Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
Unidentified Blogger summarizes Dimitri Khalizov's 26 part Nuclear Bombing theory for WTC. Do you agree with his summary?
| Re: 9/11 Nuclear Demolition Of The WTC By Dimitri Khalezov **** MUST SEE ***** | Quote |
Hi. I found this on the Internet since it was mentioned in one Forum and downloaded it as suggested by you. Read it with interest and found few pieces of misunderstandings which I would like to correct. First of all, I would like to thank you for being so patient for watching my movie and making these comments – it is indeed a great job. However, I suspect that because you were also busy with making comments, you did not watch movie attentively enough and therefore you missed many points, so that I suggest you re-viewing it and this time attentively. Many doubtful points would be clarified by re-viewing alone. My comments to your existing ones are below in red color. Part 1 1. Starts off with giving background on Dimitri Khalezov. 2. Show chart from FBI that shows Dimitri is on a terror list of some sort 3. Talks about him being arrested for supplying passport in Bali Bombing…denies charge, never been convicted. Part 2 1. Talks about aluminum cannot penetrate steel structure. Even with speed. 2. Talks about ‘live’ delay of 17 seconds or so, that aided in TV fakery, and how only one video of plane striking and later on more tapes came forward of the second plane, but nothing live, everything is courtesy of someone else. 3. Show screen captures form supposed same camera that has different background colors, and the black frames. 4. Talks about penetrating capabilities of the planes and why they would not penetrate the towers. 5. Talks about how plane should have struck the outside of the building and instead of going in the building it would have been crumpled or broken up and fall to the street below. 6. Talks about the video of the plane that the nose supposedly came out the side, and also that the angle that the plane was supposed to have hit would not match up with the nose coming out even if it was possible, the angle does not match with the actual angle of impact. 7. Talks about TV fakery…..best evidence is from helicopter journalist who is looking directly at WTC when 2nd plane supposedly hits….People in the studio keep saying they saw a plane…the person on the ground level keeps saying he saw no plane and that it just exploded…the people in the studio tell him it came from the side he wasn’t looking at….absurd, then repeats it several time…..it just exploded. Part 3 1. Shows different footage of second plane coming in that the angle of the plane coming in do not match from one video to another, some have it coming in at one angle and others have it coming at other angles. Says this points to digital manipulation. 2. Talks about the form of impact hole. Says that it does not match up with a plane hitting there. 3. Talks about why the 9/11 commission had to report what they did. They had to invent a cover up story……this is explained why later in the interview. 4. Talks about the official story, jet fuel, weakened steel, collapse…..and why it isn’t true. Show the people standing in the impact hole, and if tower was burning hot enough to compromise the steel how was this woman, and others standing there holding on to steel beams? 5. Talks about the jet fuel having been mostly burned off at impact….if there was an impact….maybe jet fuel was also planted with the bombs. ------------------ not exactly so. I said in context of discussion that the fuel should have burn out by the time of the Tower’s collapse. The interviewer said that IF there WERE planes? I answered – that it does not matter in this case – if it were planes, or the kerosene was simply brought in the Tower in barrels, irrespectively of the mode of its delivery, it should have been burned out by the time. That’s what I meant. 6. Pentagon was attacked by a Russian Granient Missile (not sure of spelling). Shows trajectory of missile to the pentagon. ---------------- Granit (or Granite) or P-700 missile. You can check that one in Wikipedia. 7. Talks about how a plane could not make the maneuver it was claimed to have….only a missile could have. 8. Says missile would have been launched from Atlantic Ocean….probably 200 to 300 miles out. 1. Says actions of US military prove that attack came from Atlantic because when jets were scrambled they were sent in the direction of the Atlantic. 9. Says missile would be 7 tons and very thick. Flying tank. Speed over 2.5 mach. 1. Exit hole is good evidence of missile. ----------------------- add here that I said that it was an antiship missile, because the way it behaved (attempted to strike the Pentagon at the waterline level) is a typical behavior of antiship missiles. Part 4 1. Says the warhead on the missile would be half megaton thermonuclear warhead. 2. Says mechanics of attack and actions of the military prove it was a missile fired from a ship in the Atlantic. 3. Talks about knowledge of nuclear demolition scheme in the Soviet Union, says he found out in 1994, that the WTC had the nuclear demolition feature. Purpose was because building code of NYC and Chicago in the 60’s would not allow skyscrapers to be built unless the designer also submitted a plan to demolish the building in case it was ever necessary in the future. Side note….this actually makes sense to me from a codes standpoint. If you’re going to build it you also have to tell us how you plan to bring it down. Seems logical to me. 4. Talks about how in the 60’s it was more acceptable to use nuclear reactions for civil reasons….power and such….so it is not so farfetched to think that the building codes people would accept this option….it was a demolition option and nothing more…..in the 60’s people didn’t look at nuclear devices like we do now. 5. Talks about how crazy an idea this is, and that in Russia at the time it was a joke of sorts. 6. Talks about a Treaty between US and Russia for peaceful nuclear explosions. And what they are sometimes used for and why we would have such a treaty. 7. Talks of controversy in the 80’s when someone found blueprints of the WTC and it showed the plans for the nuclear demolition option and this person took it to the press. Side note …. I wander if anyone else remembers this at all or if there is any proof of it. ----------------------- yes, they do. I encounter people quite recently, who also recollected this scandal. There was an argument over removal my article on nuclear demolition (not the WTC, but in general) from the Wikipedia and during heated argument I mentioned this particular point to my opponents. One guy from among the opponents also said that know he could also recollect that in the 80s or so there was some discussion on this topic in some US newspapers. Part 5 1. Talks about conversations between Putin and Condie Rice on the morning of 9/11 during the attacks…about a Russian missile, the missile that hit the pentagon. This missile had a nuclear warhead that did not explode…..Side note….this part not explained very well. -------------------- yes, I think that was really the fault of the interviewer – he should have asked why? Then I will answer that the perpetrators intentionally rendered its detonator useless, because it was not their plan – to level Washington DC with a half-megaton explosion. But, at least, I explained it to you personally now. 2. ‘Doomsday’ plane – plane seen flying over White House….never explained officially. White House was evacuated … reported military aircraft but classified. Pentagon insists it is not a military aircraft…no mention in commission report. 1. 6:08 stamp…says US government had no involvement in attacks…was only a victim. 3. Say doomsday plane was sent up to keep government operating…..as its was designed to do….was designed because of nuclear war. Interesting. ---------------------------- I think I explained it clearly enough in the video. Perhaps, you simply missed the point. The Doomsday plane is a flying command post designed to direct a retaliatory nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, should the latter send its nuclear missiles first and damage stationary U.S. command posts designed to direct such a retaliatory nuclear strike. In case of a nuclear alert all 4 Doomsday planes in various locations of the U.S. must be scrambled at once in a couple of minutes time after receiving a notification of an upcoming nuclear attack against the United States. In no other case they may fly, unless for training/routing checking of their combat readiness only. By the way – strikingly ‘white’ color of this plane is nothing else than the so-called ‘anti-flush white’ designed to protect this aircraft as much as possible from being damaged by thermal radiations of multiple nuclear explosions. It is really a ‘Doomsday plane’ in the full sense of this word. 4. Talks about underground bunker – atomic bunker…talks about how Cheney and Rice and Speaker of the House was ordered to bunker. Says that missile that hit pentagon was supposed to be nuclear and was but did not go off. ---------------------- again you missed the point. Cheney and Rice were simply grabbed by the Secret Service agents who broke into their offices and grabbed them both by their hands and by the trousers’ belt (not sure what it was in case of Rice, since she is a woman), nearly lifting them from the ground, and quickly propelled them both downstairs towards the anti-atomic bunker under the White House. So, because of this quick action both – Cheney and Rice have about an extra minute to get to the bunker before the explosion due to occur. In case of the Speaker, he was approached by the Secret Service agents and ordered to run to a helicopter to be urgently re-located to another anti-atomic bunker outside D.C. However, due to that action should take about 4-5 minutes, he would have no chance to survive – because about the time he was leaving the White House and running to the helicopter pad, the missile struck the Pentagon and supposed to produce a half-megaton nuclear explosion. 5. Tries to explain why doomsday plane has played a part in people saying the US was involved in the initial attacks and not just a cover up of certain events afterwards but failed to realize they were not a part of the attack but the US knew we were under nuclear attack and the government needed to move the skies in order to ensure the government would remain operating during and after a nuclear attack. ----------------------- this point you got well, but it appears to me that I didn’t talk about this particular. But this is true what you say. The skies were cleared not because of planes hijackings, but because of nuclear attack. No doubt. 6. Talks about underground bunker and how the door has supposedly never been closed was closed that day with the government people inside. Cheney and Rice were here and speaker of the house was ordered to another atomic bunker somewhere else because not all officials can be in the same secure location at once. ------------------------ again you missed the point. Cheney and Rice hid into an anti-atomic bunker under the White House. Speaker was flown into another anti-atomic bunker – outside D.C. However, the steel anti-atomic door that has never been closed in US history, except on the 9/11, with photo of it shown in that part of the movie, was of neither of the above anti-atomic bunkers. This is the door leading to the protected NORAD’s command post located inside ‘anti-atomic’ Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado. Upon getting notification of upcoming nuclear attack, the then commander of NORAD, Gen. Ralf Eberhart, immediately left his peace-time unprotected command post and moved to his protected command post 12 miles away (he drove by car and unlikely had chance to survive would the real nuclear strike occur at that time) but in any case once he arrived there he ordered to close that door – and that happened for the first time in US history. Part 6 1. Talks about Fireman had no fear of collapse because they knew that the building would not collapse….needed assistance to get people out … but fires could be contained and put out. Plus the fact that fireman know that steel building do not collapse from fire, or planes hitting them. 2. Says WTC’s were ‘pulled’ by nuclear option because of fear of collapse by government after planes hit. Talks about how when he was investigating that the conclusion was that the US brought down the towers out of fear of collapse….but was informed that that wasn’t the case because either type of collapse would have done about the same damage….this discovery is what lead to most of the rest of the discovery’s. He set out to prove that the building were brought down by nuclear demolition because of knowledge he had from his position in the Russian military from years ago ---------------------------- you missed the point. Because of my knowledge from military service I knew of the fact the nuclear demolition scheme did exist, but not of the fact that it was actually put to use on the 9/11 ----------, he did that….and then found out about the missing missiles and all the rest mostly as afterthought to his original plan. FBI received info that 3 nuclear warheads were used against US -------------- + info that 2 warheads were allegedly hidden inside the planes that stuck the Twin Towers (or hidden in whatever else that struck the Towers, because as you could notice I am a ‘no-planes’ man, and I guess the FBI follows the ‘no-planes’ version too, at least for their internal work) ----------. In order to avoid an atmospheric nuclear explosion that would have killed millions they brought the buildings down using our own secret nuclear demolition plan for the towers….this is what needed to be hidden along with the fact that 24 Russian missiles with nuclear warheads were missing. ---------------------- 22, not 24. Besides it was different issues – a headache to hide loss of the missiles was the headache of the Russians, not of the Americans. Americans had some headache of their own. 3. Says FBI explanation is that 3 nuclear warheads were aim at US that day…1 one each plane that hit towers and 1 in the missile that hit pentagon. Says that the nuclear underground detonation was ordered because of fear that nukes at top of towers would go off and that would be much more catastrophic than using the built in nuclear demolition option. 1. Reason given that is that atmospheric atomic explosion is more contaminous and destructive than underground detonation. 2. Say if exploded at top would have destroyed Manhattan. ------------- entire New York, not Manhattan. It is half megaton (given that Hiroshima bomb was less than 20 kiloton you can imagine what 500 kiloton is and how much it would destroy). 4. Say FBI says that he is correct about nuclear detonation, but he is incorrect on conclusion of why they brought down towers. 5. Shows news coverage of reporter talking … 3 mins after 2 second explosion…..about how the fire chief of safety – Albert Turi -had told him how many firemen were in the building at the time and of explosions after the impact…..says fire chief thinks first explosion after impact was planted on plane..and second explosion after impact was planted in the building. --------------- what was planted in the plane was “secondary device” as he called it, not ‘explosion’, and the very same kind of “secondary device” was planted in the building, according to Turi. 6. Live news footage from CNN that shows banner headline at 1003am saying “third explosion shatters world trade center in New York” 7. Show CNN banner about Sears Tower in Chicago being evacuated…mentions to notice that Empire State Building was not being evacuated --- side personal note….empire state building was evacuated sometime between 945am and 1005a….I know this personally because I was working in that building on the 13th floor and descended the stairs to the street to 5th avenue and 33rd st. … and we watch the tower fall from that vantage point at roughly 1013am…I don’t know what the point of mentioning that about the Empire State building really….because honestly everyone at that point had evacuated the tall high rise buildings on their own accord if not ordered to do so….I think he is tying in the fact that the sears tower supposedly has the nuclear demolition option as well….thats why they were evacuated. ---------------------- you did not miss the point, but perhaps you have wrongly interpreted it. The Sears Tower was evacuated because of some CENTRALIZED order, transmitted via channels of Civil Defense system. This was an EVENT. Evacuation of the rest of the building was just a gesture of a good will by their respective owners, perhaps after consultation with local security specialists. It can’t be considered as an EVENT in the abovementioned sense. See the difference? 8. At 1013am Breaking CNN news is that the third explosion has collapsed the first tower (but second tower hit) Part 7 1. Says it is not correct to use term nuclear weapon…weapons are designed to kill people this was a nuclear demolition device … but he does say ‘still it was a nuclear device’ 2. He goes on to talk about how the device would have worked….he wrote an article for Wiki on how to demolish using nuclear device….he didn’t mention WTC … but article was still taken down. 3. He goes on to detail about the nuclear process …. www.nuclear-demolition-wikipedia.com 1. Start explanation at 2:43 mark….. 4. Explains difference between atmospheric explosion and underground explosion. Part 8 1. Cont. from atmospheric and underground nuclear explosion explanation of differences. 2. Discusses how much nuclear force needed to destroy amounts of bedrock. 3. Talks about largest allowed was 150 kiloton was maximum allowed under nuclear demolition treaty talked about in earlier part. 4. Talks about how Russians used nuclear underground detonation to form I think he said ‘glass holes’….but could not make out exactly. ------------------------------- gas holders underground. To keep gas under pressure, because volcanic glass coating walls of underground cavity makes it very useful for that purpose. Part 9 1. Cont. to discuss specifics of what would happen to the blast area underground. 2. Goes into talk about blast waves and why there would have been none and why people on the surface would not be injured by the blast. 3. Talks about radioactive gases escaping to surface eventually…and why tests are done in remote places. 4. Talks about how some radioactive particles would be filtered out by the time it reaches surface and says could still get radioactive exposure for two weeks after from an atomic underground blast at 500m underground with a 150 kiloton nuclear device. Says that the epicenter would continue to be radioactive for … deadly radioactive for 3 years. Says the epicenter would stay hot for 1 year with a 150kiloton device. 5. Points out why the underground nuclear explosion is not comparable to Hiroshima. 6. Points out that example given are for typical underground devices for test…. 7. Starts to go into details about specifics of WTC nuclear demolition. 1. Says for WTC would be 50m under the tower foundation…explained in a min later that because of basements of 27m that the device would have been placed 77m from the ground surface. 2. This would make tower lose its foundation and thus melt the steel of the foundation and bring down everything above. Part 10 1. Talks about how we would not hear anything on the surface when it was detonated, but would feel the ground shake. 2. Richter scale measurement chart displayed…..5.5 on scale is a 80 kiloton explosion equivalent 3. Displays quote of Battalion Chief Brian O’Flaherty who says of being in the Marriott Hotel “I hear a noise. Right after that noise, you could feel the building start to shudder, tremble, under your feet” then the tower came down. 4. Shows Clip of tower shaking before the collapse….its the 12 second video that is focused on the damage zone….anyone who know 9/11 truth or otherwise has seen it….camera is on tripod….frames shake for several seconds and 10 seconds later the tower is crumbling. 5. Goes into details of how the damage would have been created by the blast zone expanding.. 1. Damage zone – up to 350 meters from ground surface….says building would be damaged or broken up into smaller pieces. 2. Immediately after that up to 300m from ground and everything in that zone would be turned to microscopic dust. 3. This is explaining why there was little left of the towers the only part that would not have been affected by the blast is the very upper floors, about ? of the towers…everything else was reduced to dust. Part 11 1. Shows a good graphic to explain part 10 of actual damaged tower and what zones would have been turned to what and why the collapse looks like it did because of the way the towers were affected by nuclear device. 2. 2:55 mark discusses why they call it 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) Side note – merrian-webster still defines it this way as definition number one. [link to dictionary.merriam-webster.com] -------------------- however, this one added also a definition No.2 to dilute the clear original meaning. Before the 9/11 it was one single meaning. 3. Shows example of how new dictionaries have changed the definition of the ground zero since 9/11. Uses Logan’s dictionary, I have never heard of them, but it is a real example. ---------------- not Logan, but Longman – it is a very famous dictionary company. About as famous as Webster or Oxford and perhaps more famous than the American Heritage. I am very surprised that you have never heard of it. 4. Talks about how the definitions were changed after ward to talk about bombs and severe damage as to not remind people of its real pre-9/11 meaning. 5. Talks about why the dust would not be radioactive. 8:20 mark. In atmosphere dust would become radioactive but not underground because it’s the pressure of the nuclear device that turned the materials to dust not radiation blast. Part 12 1. Explains how radioactive vapors escaped after the collapse and the vapors that continued after the blast for several weeks was radioactive. 2. Shows pictures of Fireman looking in the hole with the vapors coming out, and that they breathed it in and also had direct contact -------------------- not direct contact by were subjected to direct radiation --------. Says health problems would arise, will talk about that in further parts. 3. Says most of the dust was steel dust, and the rest would be concrete, office materials, wires, and people, but the majority of the towers were steel and that was the major component of the dust. 4. Goes into temperatures….150 kiloton at 500m would take one year to cool, talks about vapors coming out 6-8 weeks later and is still red hot, 3 months later finding molten steel in the debris. 5. Discredits thermite theory. Thermite could not sustain the high temps, and cannot turn steel to dust. 6. Ask why more experts haven’t come out to question commission report. Explanation is that it is physiological. Part 13 1. Talks about why people of knowledge agree to official story, even though they know from education that events could not have happened from plane crashes. 1. The Second ‘truth’ about 9/11 – explanation given to experts who question 9/11 … all the 3 wtc buildings have been demolished by ‘al-queda’using 3 stolen soviet made portable nuclear devices RA-115/Ra-116 (aka ‘mini nukes’) which the ‘al-qaeda’ had planted into the 3 wtc buildings in advance. 2. Show quotes from Spanish article about how 3 mini nukes were used to destroy the wtc towers including tower 7….thus blaming even tower 7 on bin laden, and not from damage from debris from the twin towers. 2. The 9/11 commission was advised to not report this to the people because of fear of public panic over mini nukes. Russia was said to have made 700 suitcase nukes and 100 were missing. The ones that the bin laden supposedly used were gotten from the Ukraine, according to this interview. ----------------- not according to my interview, but according to Spanish “El Mundo” newspaper, article “Mi Hermano Bin Laden, Tragedia, Apocalipsis, New York” of 16 Sept 2001. 3. Says that the US had to use the built in demolition option to bring down the towers because they were given info that the planes carried nukes that would detonate at the top of the towers, and the atmospheric blast would have destroyed Mahattan and surrounding and they really had no choice. Remember from earlier he says the US is a victim in 9/11 but because of public fear of the suitcase nuke they had to cover the real story. Basically. 4. Talking about why firefighters would allow for a cover up. If nukes went off at top of building millions would have been killed. The firefighters, etc had to go with it, and the truth is only top officials would have even know of the nuclear option. 5. Says thousands of people would have to keep secret. 6. Talks about disagreements amongst experts …. Paid experts and non paid. Part 14 1. Talks about materials being shipped out without examination for investigation….partly out of radiation concerns. ----------------------------- not in this sense, but in a sense as to prevent any independent study of the materials that could reveal radioactivity. 2. 1:25 starts to talk about WTC 7 and its collapse and omission from Commission report. 3. Starts explanation of why WTC 7 collapse would look different from the twin towers. 1. Explains blast zone and because 7 was smaller the dust zone reached to the top of WTC 7, so it did not have the top damage zone that the blast would create. 4. Shows BBC live footage were the reporter says he has reports that the Solomon (sp? WTC7) has collapsed….this is not the famous footage of the women with WTC 7 behind her and the feed is lost, this is voice over from the male anchor in studio over live footage of Collapse areas. ---------- yes, this is indeed a different footage than the one with the woman, because the one with the woman would be at 5.07 PM EST, while this one was aired at 4.56 PM EST. By the way – woman also called the WTC-7 as “Salomon Brothers Building” in that famous clip you mentioned. 1. Give report of warning from British foreign office to British citizens that there is a ‘strong risk of further atrocities in NYC.’ 24 mins after this is when the building actually collapsed. ---------------------- side note “atrocity” and “atrocious device” are jargon words in secret services’ jargon that are actually mean “mini-nuclear bombing” (usually reported to plebs as “truck-bombing” or “car-bombing” – like the one in Oklahoma or in Kenya and Tanzania cases), while “atrocious device” usually refers to a “mini-nuke” in the same jargon. It is just for you own reference. Just in case. 5. Says WTC 7 housed the nuclear devices that were used to demolish all three. 1. Tunnels from WTC 7 to 1 and 2 would be how the devices were delivered for detonation. 6. Explains why first collapse was of second hit tower and second collapse was by first hit tower. 1. Shows map of WTC complex…explains that WTC 2 is farther from WTC 7 and if they would have collapsed WTC 1 first then the blast wave for WTC 1 would have destroyed the tunnel over to WTC 2 from building 7. So tower 2 had to come down first, because had tower 1 come down first….tower 2 would probably still be standing today. 2. WTC 7 was destroyed because if it wasn’t then it would have been discovered about the nuclear demolition option for skyscrapers that was put into place decades earlier. The public couldn’t find out about nukes being used for demolition. 7. Concludes that the US is reacting to an attack and in response to that attack does something it needs to cover up (nuclear demolition of skyscraper, with people still in them btw, to save nuclear detonation in skyscraper that would get into the atmosphere and kill millions). Part 15 1. Why cover it up? The American people would not accept that killing 3000 people in order to save millions was acceptable. That could never be revealed to the public, even if it was done to protect millions. -------------------------------------- I did not mean this. In fact, the American public perhaps WOULD accept that it is better to kill the 3000 than to let be killed 6 million, because it is simply reasonable and the American public is not so devoid of any reason as might appear. I meant not this. I meant that the American public would never accept an idea that the nuclear devices did under the Twin Towers in the first instance. Because of bureaucrats from the Department of Buildings and because of stupid clause in the building code? That what I meant. 1. Why then create 2 wars over the cover up? Explanation given by me….Rahm Emmanuel I believe said ‘you can never let a disaster go to waste’ or something to that effect. --------------------- in fact, I explained why the wars should have taken place. In order to distract public attention from nuclear explosion in Manhattan to something else (wars). And I put an example –after the nuclear explosion in Beirut in 1983 (for plebs referred to as a “truck-bombing” of Beirut Marine barracks), the very next day the US Government launched Grenada invasion – just to distract the public attention from the nuclear blast in Beirut towards occupation of Grenada. But that one was a small mini-nuke explosion, so the war was smaller. Here were 3x 150 kiloton explosions, so wars should be bigger in scale – to distract public attention appropriately. That what I meant to say. 2. Says WTC 7 was destroyed because it was the base of operation (and housed the devices) that would deploy the nuke device if it was ever needed, it was destroyed to hide that fact and that fact alone. The fact that Secret Service and many other government buildings were housed there is just a coincidence. 3. Talks about alarm system that should be in place for this nuclear demolition option that should have been deployed that morning was disabled. Mentions a timeline that should take place from when the device are put in place and detonation. 1. Side note…..the above point is not clear on the time line…and an interesting video edit is made right after Dimitri says he thinks that that part of the demolition is a conspiracy…and then edit. ----------------------------------------- there was a special alarm system based on WTC-7 that was designed to produce alarm signals towards the WTC-1 and -2 should the nuclear demolition scheme of the Twins become activated (to my knowledge there should be at least 20 minutes, perhaps even 25 minutes, between the press of the Red Button and till the time of actual nuclear explosion. So, all this time some continuous alarm signal should have been transmitted towards the dangerous areas urging everyone immediately to get out. This system for some not so-clear reason was put in “test mode” very early in the morning of the 9/11 and so all signals produced by it (if any at all) should have been ignored. That is official information. So, when he asked me why would they disable the alarm system, I answered that in my opinion it was some kind of conspiracy. I didn’t’ specify, but I think that Larry Silverstein was a part of the 9/11 gang from the very beginning and it was his order to disable the alarm system. However, I don’t have any proof of it. It is only a suspicion. So, I say it is in my opinion only. 4. Talks of damage to a building behind WTC 7, Fiterman Hall, because of where the nuke device would have been placed because of the shape of WTC7, shows Google search and link that says that this building is being decontaminated. Then another that shows the building was demolished. Shows quotes from article about the building, EPA ‘Fiterman’s got to go’. 5. Explains why post office and Verizon on either side of WTC7 were not damaged…because of placement of device and blast zone. 6. Show where he believes nuke charges would have been placed under WTC 1 and 2 1. Explains why some of the corner structures seemed to have ‘survived’. Part 16 1. Explains why damage would look like it did based on location of device. 2. Explains why the blast wave only affected the structure and didn’t produce and ‘outside’ blast wave. 3. Gives example of another French scientist who gave same equations he did about blast waves, but they differed on why and how….but the calculations were the same for the damage. 1. French scientist says that there was a nuclear reactor under the WTC complex…this is where the two men disagree, Dimitri and the French Scientist. 4. Shows article from 3 Dec. 2001, 12 weeks after, that says Deputy Chief Charles Biaich of New York Fire Department would not predict when the last fire might be extinguished. 1. Says same hotspots were found under WTC 7 5. Talks about the way the fires were extinguished in WTC1 and 2 were the same that had to be used to put out WTC 7 underground fires weeks later, says this proves that all 3 were brought down by the same method. ---------------------- also in the same interview with Blaich it is said that underground fires were not typical and represented a mass of mixed combustible materials as deep as 50 meters. Very important point that you have missed. Also you missed the point that in the same interview it was said that two apparent radioactivity absorbents were mixed into waters of firefighters and used to extinguish ‘underground fires’ under spots of the WTC -1, -2 and… -7. Part 17 1. Starts off with report from Pentagon where reporter is talking about small debris, and the collapse of the wall that happened 45 mins later. ----------------------------- in this interview, in fact, the CNN reporter clearly explains that there was no plane in the Pentagon’s case. Very clear. 2. Goes into Russian missile he says is used for pentagon attack. 1. Says Russian officials new missiles had been stolen but had to cover that up. ------- you perhaps mean “knew”, not ‘new’. 2. Talks about missing submarine, also, im having trouble following this part and how it is all a part of this. I guess it background on where the missiles came from….. 3. Shows article about nuclear powered vessel ‘Kursk’ and test it conducted with firing them. -------------- it seems that you completely missed my point here. What I meant that after salvaging the sunken submarine, the Russian officials made a kind of ‘production’ by claiming that missiles’ silos can not be opened, because it was allegedly too dangerous – just in order to hide the fact that the missiles were no longer in their silos and the silos were empty. Then the Russians proceeded to cutting the silos ‘as is’ from the body of the submarine using welding and then, without opening the empty silos, brought them to some remote location and destroyed them with mini-nukes without opening – so to hide completely the fact that the missiles were stolen. Two Russian newspapers articles (with English translation of both) are provided that confirm this seemingly insane claim. Part 18 1. Talking about the missing Russian missiles, 22 or 24 total, interviewer asking what they are doing with the, he says breaking them down possibly because uranium and plutonium are very valuable, or expensive. -------------------------- the matter of expensive nuclear materials arises because of the question whether it would be reasonable to destroy the missiles and their warheads by ‘mini-nuking’ them, instead of disassembling and finding some other good use of the expensive nuclear materials inside the warheads. It seems you again completely missed the point. 1. Side note….i still am confused about who stole or acquired the Russian missiles, and who actually deployed them against the US. I am following why he thinks its is underground nukes, but after 180 mins or so, I sure be clear on WHO attacked us….if it wasn’t a self inflicted wound, was it the Russians? ---------------------- I didn’t mention it in the interview, but only mentioned that it was not he Americans. But for you personally I can tell who it was. It was the Freemasons in collaboration with the Israeli Mossad. 2. Talking about the missile test from the Kurst was to cover up the fact that 20 some Russian missiles were missing. 22 were missing, 1 was used on the pentagon, and that leaves 20 missing missiles with 500kiloton nuclear warheads on them. They are saying the US gov’t knew this because Russia had told them under the nuclear agreements. ----------------------- no, I have never said that the Russians confessed to the Americans that the missile that stuck the Pentagon was stolen from Kursk. To the best of my knowledge until today the official interpretation of events is still different than my claims. The Russian claim (secretly of course) that these Granit missiles were stolen by some bad Russian guy from Ukrainian warehouse of the Black Sea Fleet and sold to Saddam Hussein. In fact, my claims about Kursk affair are extremely embarrassing for both – the Russians and the Americans, because they knock down the already established version of the ‘truth’. 3. Talking about how he has given all this info to the government and no one has even ask him anything, reason he says is because they already know it all. Says he is prepared to go to court and prove his position about 9/11 and the Views: 316 Replies are closed for this discussion. AboutWelcome to
© 2024 Created by James H. Fetzer.
Powered by
| |
