that I think about sometimes is..., the people who jumped to their deaths, before the buildings came crumbling down. Could they have seen the atomic bombs, in those upper floors, with timers set to go off?
Answer Dimitri Khalezov;

Quote:
I am not quite sure about it. I actually think that these who were ‘jumping’ were dead bodies from morgue, because this is the very Freemasonic modus operandi. I read quite a few testimonies of eye-witnesses who were saying this:

1) To some of eye witnesses, especially those who were observing upper floors of the Twins via good optical devices (such as tele-lens of photo- and video-cameras) that those who were falling (or ‘jumping’) down seemed to be pushed out by some men from inside; (apparently those poor guys who observed this phenomenon thought it was some type of murder; they could scarcely imagine that this is just a standard method of the Freemasons working with CORPSES from morgue);

2) The pattern some bodies were flying in the mid-air before hitting the sidewalks did not match the possible pattern (and behavior) of live beings. It matched the ‘behavior’ of stiff corps from the morgue.

3) A nurse was giving an interview after 9/11 saying that she was responsible for collecting and arranging those ‘JUMPERS’ collected from the sidewalks. She was surprised that neither of them (not even a single one) had any of such things as: a wristwatch; a wallet; a document of any type; a credit card; a photo; a single piece of jewelry of any type. Due to this fact not even one of the ‘jumpers’ was identified. Does it sound believable to you that a person would remove all his or her usual belongings from his or her pockets (along with removing necklaces, rings and ear-rings) before jumping to his or her death? I think this is a real hard proof that all ‘jumpers’ were from the MORGUE. You have to know the Freemasons and their modus operandi a little bit. They always do like this.
Another jumper theory, post #36; http://www.911thology.com/forum/inde...pic,16.30.html

__________________
“Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories…...?” George Walker Bush .

Last edited by Dr FUBAR; 21 Feb 2011 at 18:06 PM.
Dr FUBAR is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dr FUBAR For This Useful Post:
Old 21 Feb 2011 , 16:35 PM   #6
SoldierOfTheLord
Privileged
 
Join Date: 17 Dec 2004
Location: Northeast US
Posts: 3,972
Threads: 633
Thanked 913 Times in 455 Posts
SoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond repute
Smile Re: GROUND ZERO - the TRUTH has been right in front of us

Quote:
I actually think that these who were ‘jumping’ were dead bodies from morgue, because this is the very Freemasonic modus operandi. I read quite a few testimonies of eye-witnesses who were saying this:

1) To some of eye witnesses, especially those who were observing upper floors of the Twins via good optical devices (such as tele-lens of photo- and video-cameras) that those who were falling (or ‘jumping’) down seemed to be pushed out by some men from inside; (apparently those poor guys who observed this phenomenon thought it was some type of murder; they could scarcely imagine that this is just a standard method of the Freemasons working with corpses from morgue);
CRAP! MAN!!! Dang - you guys - seriously - can't BELIEVE I never thought of this angle!! SERIOUSLY! Watch all the Youtube videos of the jumpers - and there is not a single doubt in my mind they are dang corpses! They fall exactly like a stiff corpse! A live person would be flailing their arms and legs naturally - and these corpses just fall! No reaction to it at all!! OOooooh MAN that makes me mad!! >:(

PS - Julie - EXCELLENT posts!! But I think you repeated that 2nd one.
__________________
Jesus is the Way, the TRUTH, and The Life - the 9/11 truth WILL come out, He will not let the LIE stand! The word is getting out by leaps and bounds - let's stand together and be ready - because "the glass is about to overflow"!! ;)
-Kathy
SoldierOfTheLord is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SoldierOfTheLord For This Useful Post:
Old 21 Feb 2011 , 19:21 PM   #7
Ponderer
Privileged
 
Ponderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16 Feb 2011
Location: The pseudo constitutional republic known as the USA
Posts: 220
Threads: 3
Thanked 398 Times in 132 Posts
Ponderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond repute
Re: GROUND ZERO - the TRUTH has been right in front of us

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoldierOfTheLord View Post
CRAP! MAN!!! Dang - you guys - seriously - can't BELIEVE I never thought of this angle!! SERIOUSLY! Watch all the Youtube videos of the jumpers - and there is not a single doubt in my mind they are dang corpses! They fall exactly like a stiff corpse! A live person would be flailing their arms and legs naturally - and these corpses just fall! No reaction to it at all!! OOooooh MAN that makes me mad!! >:(

PS - Julie - EXCELLENT posts!! But I think you repeated that 2nd one.

I doubt that many people would have theorized that those were cadavers falling without some input from elsewhere; I mean, that is a macabre and kind of "out there" thought.

Seriously, though, after viewing videos, etc. I think that the "jumpers" were a combination: some cadavers and some mannequins/dummies. That would help obscure the picture to confuse people: just like they mixed a few real people in with fake identities for the passengers and other "victims."

EDITED TO ADD: Those would have to be "fresh" cadavers because once rigor mortis had set in the bodies would be too rigid/inflexible, looking so unnatural as to be unusable for this kind of op.
__________________
The Alex Jones Show is a CIA production. ~Moi~

(Royal Dutch) Shell: Queen Beatrix
British Petroleum (BP): Queen Elizabeth II, Rothschilds
Exxon/Mobil: Rockefellers
Largest consumer of oil: U.S. military
Now you understand U.S. policy!

Trying to find someone in your 40s is like casting your line into a toilet bowl! ~Moi~

Learn the TRUTH about this country and the founding fathers in my forthcoming book! PM me for details. ~Discount for Let's Roll Forum members~

Last edited by Ponderer; 22 Feb 2011 at 12:16 PM. Reason: Clarification
Ponderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 Feb 2011 , 20:39 PM   #8
SoldierOfTheLord
Privileged
 
Join Date: 17 Dec 2004
Location: Northeast US
Posts: 3,972
Threads: 633
Thanked 913 Times in 455 Posts
SoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond reputeSoldierOfTheLord has a reputation beyond repute
Re: GROUND ZERO - the TRUTH has been right in front of us

That...or these total scumbags just walked around and killed people and threw em out the window - OH HORRIBLE! The whole THOUGHT it just EWW! UNTHINKABLE!!! >:(
__________________
Jesus is the Way, the TRUTH, and The Life - the 9/11 truth WILL come out, He will not let the LIE stand! The word is getting out by leaps and bounds - let's stand together and be ready - because "the glass is about to overflow"!! ;)
-Kathy
SoldierOfTheLord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 Feb 2011 , 10:30 AM   #9
Herr der Elf
 
Join Date: 6 Jan 2011
Posts: 71
Threads: 1
Thanked 61 Times in 34 Posts
Herr der Elf is a jewel in the roughHerr der Elf is a jewel in the roughHerr der Elf is a jewel in the roughHerr der Elf is a jewel in the rough
Re: GROUND ZERO - the TRUTH has been right in front of us

I have been pushing 9/11 milli-nukes in this other LRF forum:

http://letsrollforums.com/showthread...0&goto=newpost

Links to the Mr. Khalezov interviews that are posted here in more detail were posted in this LRF forum:

http://letsrollforums.com/interestin...9.html?t=24539

I take the liberty of re-posting what I wrote before, starting with an even earlier quote from me.
+++++++++++++++++++

Herr der Elf wrote:
Quote:
All disinformation has one redeeming quality. In order for it to be believable, it has to be built on a sound foundation of truth. Our purpose as rational and intelligent beings is to sift through information in search of the nuggets of the truth, or the data points that make up trend lines. Recognizing the subtle bullshit will be hard. We have to learn to keep our human prejudices in check; and know that we're being played as well ourselves.

I'll be passing Mr. Khalezov's data through the magnifying glass of disinformation, so that the truths aren't too quickly dismissed when an occasional patch of bullshit is laid. I'll be making up my own mind, and recommend others do the same.
Mr. Khalezov may indeed present a lot of truths at:
http://wemustknow.net/2011/02/mathab...-new-york-wtc/

But I take issue starting with the following from Mr. Khalezov:
Quote:
Building Codes did not allow to permit the building of skyscrapers unless a developer of the construction project could submit a satisfactory demolition scheme of his would be skyscraper. ... These awful nuclear demolition schemes were not to actually demolish the buildings in the middle of the populated cities by huge nuclear explosions underground, don’t get me wrong, please, It was merely to satisfy bureaucratic demands of the Department of Buildings officials and to get the permission to build the steel-framed skyscrapers whatsoever.
We need to emphasize demolition scheme versus demolition implementation at the times the buildings were built. Mr. Khalezov does not say the following, but I have read in other places where it was extrapolated that "nukes were built into the building."

I don't believe nukes would be built in, because it would be a waste of nuclear material to have it sitting in a building and not in some war head to saber rattle. It might also pose a health risk. This doesn't mean that "closets" or other conveniences weren't designed and built into the structure to assist nuke placement later.

Another quote from the article:
Quote:
GM: Is it possible for a nuclear explosion to occur in lower Manhattan without devastating and destroying the entire population of New York City?

DK: Yes. Because it occurred deep underground. If it were on the surface level or above it, the 150 kiloton bomb would almost destroy New York City in its entirety, as well as making the rest of it uninhabitable. Just imagine that 150 kiloton is 8 times the size of the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. However, since the 150 kiloton bombs detonated deep under each of the WTC Twin Towers and under the WTC-7 they did not cause much damage – just only the damage you can see in the immediate aftermath of the actual WTC demolition on 9/11.
I take major issue with the two bolded points in the above quotation.

[1] "Deep underground"?!! There is absolutely no evidence of this, or Mr. Khalezov will have to be much more specific about what deep means. The "bathtub" on which the WTC complex was built went below grade only 75 feet or so. A notable anomaly of the event was that their demolition experts made sure that the bathtub was not damaged or only minimally so.

Moreover, the demolition of the towers themselves can be observed happening top-down, as if there were two (to six ) milli-nukes placed through out the structures to get the extreme pulverization of content. This isn't to say that milli-nukes weren't also in a basement level (as testified by Mr. W. Rodriquez). But Mr. Khalezov seems to imply that "deep underground" nukes accomplished the observed top-down destruction. The rational side of me does not agree with this.

[2] 150 kiloton bombs?!! Now maybe if Mr. Khalezov would remove the "kilo" and/or replace it with "milli" and recognize that it could be multiple per tower, he would be approaching the right magnitude both needed and observed.

He shoots his theories in the foot by repeatedly talking about 150kT nukes (here and in other interviews) particularly when he says that it is "8 times the size of the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima." This is obviously not what was observed.


Mr. Khalezov continues:
Quote:
You have to understand that physical properties of deep underground nuclear explosion (not to be mistaken with shallow sub-surface nuclear explosion) are distinctly different from an atmospheric nuclear explosion. A deep, fully-contained underground nuclear explosion produces neither penetrating ionizing radiation (because its primary radiation is stopped by surrounding rock and can not reach the earth’s surface), nor air-blast wave (because there is no air around the nuclear explosions hypo-center), nor thermal radiation (because this one too requires air while air is absent in underground conditions), nor even Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), because EMP is an aftereffect of electrons’ flow, while in the underground conditions all electrons are stopped by surrounding rock – along with gamma-rays, X-rays, and neutrons. Thus an underground nuclear explosion (if it is only not shallow sub-surface one, but really deep and contained) would not cause anything noticeable on the ground: no sound, no flash, not thermal radiation, no air-blast wave, no penetrating ionizing radiation, no EMP, not even the trademark mushroom cloud.
I cannot personally vouch for the verasity of all that Mr. Khalezov writes above, but it is mostly on line with my research.

What I will point out is that Mr. Khalezov seems to have a concept of large(r) nuclear devices (150 kiloton) and deep underground, which cannot explain the 9/11 nuclear event.

But some take-away extrapolations from the above truths are that detonations of much smaller milli-nukes within a structure would start to approach conditions of an underground explosion in terms of reducing and mitigating side-effects.

It is my belief today that certain milli-nuclear side-effects did escape:

- torched vehicles (e.g., emergency vehicles, buses, cars) in streets close by. [Heat Wave?]
- anomalously burned vehicles in the parking lot line-of-sight but over the West Street. [EMP?]
- the more recent demolition of the Deutsches Bank because it was supposedly too contaminated with dust from the towers. [Penetrating ionizing radiation?]
- under rubble fires burning foundry-hot for months. [Unspent but fizzling nuclear material?]
- ailments of first responders. [Lingering radiation]

I apologize for not having the time to go into further detail in my review of Mr. Khalezov. Most of the rest of what I've skimmed is interesting and I don't have issues with it (yet). He does indeed really provide some useful truths (to help establish his legend, as it were.)

But in conclusion, both size (150 kT) and placement (deep underground) of his proposed nukes are in direct contradiction to what was observed. If he is a disinformation asset, this is how he is leading us astray. When these are debunked, it is how they plan on taking the truth of 9/11 being nuclear out of play.

++++++

As a post-script to the above re-posting, I recently acquired and am in the middle of reading Dr. Judy Wood's new textbook on 9/11. Yeah, yeah, yeah, many closed-minded 9/11 thinkers want to judge that book by its cover and smear it as disinformation, sight unseen. My pre-mature book report says that this is a quality publication worthy of having in your 9/11 library -- whether or not you agree with its final conclusions. (If nothing else, you'll be able to hold it up as quality disinformation.) It is full of WTC color images and has understandable explanations of physics.

"Nuggets of Truth!" I always say. "Nuggets of Truth!" We do 9/11 Truth a disservice if we don't reclaim "nuggets of Truth" from the disinformation and make them our own to get to the true nature of 9/11.

I bring this up, because early in Dr. Wood's book she provides evidence regarding how the bathtub was relatively undamaged, how only 3 (or 4) of 7 of the subway lines under the complex were obstructed but not destroyed, how the ports for the subway lines from the WTC complex under the Hudson River were undamaged, how the collapse into the underground levels was stopped at about level 3 or 4, etc. She provides excellent understandable explanations of the math and physics regarding how (a) a pile driving block, (b) pancaking floors, or (c) controlled demolition producing large chunks falling from great heights would have had sufficient energy to crash through all subbasement levels and more importantly significantly damage the bathtub rim. Damage to the bathtub would have flooded the basements levels, ruined the subway, and through those same subway tunnels and other weak areas flooded the basements of most of the buildings in the area. That would have been a major catastrophy... that the makers of 9/11 purposely designed around.

The point I'm making about the prestine bathtub is that it debunks (yet again) Mr. Khalezov's premise of deep underground nukes.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that 9/11 was a nuclear event of the form 2-6 milli-nukes per tower. I don't subscribe to Mr. Khalezov's nuclear theory.
Herr der Elf is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Herr der Elf For This Useful Post:
Old 22 Feb 2011 , 12:13 PM   #10
Ponderer
Privileged
 
Ponderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16 Feb 2011
Location: The pseudo constitutional republic known as the USA
Posts: 220
Threads: 3
Thanked 398 Times in 132 Posts
Ponderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond reputePonderer has a reputation beyond repute
Re: GROUND ZERO - the TRUTH has been right in front of us

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoldierOfTheLord View Post
That...or these total scumbags just walked around and killed people and threw em out the window - OH HORRIBLE! The whole THOUGHT it just EWW! UNTHINKABLE!!! >:(

Well, they're certainly evil enough to do that. But if they were just indiscriminately killing people then throwing them from the tower windows, why did they bother to first remove all of their jewelry, ID, and all the items from their pockets? That latter tidbit is more consistent with the bodies-from-the-morgue scenario. That is, IF this is reliable info, and frankly I'm not convinced that it is. "A nurse who was there said" is too vague for me to pin definitives on.
__________________
The Alex Jones Show is a CIA production. ~Moi~

(Royal Dutch) Shell: Queen Beatrix
British Petroleum (BP): Queen Elizabeth II, Rothschilds
Exxon/Mobil: Rockefellers
Largest consumer of oil: U.S. military
Now you understand U.S. policy!

Trying to find someone in your 40s is like casting your line into a toilet bowl! ~Moi~

Learn the TRUTH about this country and the founding fathers in my forthcoming book! PM me for details. ~Discount for Let's Roll Forum members~
Ponderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Let's Roll Forums > The U.S. Government Conspiracy of 9/11 > The World Trade Center - Hollow & Empty on 9/11 > World Trade Center - Molten Steel & Other Unexplainable Oddities



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Ad Management by RedTyger