Dimitri has not convinced me on his nuke theory, but he shows great courage and intelligence here,
and I will be obtaining his book, and will review it after reading it ~ Sha
"It is a well-known fact is that the actual Twin Towers, besides of all, were the first civilian buildings especially designed to withstand impacts of large airliners.
Before their construction only nuclear power plants were routinely designed with the ability to resist the planes.
Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, once stated that, "The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707."6
In this light it would be utterly unreasonable to expect that two “Boeings 767” – which are the same size as the “Boeing 707” – would ever be able to topple the towers in one way or another.
“…The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time.
I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.
It really does nothing to the screen netting …”
Francis (Frank) Albert De Martini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center. January 25, 2001.
Please, note that the author of these lines does not base this book upon any particular conspiracy theory in regard to those planes, and his private opinion is nothing else than his private opinion only.
This book explains WHO organized 9/11 and WHY the Twin Towers actually collapsed – disregarding the fact of whether there were any real planes involved or not.
So, irrespectively of your personal preferences –
Whether you sincerely believe that the two aluminum planes really hit the Twin Towers and managed to penetrate their thick double-walled steel perimeter columns,
Or you prefer to believe WTC on-site construction manager Mr. Frank Albert De Martini and think that the alleged “planes” were either holographic or digital and they existed only in the news footage –
In either case you can read this book further without any fear.
It does not actually deal with the planes matter:
It deals exclusively with technicalities of the WTC collapse and with conspiracy behind their collapse.
Many people, especially from among mainstream so-called 9/11 “truthers” led by Prof. Steven Jones, asked me – why did I touch the no-planes/planes argument whatsoever?
Didn’t I know that this issue is very annoying to the mainstream “9/11 Truth” society, because it allegedly divides the “truthers” over this issue?
Why didn’t I concentrate on mechanics of the actual WTC nuclear demolition, leaving aside the no-planes/planes argument?
To be honest with you I thought for a while about it.
Indeed the mere fact that I placed myself into a “no-planers’” camp might easily scare away from this book a large number of people.
However, I decided to leave here my critics in regard to the government-sponsored “planes theory” and to openly state that:
I do not believe there were any “planes”.
I am not a coward, after all, but a truth-seeker.
Why should I be afraid of the opinion of the crowd if I know it for sure that the crowd is wrong?
Yes, I am well aware that my position on this issue will scare away some people, but I do not care.
I am after the truth, not after satisfaction of morons who believe that aluminum projectiles could penetrate thick WTC steel while simultaneously causing black frames on video footage in the middle of the impact scene.
Moreover, I am certain that if someone believes that aluminum planes would be indeed capable of penetrating the steel WTC perimeters,
Such a person would never believe that the Towers were pulverized by underground nuclear explosions and even the most revealing “ground zero” definition would not help him to realize this obvious fact.
Such a person would rather believe his guru – Prof. Steven Jones – who stubbornly insists that it was physical planes that penetrated the steel columns of the WTC, and
It was so-called “nano-thermite” which allegedly melted the steel columns into fluffy microscopic dust.
Since my video presentation was published on the Internet and was widely discussed I noticed that a lot of people, at last, came to realization that aluminum planes could not penetrate the steel perimeters of the World Trade Center by definition.
And I felt a little bit proud of it now.
Before my video went public, the so-called “no-planers” camp was merely a small group of individuals who were considered “outcasts” by both – so-called “main-stream truthers”, and by so-called “good citizens” who believed the Report of the 9/11 Commission.
But soon after I first voiced an opinion that no aluminum projectile could penetrate steel, irrespectively of its actual speed, I noticed that the “no-planers” camp grew considerably.
Perhaps, it was a well-known psychological phenomenon described in a famous fable of the naked king, whom no one dared to call naked trying hard to convince himself that the king was dressed despite seeing exactly the opposite with his very eyes.
Perhaps, in this case the humble author of these lines played the role of that child who first shouted – “the King is naked!” – thus freeing everyone to express his own opinion.
While before my video appeared the most so-called “no-planers” were routinely ostracized, ridiculed and even banished from various Internet forums and from “truthers’ societies”, it is all changed now.
To openly state that aluminum can not penetrate steel is no longer “politically incorrect” on the Internet forums today and more and more people began to express their opinions openly in this regard. (Snip)
An apparent government shill who performs a full-time job to derail dangerous discussions on the Internet forums (of course, he strongly opposes both – “no planes” and “nuclear demolition” versions) says:
“There's no way it could have been - a fuel loaded plane slamming into each tower at over 500mph - taking out several floors and creating a massive inferno....nah” [meaning – sarcastically - he ridicules any one who might dare to doubt this allegedly “obvious” notion]
A thinking person’s reply:
“Yes, intuitively, a large fast moving aircraft represents a lot of energy, and one would think it reasonable for an aircraft to do a lot of damage to a building on impact.
What do you think would happen - hypothetically - if the aircraft was stationary in the air, and someone picked up one of the enormously massive WTC towers, swung it violently, and hit the aircraft at an impact speed of 500 mph ?
Would it flatten the aircraft do you think, or would the aircraft go clean through the moving building and turn it to dust ?
Have a think about the above hypothetical question, because whether the aircraft was hitting a stationary tower, or the tower hitting a stationary aircraft, the physics of the situation is identical.
The intuitive response to the damage from a 'fast moving aircraft' may not be quite so intuitive.” [It did not convince the shill, as you might expect, but at least, it might convince my reader.]
Why then, one might ask, does Prof. Steven Jones, the leader of the 9/11 Truth movement, so staunchly deny this “no-planes” version – to the extent that he banishes from his ranks all those who might doubt there were physical planes involved?
Does he not know the laws of physics? Or does he sincerely believe the laws of physics took a holiday on 9/11? The answer is obvious.
Prof. Steven Jones is a physicist who knows the physical properties of aluminum and the physical properties of steel very well.
Not to mention that he is a nuclear scientist who apparently knows very well what “ground zero” really means (does any one seriously doubt that an American nuclear scientist is aware what “ground zero” used to mean before 9/11?).
P.S. The meaning of that 'strange' "new" word - ("ground zero" => 'the point on the ground vertically above or beneath the point of an atomic or thermonuclear bomb' - from The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language - Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition 1999, ISBN 1-888777796), page 559.)
However, it does not prevent Prof. Steven Jones and Co. from staunchly denying the “nuclear demolition” version along with the “no-planes” version.
The so-called “main-stream” 9/11 Truth movement was from the very beginning hijacked by impostors who claimed to be “dissidents” allegedly “fighting for the truth”. However, in reality they work hard to help the US Government to continue hiding the 9/11 truth from the public.
For that reason they were appointed to lead those sincere truth seekers who are unhappy with the 9/11 Commission Report to the wrong direction. And this sad fact is self-evident. Do not believe me?
Here is just a recent example expressed by people while discussing my video presentation on one of the Internet forums
Well. Read the paragraph above – regarding the Internet discussion – and try to form your own opinion in regard to alleged penetrating capabilities of an aluminum plane and also try to form your own opinion in regard to the main 9/11 Truth movement leader’s honesty and scientific integrity.
It is very easy, indeed, to understand why the US officials spend so much effort to quash any discontent when it comes to the “no-planes” argument. If the “no-planes” truth is established, then the US officials would have no choice than to arrest all those who filmed the “planes” and many of those who “saw” them.
The next thing the US Government would be obliged to admit that it shot down at least two passenger planes – Flights 93 and 77. And then it would have no explanation whatsoever why it actually demolished the Twin Towers.
The “planes” theory is indeed a corner stone in the US Government’s defense against public accusations. Therefore you could sincerely expect it to defend this till the end. It is a very serious point, indeed.
Since my work in any case is an open challenge to Prof. Jones’ so-called “nano-thermite” demolition theory I can’t afford disregarding the “planes theory” even though it is not the primary point of the book.
These theories are too intertwined to allow to challenge one and to leave intact another."
(Snip) . . . . . .
Extract from Dimitri Khalezov's 911-truth book.