9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

[DMac]

Probably posted another time, but I found myself watching it again recently. Excellent job to the engineer who did this experiment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

[Serpo]

Very good clip to further our understanding on the thermate subject.

[Hatha Sunahara]

What ever happened to Occam's razor? That bit of wisdom that says the simplest explanation is usually the best? I have to come to terms with the practical problems of using thermite/thermate to cause a freefall demolition of such huge buidings. If you got it perfect, you would likely have to use tons of thermite and detonate it all with millisecond precision, and there would be no room for failure. So, thermite/thermate seems to be a non-starter for me as the cause of the demolition of the buildings. How could it have been installed without anyone noticing?

I have no problem with thermite being used to a limited extent to produce the 'holes' through which the 'planes' had disappeared into the buildings. However, I need a much better explanation for how the two huge towers were turned int micron sized dust particles in 7 seconds. I have no idea how much steel was in each building, but I could safely assume it was more than one half a million tons--500,000. How much thermite would it take to turn it all into powder if it could be done? And wouldn't the fireworks have been something quite spectacular? The thermite/thermate theory raises many more questions than it answers. It is not the simple explanation.

I'm more inclined to believe that the demolition of the three WTC towers was done with nuclear devices planted underneath each building in a way where the shock wave of the blasts was directed straight up. This would have pulverized everything up to the 80th floor, and pulled the rest of the building above that into small pieces, which explains why there was so much paper on the street after the demolition--the paper and all other identifiable debris was from above the 80th floor. Also, it would explain why the whole WTC7 turned into dust, and why parts of the Fiterman building across the street from WTC7 was also partially pulverized up to the 20th floor or so. It would also explain the intense heat that kept metal in the basement molten for weeks after the event. Nuclear bombs also explains the big explosions seconds before the collapse of each building. Nuclear bombs, to me meets the Occam's razor test. Thermite/thermate doesn't even come close.


Hatha

[Joe King]

This would have pulverized everything up to the 80th floor, and pulled the rest of the building above that into small pieces

But it "pulverized" from the top down, not from the bottom up.

If a nuculear blast shockwave traveled up through the building, why wouldn't the destruction have started from the bottom? Do you think the sides of the buildings were strong enough to contain the blast all the way up to the 80th floor where it suddenly burst through the outer walls of the buildings?



Probably posted another time, Yea, I posted this a while back in the 9/11 forum. Thanks for posting it again.

[Serpo]

Personally I believe they threw everything at these buildings and nothing can be ruled out.

[Hatha Sunahara]

But it "pulverized" from the top down, not from the bottom up.

If a nuculear blast shockwave traveled up through the building, why wouldn't the destruction have started from the bottom? Do you think the sides of the buildings were strong enough to contain the blast all the way up to the 80th floor where it suddenly burst through the outer walls of the buildings?


Yea, I posted this a while back in the 9/11 forum. Thanks for posting it again.

When a building starts to fall at freefall speed, the bottom is pulverizing at the same time as the top. The visible pulverization just happened to emerge from the top first. What was happening at the bottom was obscured by a cloud of dust.

You're all over my posts on this like an albatross Joe King. I don't hear better explanations from you--just a determination to discredit what I write about it. What's up with that? What kind of agenda are you following here?


Hatha

[Neuro]

Hatha, a couple of inches of 'fire-proof' coating (in the form of thermate) applied on the initial collapsing floors (about 10 in each building) would set the collapse in motion, once you have the momentum of the top part of the building falling at free fall speed for a couple of seconds (thousands of tons), it is mechanically impossible for the bottom floors not to start disintegrating...

'Fire proofing', was selectively applied to the initial collapse floors, in 1999, at least double the required thickness. Getting it to detonate at the same time is not that difficult, you just have a switch and connect the electric triggered detonators parallell... Who inserted and connected the detonators? Israeli 'art students' who happened to live in the towers weeks prior maybe?

Interestingly normally fire proofing contains iron oxide and aluminum oxide, you just need to exchange the aluminum oxide to aluminum, and you have thermite, have it ground to a powder with particles in the nanoscale, and you have nano thermite. The grunts who sprayed it on the supporting columns, didn't have a clue as to what they were doing...

[Joe King]

When a building starts to fall at freefall speed, the bottom is pulverizing at the same time as the top. The visible pulverization just happened to emerge from the top first. What was happening at the bottom was obscured by a cloud of dust.I guess what I was asking is how did the outside walls contain any blast as it traveled upwards through the building to emerge as seen in the videos of the collapse?



You're all over my posts on this like an albatross Joe King. I don't hear better explanations from you--just a determination to discredit what I write about it. What's up with that? What kind of agenda are you following here?What's up with it is that I'm curious how you continue to be absolutely convinced that a nuculear explosion{s} is the only way those buildings could have been brought down, while completely disregarding any more plausable explinations as to how it all happened.

I don't believe the 9/11 commission anymore than you do, but I think it's important to not go off on a tangent when trying to theorize what did happen that day.

As it stands now, there are so many theories that any "truth" movement will just get bogged down in the "what ifs" of that day.
ie we should stick to what's provable as opposed to wild theories that make people tune it out.

[Serpo]

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_154.htm

Have you seen the videos with Dimitri Khalezov JK

[Joe King]

Yea, took a look and saw this....
And here we have Dimitri Khalezov of Russia revealing that it is standard policy in the United States to use such a device when constructing very large buildings.)


That's just plain crazy talk, right there.

Nukes are not planted under every large building in America as a design measure to allow for future demolition. I really hope you don't believe that just because it's in black and white on some web site. ::)


What I see on that site you posted is the words of a dis-info agent who's attempting to lead people astray.

Edited to add: If you want to know how those buildings came down, try starting with how an actual demolition company might do it.

[Neuro]

Here is a diagram describing where the planes hit, where the initial collapse occurred, and where the 'fire-proofing' was applied (at 2-4 times required thickness):
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HDENzwRwj1s/SltkHkcnTvI/AAAAAAAAAEQ/1ex_rvDdKH4/s400/TowersFireproof-sm.jpg

[Serpo]

Yea, took a look and saw this....

That's just plain crazy talk, right there.

Nukes are not planted under every large building in America as a design measure to allow for future demolition. I really hope you don't believe that just because it's in black and white on some web site. ::)


What I see on that site you posted is the words of a dis-info agent who's attempting to lead people astray.

Edited to add: If you want to know how those buildings came down, try starting with how an actual demolition company might do it.


So in other words you havnt seen them...........

I have an open mind on the subject and the 26 videos posted on that web site need to be watched even if you dont believe in them,as you need to know this side of the argument.

Otherwise you will be shooting blanks.

[Hatha Sunahara]

What I see on that site you posted is the words of a dis-info agent who's attempting to lead people astray.


And you're trying to lead them back to the flock? That's really important, isn't it?

Hatha

[Joe King]

Didn't watch all 26 videos, but I did watch part 8 of 26 and he says that it was 150KT devices which brought down both buildings. He also said that they vaporized an area of a minimum 100meter diameter and damaged the rock to at least double that size.

I don't see how it's possible to have two nukes that close together and not have the first one set off, or at least interfer with the second device that supposedly went off later to bring down the 2nd tower.
The buildings themselves were only about 200' square and the two towers weren't much more than 100meters apart center to center, if even that much.
So when the first one went off it would have damaged the rock the second one was supposedly embedded in and would therefore distort it's explosive pattern.

Also, if WTC7 was brought down in the same manner, what about WTC6 that stood between WTC1&7? Why didn't it come down too? After all, it supposedly had 300KT's of nukes detonated 100' under it's foundation, right?

Sorry, but the nuculear theory is just that, a theory.
....and one designed to throw otherwise good people off the track.

[willie pete]

the first time I heard the "nuclear bomb" hypothesis, I thought it was a Joke....:D .....then I found out the guy was serious....I think it's ridiculous to even think you could detonate a 150 Kt nuclear bomb under each WTC bldgs....::) ......150 Kt? ....that's 10 TIMES what was dropped on Japan in WW2 :o, and event of that magnitude going off would've registered all over the place....lol ......and the underground shockwave would've leveled more than just the WTC bldgs.....::)

[Dogman]

the first time I heard the "nuclear bomb" hypothesis, I thought it was a Joke....:D .....then I found out the guy was serious....I think it's ridiculous to even think you could detonate a 150 Kt nuclear bomb under each WTC bldgs....::) ......150 Kt? ....that's 10 TIMES what was dropped on Japan in WW2 :o, and event of that magnitude going off would've registered all over the place....lol ......and the underground shockwave would've leveled more than just the WTC bldgs.....::)Agreed, a big part of downtown would have been toast.

Edit: Here is what an 8 kt blast looks like, sure it is underwater but still the same it is frigging big.

[
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZc23tO8nUE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZc23tO8nUE
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBAPoV884BU&feature=player_embedded)

[madfranks]

I'm more inclined to believe that the demolition of the three WTC towers was done with nuclear devices planted underneath each building in a way where the shock wave of the blasts was directed straight up.
Hatha

What is the method by which nuclear explosions can be directed in one direction without hitting anything else adjacent to it?

[madfranks]

thermite/thermate seems to be a non-starter for me as the cause of the demolition of the buildings. How could it have been installed without anyone noticing?

Don't forget that immediately prior to 9/11 the twin towers were undergoing the "largest vertical transportation maintenance in history". The workers could have been given any number of spray applied finishes (fireproofing being the clearest example) and were told to apply it to various key structural columns/beams and they would have never known if it was thermite they were applying.


Hatha, a couple of inches of 'fire-proof' coating (in the form of thermate) applied on the initial collapsing floors (about 10 in each building) would set the collapse in motion, once you have the momentum of the top part of the building falling at free fall speed for a couple of seconds (thousands of tons), it is mechanically impossible for the bottom floors not to start disintegrating...

^^^ I agree with this.

[Serpo]

What is the method by which nuclear explosions can be directed in one direction without hitting anything else adjacent to it?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_154_10.htm

[Serpo]

Didn't watch all 26 videos, but I did watch part 8 of 26 and he says that it was 150KT devices which brought down both buildings. He also said that they vaporized an area of a minimum 100meter diameter and damaged the rock to at least double that size.

I don't see how it's possible to have two nukes that close together and not have the first one set off, or at least interfer with the second device that supposedly went off later to bring down the 2nd tower.
The buildings themselves were only about 200' square and the two towers weren't much more than 100meters apart center to center, if even that much.
So when the first one went off it would have damaged the rock the second one was supposedly embedded in and would therefore distort it's explosive pattern.

Also, if WTC7 was brought down in the same manner, what about WTC6 that stood between WTC1&7? Why didn't it come down too? After all, it supposedly had 300KT's of nukes detonated 100' under it's foundation, right?

Sorry, but the nuculear theory is just that, a theory.
....and one designed to throw otherwise good people off the track.

So you cant be bothered to watch the other VIDs which answer these question.

Getting snippets of info and jumping to conclusions means you are not that interested really.

[Serpo]

Agreed, a big part of downtown would have been toast.

Edit: Here is what an 8 kt blast looks like, sure it is underwater but still the same it is frigging big.

[
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZc23tO8nUE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZc23tO8nUE
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBAPoV884BU&feature=player_embedded)


This is above ground blast........

[Hatha Sunahara]

What is the method by which nuclear explosions can be directed in one direction without hitting anything else adjacent to it?

If you watch the Khalezov videos, he explains it. The point where the bomb explodes he calls 'zero-box'. The energy of the explosion is calculated to create a cavity 100 meters across in the granite bedrock under the buildings. So, they place zero box 50 meters below the lowest floor of the WTC buildings, which is 27 meters below street level. Zero box is 77 meters below street level under each tower. When it explodes, the top of the cavity is directly below the tall steel building, and since the explosion wants to go in the path of least resistance, it goes straight up--through the building. The shock wave travels up the building, pulverizing it up to the 80th floor, and shaking the rest of the building into larger pieces. The whole building is demolished instantaneously, most of it coming down as powder, and the rest easily removed, pieces of scorched steel. My vision of it is a gigantic exploding pustule under the buildings. How else do you account for an anomalous absence of solid debris? Most of the debris was swept up as dust. Khalezov does a much better job explaining than I am doing.

I think the problem with the nuclear demolition theory is that you have to overcome a strong belief that people in authority would not explode nuclear bombs in densely populated cities. Nor would they allow anyone to do so. People believe that authority protects them. So the authorities wouldn't do anything like that, and anybody who thinks that they would is crazy. That's a really tough belief to hold up to the chopping block. Authority is the 911 issue. Do you trust authority? Or are you suspicious of authority. It's a big deal to switch views. Anyway, in order to believe some of the theories proposed, you have to have a distrust of authority, or at least to lack an 'idealized' view of them--and understand that the people in power do not serve you. It's not such a big leap from this awareness to the idea that they could plant nuclear bombs under big buildings, and blow them up with a good deal of the NY Fire Department inside. Plus a hell of a lot of other people. You have to be really paranoid to believe anyone could do that, right? So you let them off the hook, and you believe the arab hijacker story. And you dismiss science and common sense and logic and reason because you know which side your bread is buttered on. So, if you don't want to believe they would cover up a nuclear demolition with a fairy tale--you'r about half way there to believing that they would actually blow three nukes in a single day--for the insurance money, and all the other 'benefits'.


Hatha

[Serpo]

And all that was left was DUST

[Joe King]

and since the explosion wants to go in the path of least resistance, it goes straight up--through the building.
So in other words the building itself channeled the blast upwards through the building as though it were a chimney, right?

If so, how does the outside skin of the building contain the visible evidence of that until we see it spill out at the 80th floor? Do you really think the outside frame of the buildings {aluminum} was stronger than 80 concrete floors?

If the force to destroy the building came from below, it would have collapsed from the bottom up....but it didn't.

Also, in the last video posted, your guy is saying it was only burried 77meters deep.
If a 150KT device went off 55meters under the WTC tower and all it's force was somehow directed upwards towards the building, it would more than likely lift the whole building up out of the ground.

Besides, I still contend that even if something like that were possible, the first blast would have disrupted enough ground to change the 2nd blasts "path of least resistence".
Remember, the buildings were close together. Your guy said 100meters of vaporized rock and another 100meters of crushed/damaged rock.
By his own words, the second bomb would be in the first bombs "damaged rock" zone.
Not to mention that the bathtub structure would have been completely pulverized, but it wasn't.

Sorry, but that guy is a dis-info agent if there ever was one.

[Serpo]

oNLY 25 vidS TO GO jk

[Joe King]

I'd rather not waste my time. Everything I've heard so far just furthers my opinion that the guy is a dis-info agent set to mislead as many people as he can.
ie he's muddying the waters.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I'd rather not waste my time. Everything I've heard so far just furthers my opinion that the guy is a dis-info agent set to mislead as many people as he can.
ie he's muddying the waters.


The entire pulverization of the building took a few milliseconds--about in the blink of an eye. After that, everything we saw was the sequence of the collapse. You could see the limit of the upward pointing 'crush zone' which pulverized everything. Above it, the building was in tact--the whole top appeared to fall into a cloud of dust. At that point, everything below it was dust--unable to support itself so it all rained down into the street. I haven't seen a better explanation of the destruction than Khalezov's. It even explains the cancer deaths in the clean up crews.

911 is the biggest swindle in human history. Nobody wants to admit they've been swindled. The official story gives us all a way out of this dilemma. I can just see future generations reading about the 911 Fairy Tale, only they'll call it something else. It'll replace the story about the Emperor's New Clothes as a warning against conformity and obedience. Only it will have a tragic ending.

Hatha

[joboo]

I remember reading somewhere that an architectural digest said they conducted the largest and most extensive elevator upgrade in all known history just prior to.

Something like a year in duration. Totally unprecedented upgrade.

I also read the elevator shafts allow access to inbetween all the floors to all the structural supports throughout the entire building.

[Joe King]

Hatha, please don't confuse not believing in atomic demolition as buying into the "official" report.
...and you still haven't explained how the outside face of the towers would be able to contain the force of the blast all the way up through the building.

If it were an atomic blast, the energy released would have burst out of the building at ground level....but it didn't do that. Rather, he's trying to say that the force of the blast traveled upward through 80 concrete floors which was somehow easier than bursting through the aluminum outer facade of the building.

[joboo]

Something like 8 stories, or just over 100 feet of 7 disappeared into thin air, as there was pure free fall observed.

If it's falling at the full acceleration of gravity, there's no energy available to do anything else but that.

Picture a football field 100 feet high made of reinforced steel I beams just vanishing. All that material instantaneously vaporized into literally thin air.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXZnvn7O2NY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXZnvn7O2NY)

[Hatha Sunahara]

Hatha, please don't confuse not believing in atomic demolition as buying into the "official" report.
...and you still haven't explained how the outside face of the towers would be able to contain the force of the blast all the way up through the building.

If it were an atomic blast, the energy released would have burst out of the building at ground level....but it didn't do that. Rather, he's trying to say that the force of the blast traveled upward through 80 concrete floors which was somehow easier than bursting through the aluminum outer facade of the building.

I would suggest you watch Khalezov's videos. He explains it quite well. But of course, you don't want to waste your time. Likewise, I don't want to waste my time.

Hatha

[Joe King]

Hatha, can you at least tell me which of the 26 videos explain how a 150KT atomic blast coming out of the ground from a depth of 55meters {not even a football field away, btw} would not have blown the bottom of the building out first, as opposed to any type of chimney effect where the force was contained and directed up through the building?
...and please don't just keep saying that I have to watch hours of video just to get answers to a few questions.

I already know that the outer skin of those buildings could not withstand those types of forces.
...but the WTC picture you posted that looks similar to an underground blast shows the "blast" bursting out of the sides of the tower at the 80th floor. Why could it burst out there and not the floors below?


After all, you are the one who keeps bringing up this theory and you also seem to be very convinced that it is absolute fact, so I assumed you understood it well enough to talk about it.
The way I see it, if a theory can't withstand a bit of scrutiny, it probably isn't valid.

So please keep in mind that I'm merely asking you to defend your extraordinary theory that you imply is rock-solid.
As Gaillo once posted, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

[woodman]

I don't have the time to watch videos. I have not watched any of the videos pertaining to nuclear demolition. I don't believe the governments ridiculous story. I don't believe they were brought down by nukes either. The one thing a nuclear blast creates is heat, so much heat that it would have carried the dust far higher and wider than what we see when we watch the videos of the towers falling.

A nuclear blast would have to be perfectly sized to accomplish the demolition without a telltale signature of expanding thermal forces. The concussion itself as earlier stated would have resulting damage to surrounding buildings foundations.

I wonder what Danny Jowenko would have to say about it. We'll never know, since he is dead.

[Santa]

The original video that DMac posted is excellent and shows that critical columns probably were cut by nano thermate or whatever it's called, in the demolitions.
A very important and critical step in understanding how they pulled it off, in my opinion.

[undgrd]

The original video that DMac posted is excellent and shows that critical columns probably were cut by nano thermate or whatever it's called, in the demolitions.
A very important and critical step in understanding how they pulled it off, in my opinion.

I agree. The final conclusion made seems very plausible and probable based on the maintenance recorded during the year prior.

[JDRock]

OR....we are dealing with area 51 type technology of which we the people have no clue. One thing only is CERTAIN; it WASNT jet fuel.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Hatha, can you at least tell me which of the 26 videos explain how a 150KT atomic blast coming out of the ground from a depth of 55meters {not even a football field away, btw} would not have blown the bottom of the building out first, as opposed to any type of chimney effect where the force was contained and directed up through the building?
...and please don't just keep saying that I have to watch hours of video just to get answers to a few questions.

I already know that the outer skin of those buildings could not withstand those types of forces.
...but the WTC picture you posted that looks similar to an underground blast shows the "blast" bursting out of the sides of the tower at the 80th floor. Why could it burst out there and not the floors below?


After all, you are the one who keeps bringing up this theory and you also seem to be very convinced that it is absolute fact, so I assumed you understood it well enough to talk about it.
The way I see it, if a theory can't withstand a bit of scrutiny, it probably isn't valid.

So please keep in mind that I'm merely asking you to defend your extraordinary theory that you imply is rock-solid.
As Gaillo once posted, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.


Watch these 3 10 minute segments:


http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/45005/Dimitri_Khalezov___WTC_Nuclear_Demolition_9_26/
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/45006/Dimitri_Khalezov___WTC_Nuclear_Demolition_10_26/
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/45007/Dimitri_Khalezov___WTC_Nuclear_Demolition_11_26/

In prior segments he explains the difference between an air burst (Hiroshima) and an underground burst.

This is NOT my theory. It's Khalezov's. If you have any interest in it, watch all the videos--don't ask me questions you can get the answers to yourself. Or read his book--The Third Truth, which you can download for free.

Hatha

[Neuro]

Hatha you promote these theories, you should also be able to defend them!

[Hatha Sunahara]

Hatha you promote these theories, you should also be able to defend them!

I also believe in the Quantum Theory of Physics. Nobody asks me to defend that. I believe it because it makes sense to me. Same thing for Khalezov's nuclear demolition theory. Defending these theories is one thing. Getting people to overcome bias against them created by the perpetrators of 911 is something I cannot do, nor will I try to do it. Did you notice some of the arguments here--"I'm not going to waste my time watching these videos?" What good does it do to defend something people have already dismissed? If there is something you don't want to learn, nobody can teach you.

Hatha

[mick silver]

When a building starts to fall at freefall speed, the bottom is pulverizing at the same time as the top. The visible pulverization just happened to emerge from the top first. What was happening at the bottom was obscured by a cloud of dust.

You're all over my posts on this like an albatross Joe King. I don't hear better explanations from you--just a determination to discredit what I write about it. What's up with that? What kind of agenda are you following here?


Hatha

thats what got me as how fast the bottom of the building fall

[Hatha Sunahara]

thats what got me as how fast the bottom of the building fall

The entire building below the 80th floor turned to powder in the blink of an eye--just immediately before it started to fall. What we saw as the building falling apart at around the 80th floor was the boundary between the 'crush zone' and the 'damage zone'. Larger pieces of debris above being pushed out by the weight of the undamaged building above it and being turned into dust before our eyes, all of it falling down as the dust below had no structural integrity. Where did all the steel go? It turned into dust, as did the concrete, aluminum, people and everything else inside the crush zone. The aluminum facing on the building held nothing together because it turned into dust the instant everything else did.

Maybe the next time we all see a nuclear demolition, we might recognize what it is.


Hatha

[Joe King]

I also believe in the Quantum Theory of Physics. Nobody asks me to defend that. I believe it because it makes sense to me. Same thing for Khalezov's nuclear demolition theory. Defending these theories is one thing. Getting people to overcome bias against them created by the perpetrators of 911 is something I cannot do, nor will I try to do it. Did you notice some of the arguments here--"I'm not going to waste my time watching these videos?" What good does it do to defend something people have already dismissed? If there is something you don't want to learn, nobody can teach you.

HathaThe only reason anyone seemingly dismisses that theory is because they realize that it really couldn't possibly be so. At least not within the dimensions he puts forth, anyways.
ie most people just have a very hard time seeing how 3, 150KT nukes could go off in one day at a depth of less than one football field and over an area approx 350meters long by 150meters wide, and no one can tell for sure that it happened.

However, just to be fair, I'll watch the 3 vids you posted. Ok?
...and based on what I know about you from your postings you seem like a nice enough guy, so I hope you don't think that anything I've posted in response to yours on this subject is any type of an attack on you. I was just wanting to discuss the theory with you, that's all. You promote it alot, so I figured you "knew the theory", so to speak.

[Neuro]

I also believe in the Quantum Theory of Physics. Nobody asks me to defend that. I believe it because it makes sense to me. Same thing for Khalezov's nuclear demolition theory. Defending these theories is one thing. Getting people to overcome bias against them created by the perpetrators of 911 is something I cannot do, nor will I try to do it. Did you notice some of the arguments here--"I'm not going to waste my time watching thevideos?" What good does it do to defend something people have already dismissed? If there is something you don't want to learn, nobody can teach you.

Hatha

Hatha, those who said they were not going to watch the videos, also gave reasons for that decidioms. IMO those reasons are valid. I personally have read the reasons as to how the buildings may have been demolated by nuclears years ago. It didn't pass occams razor then for me, and it doesnt do it now either. The buildings first started collapse where the planes collided, and I don't think that the government NIST report gives a sufficient explanation either. The planes where radiocontrolled into where the thermite had been sprayed on as firecoating a year or so earlier. The firecoating nano thermite was later ignited and the buildings collapsed. An that was it!

[Hatha Sunahara]

Hatha, those who said they were not going to watch the videos, also gave reasons for that decidioms. IMO those reasons are valid. I personally have read the reasons as to how the buildings may have been demolated by nuclears years ago. It didn't pass occams razor then for me, and it doesnt do it now either. The buildings first started collapse where the planes collided, and I don't think that the government NIST report gives a sufficient explanation either. The planes where radiocontrolled into where the thermite had been sprayed on as firecoating a year or so earlier. The firecoating nano thermite was later ignited and the buildings collapsed. An that was it!

I have made myself familiar with the thermite/thermate theories. I can only visualize this kind of destruction by imagining that each building burned like a giant spectacular sparkler from the top to the bottom. It would have happened at the speed of freefall- or about 10 seconds or less. I didn't see enough fireworks to account for the almost complete dustification of the buildings. Otherwise, I can't imagine how they would have detonated all the thermite so perfectly to cause the building to come down at freefall speed without a number of failures to slow down the collapse. Also, the thermite doesn't account for heat that kept steel in the basement molten for weeks after the event. And what about the explosions in the bottom of the buildings just before the collapse? Were those thermite bombs? Does thermite explode? Or does it just burn real hot and fizzle out? Occam's razor eludes me on this one.


Hatha

[Large Sarge]

look nanothermite was found at the site..

if they are using nukes, why would they even bother with nanothermite?

plus you remember the heat signatures of the rubble, it lasted for weeks...

firefighters describing "molten steel flowing down there, it was like a foundry"

that is the thermite reaction,

the stuff they were using was "nanothermite" (military grade), it has completely different (superior) properties than normal thermite.

remember the reports from workers at WTC "gray dust was blowing out of the a/c vents days before 9/11"

all I have seen conclusively is nanothermite

which due to its nano nature would act as an explosive and thermite

[undgrd]

I have watched through to video 15. The theory sounds plausible but...this guy has little to no evidence. His claim to a 150kT yield is based on the max allowable by treaty. Getting under the debris to see if there is a volcanic glass chamber would go a long way to supporting his claim.

He contridicts himself with the placement of these nuclear devices. He shows the placement off center of buildings 1 and 2. So much so it would have impacted the buildings surrounding WTC 1 and 2. He claims this is why the building behind WTC 7 had to be brought down...would the same not apply to the buildings surrounding WTC 1 and 2?

You mean to tell me this blast was so PERFECTLY placed as to use the EXACT total yield to turning the building to dust, but not impact anything around it? All this with no advanced warning and MINUTES to transport the nuclear device from WTC 7 to 1 and 2??

Does he ever get around to telling you HOW he knows all this? I need more than "I worked for a Russian nuclear agency".

[Neuro]

Hatha one of the differences with nano thermite and ordinary thermite is that it burns so quickly it is explosive... If it was applied on the trusses in the center of the building, only, I don't think the burning of the nanothermite necessarily would be visible from the outside. IMO it was necessary to apply hundreds of tons of nano-thermite on the trusses, and the only reasonable approach to keep that a secret, was to make the workers believe they applied fireproofing. I would be interested to know who gave the orders to apply 2-4 times the required amount though. Interestingly the company responsible for the application of 'fireproofing' was Turner construction company, who also did the cleanup and shipping off to China, at ground zero, and built the new WTC7. Further the company also is an expert in demolitions...

Tom Leppert then CEO of Turner Construction, later became the Dallas Mayor. He started his carreer working under Obamas grandmother in a Hawaii bank...

[Serpo]

And they call it GROUND ZERO

Part 3. How does a modern nuclear demolition work?





.
.
.
.
.





First of all, such a modern nuclear demolition has nothing to do with the former atomic demolition using SADM or MADM as described above. It is an entirely new concept. During modern nuclear demolition process, a demolition charge does not produce any atmospheric nuclear explosion - with its trade-mark atomic mushroom cloud, a thermal radiation and an air-blast wave. It explodes quite deep underground - much in the same sense as any nuclear charge explodes during a typical nuclear test. So, it does produce neither any air-blast wave, nor any thermal radiation, nor any penetrating radiation, nor any electro-magnetic pulse. It could cause only relatively minor harm to surroundings by an ensuing radioactive contamination, which, nonetheless, considered being a negligible factor by designers of such demolition schemes.

What is a basic difference between an atmospheric and an underground nuclear explosion? The basic difference is this. During an initial stage of a nuclear (as well as a thermo-nuclear) explosion, its entire explosive energy is being released in a form of a so-called "primary radiation" that in its main part (almost 99%) falls within X-rays spectrum (and remaining part is represented by gamma-rays spectrum that causes radiation injuries and visible spectrum that produces visible flash). So, this almost entire explosive energy represented by X-rays would be spent on heating of surrounding air at tens of meters around a hypocenter of such an explosion. It happens because X-rays can not travel too far, being consumed by surrounding air. Heating of this relatively small area around the nuclear explosion hypocenter would result in appearance of so-called "nuclear fireballs" that physically is nothing else than an extremely overheated air. These nuclear fireballs are responsible for the two main destructive factors of an atmospheric nuclear explosion - its thermal radiation and its air-blast wave, since both factors result exclusively from high temperatures of the air around a nuclear explosion. When it comes to an underground nuclear explosion, the picture is entirely different. There is no air around a small "zero-box" a nuclear charge is placed into, so an entire amount of energy instantly released by a nuclear explosion in a form of X-rays would be spent on heating of surrounding rock, instead. It would result in overheating, melting and evaporating of this rock. Disappearance of the evaporated rock would result in creation of an underground cavity, size of which directly depends on explosive yield of nuclear munitions used. You can have an idea on how much rock could disappear during an underground nuclear explosion from the below table - where quantities of evaporated and melted materials of various kinds (in metric tons) are shown on "per kiloton of yield" basis:





Rock type Specific mass of vaporized material
(in tons per kiloton yield)
Specific mass of the melted
material (in tons per kiloton yield) Dry granite 69 300 (±100) Moist tuff (18-20% of water) 72 500 (± 150) Dry tuff 73 200 - 300 Alluvium 107 650 (±50) Rock salt 150 800



Just as an example: detonation of a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge buried sufficiently deep in granite rock would result in creation of a cavity measuring roughly 100 meters in diameter - such as the one shown in this picture:





http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/images/WTC_nuclear_demolition_idea.jpg


http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/images/underground_nuclear_explosion_cavity.jpg



All skyscrapers have their lowest foundations lying 20-30 meters beneath the Earth surface. So, it is possible to calculate a position of a "zero-box" under such a skyscraper in such a way that a nuclear explosion would produce a cavity upper end of which would not reach the Earth surface, but would reach only the lowest underground foundation of a skyscraper it intends to demolish.


For example, in particular cases of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, their lowest underground foundations were 27 meters beneath the surface. While the 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear demolition charges were positioned as depths of 77 meters (measuring from the surface), or 50 meters below their underground foundations. Such a thermo-nuclear explosion at a depth of 77 m would create an extremely overheated cavity with its upper sphere touching the lowest underground foundations of the Twin Tower it intends to demolish. But it would still be short of reaching the Earth surface by 27 meters - so surrounding structures would not to be affected by any destructive factors of this underground nuclear explosion (except by, possibly, only its radioactive contamination). The Tower that is to be demolished supposes to lose its foundations completely, and to be sucked-in into this overheated cavity, temperatures inside of which are deemed enough to melt the entire Tower. Nuclear demolition schemes of the WTC building # 7 and that of the Sears Tower in Chicago were calculated in the same way.




However, there is one more factor that is to be taken into consideration during calculation of nuclear demolition projects of skyscrapers. This is about the actual evaporated granite rock inside the cavity. Where all that former granite rock now in gaseous state supposes to go from the cavity? In fact, a picture of the physical events after an underground nuclear explosion is quite interesting. Let's consider it.




http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/images/underground_nuclear_blast_physical_processes.jpg



This pictorial rendition schematically represents all important physical processes during an ideally deep (means occurred sufficiently far from the Earth surface) underground nuclear explosion. So, now it should become clear that an extreme pressure of the evaporated rock inside the cavity makes at least two important jobs: 1) it expands the actual cavity from its "primary" size to its "secondary" size; and 2) because it does this expansion at the expense of the neighboring areas of the rock, it produces two damaged zones around itself, each representing a different degree of damage. A zone immediately adjacent to the cavity in nuclear jargon is called a "crushed zone". This zone could be as thick as a diameter of the cavity itself and it is filled with a very strange matter. Its filling is rock that is completely pulverized. It is reduced into a fine microscopic dust, an approximate particle of which is about 100 micron in size. Moreover, this particular state of material within this "crushed zone" is a very strange state - except after an underground nuclear tests it does not occurs anywhere else in nature. If you pick up a stone from this zone, but do so very gently, it might still stick together and still resemble a stone by its form and its color. However, it you only slightly press this "stone" with your fingers it will immediately crush into that complete microscopic dust it actually consists of. A second zone - next to the "crushed zone" is called a "damaged zone" in professional nuclear jargon. This "damaged zone" is filled with rock crushed to various pieces - from very small (millimeters in size), to some relatively big fragments. As closer to a border of the "crushed zone", as smaller will be such debris, and as farther from hypocenter - as larger will be such debris. Finally, outside of the "damaged zone" border, there would be virtually no damage inflicted to surrounding rock.

However, we have considered above the physical processes which are true to an "ideally deep" underground nuclear blast. When a nuclear charge is buried not sufficiently deep, a picture will be slightly different. "Damaged" and "crushed" zones will not be exactly round in the latter case. They would be rather elliptic - with their longer ends directed upwards - comparable with an egg facing upwards with its sharper end, or possibly even more ellipsoidal and sharper upwards than a typical egg. It happens because the pressure of the evaporated gases would encounter the least resistance towards the Earth surface (since it is too near), so either "crushed zone" or "damaged zone" would extend upwards farther than to any other direction. But when propagating upwards upper boundaries of the "damaged zone" and "crushed zone" encounter underground foundations of the Tower which is to be demolished, the picture would be even more different. It is because materials the Tower is built of differ from surrounding granite rock in a sense of resistance of materials. Besides, there is a lot of empty space inside the Tower, while the remaining granite rock towards the rest of directions (to either sides and downwards) is solid. So, expansion of the upper boundaries of "damaged" and "crushed" zones by the Tower's structure will be the farthest. In case of the WTC Twin Towers or the Sears Tower the "damaged zone" could likely reach up to 350-370 meters, while "crushed zone" that follows immediately, would likely reach up to 290-310 meters. But in case of the much shorter WTC-7 its entire length will be within the "crushed zone" - so it would be pulverized completely. This ability of nuclear demolition to pulverize steel and concrete alike is one of its unique features.

The picture below shows an example of that fine microscopic dust that covered all over Manhattan after the WTC demolition. Many people mistakenly believed that it was allegedly "concrete dust". No, it was not. It was "complete" dust - mainly pulverized steel. Despite common misconception, the WTC structures did not contain much concrete. Concrete was used only in some limited quantities to make very thin floors slabs in the Twin Towers construction. It was not used anywhere else. The major part of the WTC Twin Towers was steel, not concrete. So this finest dust was in its major part represented by steel dust accordingly. Though, it was not only "steel dust" alone - it was also a "furniture dust", "wood dust", "paper dust", "carpet dust", "computer parts dust" and even "human dust", since remaining in the Towers human beings were pulverized in the same manner as steel, concrete and furniture.






http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/images/dust_after_WTC_demolition.jpg




Some people might wonder - why the WTC-7 collapsed to its footprint very neatly, in its entirety, while either of the Twin Towers crushed down scattering not only dust, but even some debris to quite large distances. This question is very easy to answer - you have to look at the distribution of "crushed" and "damaged" zones along the Twin Towers structures and the answer will become obvious.

The picture below represents an approximate distribution of damages in case of a nuclear demolition of a skyscraper using a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge positioned 50 meters deeper than the lowest underground foundations of a skyscraper. Don't forget, that demolition charges in this particular case were buried not "ideally deep", that is why forms of the "crushed" and "damaged" zones were not "ideally round" either - they were elliptic, with their sharper ends facing upwards - towards areas of the least resistance.





http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/images/WTC_demolition_damages_distribution.jpg



This particular distribution of damages along the skyscrapers structures inflicted by such a process could be better understood when you watch videos showing details of collapses of the WTC Twin Towers and the WTC-7. You can click the "Videos" button at the top panel of this page to watch these videos.

It should be added also that despite an apparent insufficiency of 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charges to pulverize the tallest skyscrapers in their entirety, charges of higher yields could not be used in nuclear demolition industry due to merely legal reasons. The problem is that in accordance with the USA - Soviet so-called " Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty of 1976 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosions)" yield of nuclear munitions used for non-military purposes was limited to 150 kiloton /per individual nuclear explosion and to maximum of 1.5 megaton aggregate yield for group explosions. So, the nuclear demolition industry has to fit into these legal frames: in case of the WTC demolition it was possible to use as many charges as necessary, but not in excess of 150 kiloton per charge. That is why the WTC nuclear demolition scheme consisted of three of such charges - with aggregate yield of 450 kiloton. For those people who have difficulty to imagine how powerful 150 kiloton is, it could be reminded that an atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was less than 20 kiloton.

As it was mentioned in the beginning, this article does not describe any nuclear demolition scheme of a particular building in any exact detail, but does it rather on a conceptual level. But there is another article that describes a nuclear demolition scheme of the World Trade Center in New York in particular. It is available here: http://www.wtcnucleardemolition.com (http://www.wtcnucleardemolition.com/)

The author of this article - Mr. Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former officer the Soviet nuclear intelligence, officially known as the Special Control Service of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry.

Any comments and suggestions are welcome.

GOOD NEWS: an interview with Dimitri Khalezov regarding the WTC nuclear demolition and 9/11 in general is now available. It contains detailed technical explanations supported by animated graphics and various contemporary 9/11 video clips. You can find download links for this presentation on the Internet by searching for Dimitri Khalezov video in Google.








.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.




Additional information could be found here:

http://www.3truth911.com/home.html (http://www.3truth911.com/home.html)

http://www.911books.net/911-book.html (http://www.911books.net/911-book.html)

http://www.911thology.com (http://www.911thology.com/)

http://www.911thology.cn (http://www.911thology.cn/)

http://www.nuclear-demolition-wikipedia.com (http://www.nuclear-demolition-wikipedia.com/)

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

http://www.oklahoma-bombing.com (http://www.oklahoma-bombing.com/)

http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/911-wtc-thermo-nuclear-demolition-how-it-works.html

[woodman]

Fascinating post Serpo. A problem with the nuke demo theory exists in that an initial cavity would be created during the first detonation. This cavity would then profoundly affect the ensuing dynamics of the second detonition. Am I missing something?

Secondly: How could a nuclear device possibly survive intact in any proximity to another underground blast?

[Neuro]

Further post demolition we saw trusses remaining standing at ground zero site. Those are from the bottom part of the towers, according to nuclear demolition theory they should have melted or pulverized... That is not necessary if the collapse was initiated close to the top with nano-thermite applied as firecoating, the lower floors of the towers were demolished mechanically by the momentum of the top towers crashing down. Thus fragments of trusses could survive at the bottom...

[woodman]

Has anyone seen the rense video interview of Dr. Judy Wood? In the 3rd part I believe at about 21 minutes it shows a large section of steel turn to dust and waft away. It looked quite real. I know we can't blindly believe everything we see in a video but it was widely shown and if altered would have raised a fuss. I don't know how the integrity of the building was compromised but it is an amazing feat no matter how they did it and we need a new impartial investigation.

[Large Sarge]

so is it the the contention that the twin towers were done by nukes?

WTC7 was nanothermite?

I have not watched the videos yet....

I will try and watch them, but I figure a nuclear blast would blow it up.... or up and out...

and then you got the streamers of molten metal coming out the sides of the building... and "squibs"

[Serpo]

so is it the the contention that the twin towers were done by nukes?

WTC7 was nanothermite?

I have not watched the videos yet....

I will try and watch them, but I figure a nuclear blast would blow it up.... or up and out...

and then you got the streamers of molten metal coming out the sides of the building... and "squibs"
Its important perhaps too be up to date with all the arguments and point of views out there .
On a building this size why not use the lot.

[Serpo]

[QUOTE=woodman;457399]Fascinating post Serpo. A problem with the nuke demo theory exists in that an initial cavity would be created during the first detonation. This cavity would then profoundly affect the ensuing dynamics of the second detonition. Am I missing something?

Secondly: How could a nuclear device possibly survive intact in any proximity to another underground blast?[/QUOTE




According to the Russian, each bomb had its own train track and would of been brought in one at a time underground.

[willie pete]

nuclear bombs under the WTC? ....lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJx-uGRsiNU

[Serpo]

http://www.origamiink.com/picture/1561l_%2010%20inch%20cuckoo%20325.jpg?pictureId=12 34033&asGalleryImage=true

[Joe King]

Watch these 3 10 minute segments:


http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/45005/Dimitri_Khalezov___WTC_Nuclear_Demolition_9_26/
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/45006/Dimitri_Khalezov___WTC_Nuclear_Demolition_10_26/
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/45007/Dimitri_Khalezov___WTC_Nuclear_Demolition_11_26/

In prior segments he explains the difference between an air burst (Hiroshima) and an underground burst.

This is NOT my theory. It's Khalezov's. If you have any interest in it, watch all the videos--don't ask me questions you can get the answers to yourself. Or read his book--The Third Truth, which you can download for free.

HathaOk, I watched these three vids and the first thing I'd like to address is the "12 second" video he shows as proof of the bombs detonation.

At the 5:50 mark in video number 2 {that you posted} he plays a video that purports to show the tower shaking, but in reality it shows that the camera shook.
If you notice the other building to the left of the picture, you'll see that it "shakes" also.
Same with the air-born smoke, as it "shakes" too.
If it were only the tower, it would be seen to move against its background, but it doesn't as everything in the frame shakes.

Also, in the same vid clip you can clearly see that the part of the tower below the impact point does not collapse until the upper section comes down upon it.
The part where you can see lots of fire shoot out from the building as it begins to collapse is evidence of the area in question being squeezed together via collapse.
Had the bottom part of the building lost its support first, thereby dropping out from under the section above the point of impact, we would not see those flames being squeezed out the side of the tower as everything would have simply fallen together.

Also, IMHO there is no way it would take a full 12 seconds for the tower to start to collapse had its foundation been destroyed as it would be if a nuke really did go off 50meters underneath it.
IMHO, had that actually happened, we'd have more likely seen the tower launched into the air than it collapsing.
Or do you think that tower weighs more than the force of an "aimed" 150KT nuke is capable of lifting? All its force was directed up, towards the tower, correct?

Also, if the initial cavity would be 100meters in diameter, with damaged/crushed rock for another 100meters, the area surrounding the 200'x200' towers would have been lifted and distorted had the bomb only been 77meters deep.
ie the "bathtub" would have been pulverized the same as the surrounding rock just outside the 100meter vaporization zone.

[Hatha Sunahara]

You're making some progress Joe King.

As for the camera shaking--nothing strange about that. Try holding a camera still when the earth below you is shaking. There are lots of people who felt the shaking of the explosion, thinking it was a subway train passing in a tunnel below. You might want to go on You Tube and watch some videos of underground nuclear tests to get a sense of how much the earth shakes when a nuke blast goes off. Also, how long it takes for the effects of the blast to complete. You need to educate yourself about underground nuclear blasts before you dismiss a presentation of someone who has done exactly that. Otherwise, you are operating on the false premise that 'Ignorance is strength.'

A 150kt nuke isn't capable of 'lifting' anything. It isn't like an explosion that takes place in a cannon that propels a projectile. Khalezov is giving you the properties of an underground nuclear blast and guiding you through the sequence of what happens. We don't see this kind of thing happening every day. It is not familiar to anybody but people who have taken the time and made the effort to learn about it.

Khalezov talks about how a pulverized object appears. He talks about how a pulverized stone looks like an ordinary stone until you try to pick it up, and it turns to dust in your fingers. Try to imagine WTC 7 turning to powder--the instant before it starts to fall. It looks like a building--but it is only dust--transformed in front of your eyes by a nuclear blast below, and then it falls--like the stone that crumbles in your fingers. Pay attention to what Khalezov says about the dustification. Then look at the tall towers disintegrating. See if you can identify where the crush zone (dust) is, and where the damage zone (debris) is. You can actually see the crush zone following steel beams as they are ejected outward--turning to dust before your eyes. Also, look at videos of the 'spire' turning to dust.

I'm sure that Controlled Demolition Inc., has learned a great deal from this 911 event. I'm not saying anything about whether they were involved in the actual nuclear explosion, but I'm not discounting their part in it either. 911 may just be a test in nuclear demolition as well as all the other things it is--like a pretext for war, and an insurance scam, and a pretext for the Hitleresque Patriot Act. We may see more big buildings in the future being turned to dust from the knowledge gained from this exercise.


Hatha

[Joe King]

You're making some progress Joe King.

As for the camera shaking--nothing strange about that. Try holding a camera still when the earth below you is shaking. There are lots of people who felt the shaking of the explosion, thinking it was a subway train passing in a tunnel below.But that's not what he says. He says you can see only the building shaking. He also says that people in the area around the site would not feel it or be aware of it having gone off.
So which is it? If the camera shakes, or the tower that shakes? By his own words it cannot be both.




You might want to go on You Tube and watch some videos of underground nuclear tests to get a sense of how much the earth shakes when a nuke blast goes off. Also, how long it takes for the effects of the blast to complete.He's saying it took a whole 12 seconds for the effects to travel the height of the building. Surely an atomic shockwave travels faster than that. Sound alone can travel that distance quicker.



You need to educate yourself about underground nuclear blasts before you dismiss a presentation of someone who has done exactly that. Otherwise, you are operating on the false premise that 'Ignorance is strength.'No, his pretense is off base from the beginning.
ie he bases it upon video the tower shaking, when in reality it is the camera shaking.



A 150kt nuke isn't capable of 'lifting' anything. It isn't like an explosion that takes place in a cannon that propels a projectile.Right. In this case, the building would become the "projectile" with it being situated directly on top of a 150KT device whose forces are entirely directed at the base of the building.



Khalezov is giving you the properties of an underground nuclear blast and guiding you through the sequence of what happens. We don't see this kind of thing happening every day. It is not familiar to anybody but people who have taken the time and made the effort to learn about it.

Khalezov talks about how a pulverized object appears. He talks about how a pulverized stone looks like an ordinary stone until you try to pick it up, and it turns to dust in your fingers. Try to imagine WTC 7 turning to powder--the instant before it starts to fall. It looks like a building--but it is only dust--transformed in front of your eyes by a nuclear blast below, and then it falls--like the stone that crumbles in your fingers. Pay attention to what Khalezov says about the dustification. Then look at the tall towers disintegrating. See if you can identify where the crush zone (dust) is, and where the damage zone (debris) is. You can actually see the crush zone following steel beams as they are ejected outward--turning to dust before your eyes. Also, look at videos of the 'spire' turning to dust.
The entire building did not "turn into dust". A lot of the concrete may have on the way down and upon impact with the ground.
...but not initially. You can see in the video of his how the portion above the impact zone collapsed first, and then the structure below the impact zone collapses. For his theory to be correct the bottom part would have fallen first....but it didn't.



I'm sure that Controlled Demolition Inc., has learned a great deal from this 911 event. I'm not saying anything about whether they were involved in the actual nuclear explosion, but I'm not discounting their part in it either. 911 may just be a test in nuclear demolition as well as all the other things it is--like a pretext for war, and an insurance scam, and a pretext for the Hitleresque Patriot Act. We may see more big buildings in the future being turned to dust from the knowledge gained from this exercise.Even if true, there's no way it was tested in such a setting or manner.

[Neuro]

I find it highly unlikely that the scumbags that demolished WTC1,2 and 7 would do it with nuclear devices, not because of any moral objections or that it is impossible to do so, but because it is an unknown entity, experimental, thus it is unpredictable in its outcome, especially with 3 nukes next to each other. Further what are the chances of the initial visible collapse occurring where the planes crashed .

No one has commented on how the bottom floors trusses survived in the case of a nuclear detonation. It doesn't make sense that they should keep standing in that scenario...

[Serpo]

PDF extract from book..............

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/dropbox/Dimitri_Khalezov_Book_Third_Truth_911_free_11chapt ers.pdf

[Dogman]

I find it highly unlikely that the scumbags that demolished WTC1,2 and 7 would do it with nuclear devices, not because of any moral objections or that it is impossible to do so, but because it is an unknown entity, experimental, thus it is unpredictable in its outcome, especially with 3 nukes next to each other. Further what are the chances of the initial visible collapse occurring where the planes crashed .

No one has commented on how the bottom floors trusses survived in the case of a nuclear detonation. It doesn't make sense that they should keep standing in that scenario... Also do not forget the subway cars and station lines, yes they were wrecked but not disintegrated also as said in another post, the bathtub that kept the river out and everything dry survived.

[joboo]

I think speculating on the "how" is a waste of time. The military is 20 years ahead technology wise. Who the heck knows what they have on hand now. Some ultimately crazy classified shit for sure.

I just want to see someone explain, with a straight face, 7 achieving true free fall for eight stories. How many hundreds of tons of steel just vaporized there instantaneously? Shit tons. That thing came down like a Saturday morning cartoon show on LSD.

On that note, I saw the early Judy woods interviews, and she's about as crazy as crazy gets. Quite the distraction she is....the whole "how" angle is one giant distraction really.

Why take unknowns, and speculate with more unknowns?

[Joe King]

No one has commented on how the bottom floors trusses survived in the case of a nuclear detonation. It doesn't make sense that they should keep standing in that scenario... .Exactly. Those should been "pulverized" right from the get-go.....if it were as put forth by the guy in the videos.

[gunDriller]

I have no problem with thermite being used to a limited extent to produce the 'holes' through which the 'planes' had disappeared into the buildings. However, I need a much better explanation for how the two huge towers were turned int micron sized dust particles in 7 seconds.

the concrete turned into dust. that was unusual because normally it doesn't turn to dust until after it hits the ground.

AND it takes a lot of energy to pulverize concrete into dust.

Jim Hoffman has done a good job on the calculations at

http://research.wtc7.net/


the steel, of which there was 100,000+ tons in each building, ended up in neatly cut sections in the debris pile at the bottom.

what struck me as odd at the time was how QUICKLY they got rid of that debris pile. of course, it WAS evidence.


the dust residue was primarily concrete, with traces of thermite, as explained by Neils Harrit, a Dutch scientist. his term for that kind of thermite is "nano-thermite".


from the thermal signature of Ground Zero in the days after 9-11, there was a heat source that continued putting out heat even after the buildings collapsed.

that energy, and the huge heat input needed to pulverize the concrete, and the cutting of the steel girders by thermite or a similar explosive/exothermic material - that all points to some very major energy inputs.

we know there was a demolition, but that doesn't explain the concrete turning into dust.


one way to turn concrete into dust is to put it in a microwave - or to expose it to microwave radiation - IF the concrete has a sufficient water content.

so we are left with questions, and one certainty - that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were demolished, i.e. controlled demolitions.

[joboo]

Exactly. Those should been "pulverized" right from the get-go.....if it were as put forth by the guy in the videos.


For all we know from the year long "unprecedented" elevator upgrades, they could have hung little softball sized nukes all the way down a spare elevator cable at each floor...

...or just go between the floors from the elevator shafts throughout the core and spray some shit on the vertical supports, then press in a wireless magnesium fuse the size of a pencil, toothpick, thumbtack etc...... voila.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I find it highly unlikely that the scumbags that demolished WTC1,2 and 7 would do it with nuclear devices, not because of any moral objections or that it is impossible to do so, but because it is an unknown entity, experimental, thus it is unpredictable in its outcome, especially with 3 nukes next to each other. Further what are the chances of the initial visible collapse occurring where the planes crashed .

No one has commented on how the bottom floors trusses survived in the case of a nuclear detonation. It doesn't make sense that they should keep standing in that scenario...

Nuclear weapons technology is very well known and understood. Israel probably understands it better than anyone else. One of the major large uses of Supercomputers is to simulate nuclear explosions. No one has said anything about how small they can make a nuclear device. It must be pretty small. I wouldn't be surprised if they have the ability to configure a nuclear explosion to achieve whatever objective they want. Combine this ability with an amoral character, and an unlimited budget, why would you doubt that they would demolish those buildings with people still in them? It was a big thing. Designed to get everybody's attention. To scare us enough to allow them to do whatever they wanted to do. And they wanted to give us a totalitarian government and endless wars. Those were very big buildings. Do you know of anything simpler or more powerful than nuclear explosions to get people's attention?

Hatha

[Joe King]

So how do you surmise that the bottom truses survived? In your scenario anything close to the ground should have been the most pulverized.

[Dogman]

So how do you surmise that the bottom truses survived? In your scenario anything close to the ground should have been the most pulverized.


The ray guns missed those!

[Serpo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BCOkYRBwJc

A good example of uncontrolled demolition........

[Serpo]

Reply to JK


Perimeter columns of the South Tower that managed to survive pulverization.
There are even some more questions remain – why those adjacent to ground level parts of the Twin
Towers perimeter steel core columns were left to stand even after the Towers’ total collapse – like those
shown on the photo above which shows standing perimeter columns of the South Tower as on October 3,
2001? This effect is also clearly visible on the next big photo of “Ground Zero”: it seems, when you
carefully analyze the big photo below, that those actual nuclear charges have been indeed positioned not
right under the footprints of each of the Twin Towers, but a little bit outer – across their corners – to make
the positions of the two charges as far as possible from each other. I marked there with yellow arrows
suspected directions of displacements of the demolition charges from the exact centers of the Towers’
footprints. I guess only this little intentional displacements of the demolition charges might have caused
those effects: the farthest (from the suspected positions of the charges) corners of ground-level
perimeters steel columns have been “spared” by the crushed zone, because it was propagating upwards
not exactly vertically, but under slight angles. Those opposite corners might occur within some kind of a
“dead space”. In the next big photograph are clearly seen damaged zones within “Ground Zero”. With yellow arrows and red digits there are shown suspected hypocenters of the three underground nuclear
explosions and with green lines – remaining walls. Below is some diagram that shows how such an “offcenter”
underground nuclear explosion might spare the opposite lower corners of the targeted Tower

page 84 and 83........some good pics but wouldnt post

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/dropbox/Dimitri_Khalezov_Book_Third_Truth_911_free_11chapt ers.pdf

or

http://ebookbrowse.com/dimitri-khalezov-book-third-truth-911-911thology-v2-pdf-d57074994

[Joe King]

So now they're supposedly off-center, but all the diagrams the guy uses show that they were perfectly centered. If the proposed forces were not centered, the buildings would not have fallen straight down.
...but everyone says they fell into their own footprint, which would imply a straight-down collapse.
Which is it?

The video that he uses to demonstrate that only the tower shook actually showed the camera shaking, and the excuse for that was that the ground shook, but he says it wouldn't have been felt. If the camera "felt" it, so would everyone around.
So which is it?

Seems to me this guys theory is quickly becoming a moving target in order to preserve the theory. lol


Also, in the video of the collapse, it can be clearly seen that the top piece {above impact zone} fell first. The part of the building under the impact zone does not move at all until the upper portion falls upon it. If the collapse started at the bottom the entire structure would have dropped at once with no discernable difference in the time of collapse between the two parts of the building.
In his own diagram he shows the whole building droping as a unit.
....but that's not what the video he uses as "proof" shows.


He also says it took 12 whole seconds for an atomic shock wave to travel the length of a 110 story building. That in itself is a ludacris proposal. It would travel that distance quicker than a blink of an eye.

Can anyone who believes his theory to be fact, show any evidence for this scenario other than just his less than credible "word" for it?

[Neuro]

Serpo I guess that is a possibility, but on the picture at page 84 I also see that the bottom central trusses are still standing...

Hatha, what I meant when saying that the use of nuclear devices was experimental, was that its use in demolishing buildings is experimental... Further wouldn't you have all kinds of sewage pipes and passages under the wtc, that would have been affected and sent the explosion travelling many miles in the sewage system at the time of the blast? I have already told you that I don't think the perps had any moral objection to using nukes at WTC, but more practical...

Was it just by chance that the initial collapse of the towers occurred at the same place the planes collided, or did they use thermite charges just a few seconds before the nukes were set off that gave that appearance? I find it highly unlikely that you could set nukes to cause that effect twice

[Joe King]

... Further wouldn't you have all kinds of sewage pipes and passages under the wtc, that would have been affected and sent the explosion travelling many miles in the sewage system at the time of the blast?
Good point. With the forces involved, any opening into the area of the blast would have provided additional paths for the explosive forces to take.
Which is also why I feel that as soon as the force of the explosion {assuming there was one} reached the first floor of the towers, it would have spilled outward as opposed to traveling up the building in a chimney effect.
ie what is weaker? 80 thick concrete floors, or aluminum side panels with windows in them?



I have already told you that I don't think the perps had any moral objection to using nukes at WTC, but more practical...

Was it just by chance that the initial collapse of the towers occurred at the same place the planes collided, or did they use thermite charges just a few seconds before the nukes were set off that gave that appearance? I find it highly unlikely that you could set nukes to cause that effect twiceYou're correct. It couldn't have been done even once.

I feel that the whole basis for this theory is but a way to try to explain the supposed "dustification" of the entire building by those who believe it was turned entirely to dust. The steel, the concrete, everything.
Only problem is, it didn't all turn to dust.

[woodman]

I have devoured a large portion of what you posted Serpo. I will let it digest awhile. The fellow (Khalezov) has an interesting story and some of it is plausible at first take and much implausible. I cannot fathom how the crush zone could possibly travel upward through the solid building without blowing out the path of least resistance, the bottom sides, windows, etc. Something exotic happened to all three bldgs that day but I just don't see how the force of gases can initiate a crush zone in the upper parts of the bldgs. I perhaps missed his explanation for what exactly causes this state of matter, i.e. the dustified matter. I thought he said it was the force of expanding gases but that cannot be a plausible explanation for the dustification of the bldgs. Whatever it was it travelled through matter like electricity if we are to believe our eyes relative to the disintegration of all three bldgs. Bldg 7 most closely resembled a typical demo job.

Is there something intrinsic to a nuclear explosion that disintegrates matter besides heat and mechanical force? Because to my way of thinking neither heat nor mechanical force can explain how an underground nuclear device could accomplish what was done.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Woodman, you're asking the right question. In the first 5 or 6 videos, Khalezov explains the difference between an atmospheric detonation and an underground detonation. In the atmospheric detonation, after the initial explosion, a 'blast wave' emanates from the esplosion. This is a pressure wave in the air. It is like a huge wind that radiates from the blast and travels for miles, blowing apart houses trees cars anything in its way. It travels through the air.

In an underground detonation, that mechanical force analogous to the blast wave travels through a solid medium--the earth or whatever surrounds the blast. It appears to have a much shorter range in solid material than it does through the air. It also appears to have the effect of shaking the solid medium so violently that it turns it to powder--dust.

For the last 20 years or so it has been possible to 'test' nuclear explosions using supercomputers. It is very likely that the characteristics of an underground blast can be simulated in a computer model. If that is the case, the demolition of the three WTC buildings could have been approximated in the initial 'demolitkion plan' that was prepared with the building permit, and fine tuned later using a computer simulation to exactly pinpoint the location of zero box, and the exact size of the explosion. I believe Khalezov when he says that the limit to the size for 'peaceful' explosions was 150 KT. I would assume that if the limit were higher, they would have used larger nukes to pulverize all three buildings entirely. I also think the perpetrators used the 150KT limit to the blast to hide the fact that the demolition was a nuclear one. They knew what it would look like before they did it, so they devised this 'false flag' attack involving 'planes' so they could blame it on the Arabs as well as hiding the nuclear aspect of the demolition.

There were no geiger counters allowed at ground zero. If you were caught with a geiger counter, you would be jailed. Also,the trucks moving material away from ground zero to the staten island dump were all equipped with gps devices to insure that none of the truck drivers diverted any of the material.

It's ludicrous to believe that Arabs hijacking planes could have done so much damage. The damage was done by people with H Bombs. Then blamed on Arabs who lived in caves. The constant replaying of the images of the planes flying into the buildings was calculated to create an emotion saturated state of mind where critical thinking was completely overwhelmed by the emotion. We are ten years down the road, and that emotion saturated state of mind is still with us. It is the mainstream media that keeps it alive. The 911 truthers--the real ones have overcome their emotions and started using their critical thinking capacities, and look at how they are received. It is as logical as the banksters beating down the price of gold and silver. They won't be able to do it forever.

Hatha

[Hatha Sunahara]

Here's a link for Joe King who thinks everyone is deceiving him with shaking cameras--and no buildings could possibly shake.


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2groundshake.html




Hatha

[Joe King]

Here's a link for Joe King who thinks everyone is deceiving him with shaking cameras--and no buildings could possibly shake.


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2groundshake.htmlI'm not saying that a building can't shake, but rather that the video presented as proof of an atomic detonation is of the camera shaking. I don't think the building moved in that shot at all. If it had, you'd have seen the building move relative to the smoke. But they appeared to move together. Thereby suggesting it was the camera that moved. A camera, btw, that was likely mounted upon a news van and was zoomed in to high degree which would amplify any visual effects of motion in the camera.

Now you post this video that trys to say the ground shook, but in your other video the russian guy says the detonation would not have been felt by people on the ground.

Which is it?

At the 2:00 mark the guy talking in the vid even admits he was wrong in thinking that the vibration came from underground.

[woodman]

Thanks for the thoughtfull post Hatha. It is alot to get one's mind around. I remain open minded to the possibilities. Something extaordinary happened and it's a sickening fact that our government has done everything they can to hide the truth and protect the guilty. This can only mean complicity. Aiding and abetting.

The press and many major corporations must also bear responsibility for the coverup. The fact that they furthered this lie means they were in on it from the beginning.

I wonder if enough people will start demanding an accounting. That is what it will take to find the truth, a mass movement. I don't think we will ever know.

[Neuro]

Hatha it is a big grey zone between Arabs w boxcutters bringing the towers down and nuclear blasts doing the same. Not believing nukes taking down the towers doesn't mean that the official version is correct. If I had to choose of either I would certainly choose nukes, because the official story is ridiculous. But in my opinion the nuclear story is unlikely. The buildings were clearly demolished, but I think that nano-thermite is the most likely culprit. And they set it up in one go. No sense in letting it go in an orderly manner ala controlled demolition. Easy setup!

[Hatha Sunahara]

What is really important is that the people who did 911 need to be brought to justice. This is unlikely to happen because it appears that they own the justice system. And all the rest of the government and the media as well.


Hatha

[oldmansmith]

I wonder if enough people will start demanding an accounting. That is what it will take to find the truth, a mass movement. I don't think we will ever know.

No, we probably won't ever know the entire truth, but the fact that people are still talking about it 10 years later is hopeful. The official CT is obviously bullshit.

[gunDriller]

cool video. it appeals to my Inner Pyromaniac. ;)

[Serpo]

Hatha it is a big grey zone between Arabs w boxcutters bringing the towers down and nuclear blasts doing the same. Not believing nukes taking down the towers doesn't mean that the official version is correct. If I had to choose of either I would certainly choose nukes, because the official story is ridiculous. But in my opinion the nuclear story is unlikely. The buildings were clearly demolished, but I think that nano-thermite is the most likely culprit. And they set it up in one go. No sense in letting it go in an orderly manner ala controlled demolition. Easy setup!

Box cutters or nucs..........hahaha

[Serpo]

Thanks for the thoughtfull post Hatha. It is alot to get one's mind around. I remain open minded to the possibilities. Something extaordinary happened and it's a sickening fact that our government has done everything they can to hide the truth and protect the guilty. This can only mean complicity. Aiding and abetting.

The press and many major corporations must also bear responsibility for the coverup. The fact that they furthered this lie means they were in on it from the beginning.

I wonder if enough people will start demanding an accounting. That is what it will take to find the truth, a mass movement. I don't think we will ever know.

The tops of these buildings blew apart and then fell at free fall speed......what does this mean.

No building is going to blow its head of like they did and it happened twice and both where identical....

Then they called the area ground zero ,which at the time only related to nuclear blast zones ,this definition has been changed since .

I am backing this point of view because its the only thing that makes any sense and fills in many gaps of knowledge.

[woodman]

The choice of the phrase ground zero may in fact be the 'tell'.

[woodman]

I found Khalezov's discussion on the planes' inability to compromise the steel exoskeleton of the buildings interesting. I find it almost ludicrous to think that enough eyewitnesses would not speak out saying they hadn't seen planes hit the buildings. Also, there are quite a few different camera angles captured on film showing the planes hitting the towers. Is it possible that there were no planes as Khalezov suggests? Could the planes punch through those massive steel members? It is plain to see in photos that the steel members were cut through and missing where the planes hit. Looking at the thickness of those steel girders though, one has to at least consider what he says.

[Serpo]

I remember he says that if you got the buildings and whacked them at 500 miles an hr against the aeroplane what would be the out come.....probably one mushy looking plane and one still intact building.Yes he mentions the steel to be thicker than tank armour.

this may interest you also posted by jbeck on other thread....http://www.serendipity.li/wtc4.htm

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/911scenario.htm

and:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/plissken.htm and an analysis of that theory:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer02.htm

[Dogman]

I found Khalezov's discussion on the planes' inability to compromise the steel exoskeleton of the buildings interesting. I find it almost ludicrous to think that enough eyewitnesses would not speak out saying they hadn't seen planes hit the buildings. Also, there are quite a few different camera angles captured on film showing the planes hitting the towers. Is it possible that there were no planes as Khalezov suggests? Could the planes punch through those massive steel members? It is plain to see in photos that the steel members were cut through and missing where the planes hit. Looking at the thickness of those steel girders though, one has to at least consider what he says. The girders were boxed plate steel that tapered in thickness from the ground up, because the higher the girders were the less weight they need to carry. near the top where the planes hit , the girders were thinner than what they would have been at the bottom.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Could the planes punch through those massive steel members? It is plain to see in photos that the steel members were cut through and missing where the planes hit. Looking at the thickness of those steel girders though, one has to at least consider what he says.

I am sure there are enough gun enthusiasts her at GSUS to do a simple experiment. Try shooting a high powered Full Metal Jacket bullet into a piece of steel that's two inches thick. A 357 magnum is a good choice of weapon. Also, an AK 47 with a 7.62x39 mm bullet is as good or better. Shoot at the steel from fairly close range--30 feet or less to maximize the force of the bullet against the steel. The bullet will bounce off the steel. It will not penetrate it. Such a bullet has a muzzle velocity of 2300 ft/second. This is equivalent to .44 miles per second, or roughly 1584 miles per hour. That is roughly three times the speed of the planes that hit the WTC towers. The bullet is steel coated lead. The airplane is an alloy of aluminum and magnesium. It weighs 120 tons. The building weighs half a million tons. A plane would go splat when it hit a steel building like this. Everybody in the building would feel a movement caused by the energy transfer from the plane to the building. Would the plane create a hole in the building in the shape of itself, and fly right into that hole?. And disappear? Twice in a single hour? Or would the structure retain its integrity? And parts of the plane might penetrate into the building where there were no steel beams to impede its progress. But the building didn't stop any part of the plane. Not the wings. Not the tail. They just flew right in, and the plane disappeared. The building could stop bullets. But not airplanes? How hard, and how dense is the vertical tail of a Boeing 767? Hard enough and dense enough to slice through a steel mesh holding a huge building together? I bet you could make a pretty good dent in the forward surface of that tail with a sledgehammer. So, why would anyone assume the tail would slice right through? Wouldn'it it fall off the plane when it hit the steel? Or were the planes equipped with special 'penetrator' tails? No deceleration on impact. No crumpling or compression visible from impact. Plane just disappears inside building. In it's place, on the other side comes an explosive splash of burning jet fuel. But not very much ground up aluminum. Where the hell did the plane go? If it could fly right into the building, why couldn't it just fly right out the other side? But no. It disappears. And we never see it again. But the plane caused the building to collapse we are told. And the planes were flown by crack Arab Hijackers. Some of whom were found alive a few months later living in their own countries. Magic planes. Can fly into buildings and disappear.

Every so often, I am impressed with watching a new level of computer graphic technical capability on TV. Usually it is in advertisements, but often in movies. I think 911 involved fake videos and gigantic complicity by the owners of the mainstream media. The BBC script about WTC7 collapse that came out 20 minutes early. Was that a slip up? Would it be beneath the plotters of this event to fake even the planes? I think they did that too. Television is so powerful. It can show you the planes you missed because you didn't look up in time. For the plane, that is. But you did see the explosions. I wonder what it sounded like. Did anybody hear the planes? Were'nt they 1000 feet up? Did anybody hear any glass breaking? A big thud? A tail flying in? Maybe a missile hit the buildings. And they replaced it in the videos with a computer generated Boeing 767. My estimate of how many different videos I saw of the 'planes' is fewer than 100. Virtually all of them were from the mainstream media. Why are there not thousands, if not millions of videos of the plane that hit the south building? That was the second plane. There were 18 minutes after the first plane hit for all the photographers to train their cameras at the WTC towers. Surely some independent photographers should have captured the plane hitting the building. Why are there so few independent videos of the planes?


Hatha

[Libertarian_Guard]

http://i54.tinypic.com/2r2roeu.jpg


http://i56.tinypic.com/20thr2v.jpg

[Libertarian_Guard]

http://i51.tinypic.com/161aia9.jpg


http://i54.tinypic.com/flbijc.jpg


http://i51.tinypic.com/2ev4zde.jpg


http://i55.tinypic.com/rsx5xy.jpg

[DMac]

Such a small amount of rubble for 220 stories of "collapsed" buildings. Buildings filled with concrete, metal, office equipment etc.

Personally, I do not believe DK's 150kt nuke theory. However, I do not rule out some sort of exotic nuke used underground. Something with .5 kt or so. Maybe 1.5kt. I don't know.

What I do know, is the immediate banning with mandatory jail time if caught with one, of geiger counters in NYC was highly suspicious. As was the immediate reference to the site as ground zero. We all know that is the designation of a nuke explosion site.

Since DK is Russian ([former?] intelligence?), I have an inherit distrust of him brought on by 2 decades of school based brainwashing.

Playing with theories in my mind I can find little reason to rule out exotic military weaponry, potential cgi and/or God knows whatever else.

The reason I really like the video in the OP is that it is another nail in the coffin known as the Official Conspiracy Theory.

[Dogman]

Such a small amount of rubble for 220 stories of "collapsed" buildings. Buildings filled with concrete, metal, office equipment etc.

Personally, I do not believe DK's 150kt nuke theory. However, I do not rule out some sort of exotic nuke used underground. Something with .5 kt or so. Maybe 1.5kt. I don't know.

What I do know, is the immediate banning with mandatory jail time if caught with one, of geiger counters in NYC was highly suspicious. As was the immediate reference to the site as ground zero. We all know that is the designation of a nuke explosion site.

Since DK is Russian ([former?] intelligence?), I have an inherit distrust of him brought on by 2 decades of school based brainwashing.

Playing with theories in my mind I can find little reason to rule out exotic military weaponry, potential cgi and/or God knows whatever else.

The reason I really like the video in the OP is that it is another nail in the coffin known as the Official Conspiracy Theory.

The rubble pile was so small is because the towers were made up of mostly air, that is the reason all of the floors had so much usable free space.

And so far as another nail driven into the coffin , this is one nail that needs to be pulled out of it.

[Joe King]

Sorry this pic isn't bigger, but it seems to show the debris kinda spread out. It also shows bldg 7 and it doesn't exactly look like a pile of nuked dust to me. Actually, it looks like lots of debris.

1036

[Libertarian_Guard]

http://i55.tinypic.com/25uh8h1.jpg



http://i54.tinypic.com/2evcgf6.jpg



http://i54.tinypic.com/117wjk9.jpg



http://i52.tinypic.com/35arif7.jpg



http://i53.tinypic.com/2ptpgs5.jpg



http://i56.tinypic.com/2rygas2.jpg



http://i52.tinypic.com/t0jlt0.jpg



http://i56.tinypic.com/2vvksnc.jpg



http://i54.tinypic.com/2i9njmb.jpg



http://i55.tinypic.com/2cn8uj8.jpg

[Joe King]

1042 1043

Looks like a lot of beams and other metal debris.

[Libertarian_Guard]

http://i54.tinypic.com/117wjk9.jpg



http://i52.tinypic.com/259vkh3.jpg

[Joe King]

In these pics one can see, if viewed in succession, how the collapse started with the part of the tower above the point of impact falling onto the lower part of the tower.
Had the bottom part "dustified" and given way, I contend that these pics would not show what they do.

1044

1045

1046

1047

1048

[Joe King]

Here's a few more that show the same as the ones above. Just a different angle.
ie no "dustification" prior to the upper part crashing down against the lower part of the tower...and then the dust is from the concrete.

1049

1050

1051

1052

[DMac]

And so far as another nail driven into the coffin , this is one nail that needs to be pulled out of it.

No, that nail will stay firmly in the coffin Dogman. Are you picking up the slack to shill for the official conspiracy now? I thought Joe could handle that on his own.

Does 9/11 Truth Have A Chance? (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26498)


A nano-chemist from the University of Copenhagen, who together with a scientific team spent 18 months investigating the chemical and physical properties of dust from the towers, found evidence of nano-termite in the dust and quantities of particles not naturally formed by office or normal building fires that indicate another explosive was also present.

These findings explain the extreme high temperatures that produced the molten steel for which indisputable evidence exists. In the orchestrated cover-up, NIST denies that molten steel is present as its presence is inconsistent with the low temperatures that NIST acknowledges building fires can produce.

Physicist David Chandler proved beyond all doubt that building 7 fell over its visible part (other buildings obscure the bottom floors) at free fall speed, an unambiguous indication that explosives had removed all supporting columns simultaneously. There is no possibility whatsoever according to the laws of physics that building 7 fell for the reasons NIST provides. The NIST account is a total denial of known laws of physics.

Explosive residue found. Experiments conducted proving explosives could cause the required damage. Case closed!

[Dogman]

No, that nail will stay firmly in the coffin Dogman. Are you picking up the slack to shill for the official conspiracy now? I thought Joe could handle that on his own.

Does 9/11 Truth Have A Chance? (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26498)


Explosive residue found. Experiments conducted proving explosives could cause the required damage. Case closed!


We all believe what we believe, And I am no shill.

But as you can see I do not buy into your nuke theory, and that is all.

Do I do any name calling in my threads when I post? When giving any other view point.

I do not.

But others do seem quit ready and quick to start name calling against any posters that may not hold their same views.

Nuff said!

[DMac]

We all believe what we believe, And I am no shill.

But as you can see I do not buy into your nuke theory, and that is all.

Do I do any name calling in my threads when I post? When giving any other view point.

I do not.

But others do seem quit ready and quick to start name calling against any posters that may not hold their same views.

Nuff said!

Not enough said, Dogman. My nuke theory? Give a re-read of this page in the thread. You are mixing up people's views.

[undgrd]

Good point and well said

[Dogman]

Not enough said, Dogman. My nuke theory? Give a re-read of this page in the thread. You are mixing up people's views.


Whoops, Yep!


Still hold to the rest of my post!

[Libertarian_Guard]

http://i52.tinypic.com/23wjm9h.jpg



http://i55.tinypic.com/vfwqba.jpg

[Neuro]

I was under the impression that Dogman, Dmac and Joe King were all favoring the thermite driven demolition...

[DMac]

I was under the impression that Dogman, Dmac and Joe King were all favoring the thermite driven demolition...

I was (still am?) unsure what Dog and JK think brought down the towers.

[Joe King]

Here's two more that show debris from the collapse at the top of the tower falling alongside an intact lower part of the tower.

Had the lower part "dustified" these pics would have been impossible to take, because once the upper portion fell, the bottom would have had to already given way....at least according the nuke theory anyways.

1055

1056

[Dogman]

I was under the impression that Dogman, Dmac and Joe King were all favoring the thermite driven demolition...

1057


:D

He He He , No! I do not buy into that one ether!

[Joe King]

I was (still am?) unsure what Dog and JK think brought down the towers.

All I know for sure is that it def wasn't 450KT of nukes that did it.

[Libertarian_Guard]

http://i55.tinypic.com/vgn8g5.jpg

[Joe King]

I wonder what bent these beams inwards like this? Something from outside the building, perhaps?


1066

[Hatha Sunahara]

I wonder what bent these beams inwards like this? Something from outside the building, perhaps?


1066

This is where I think the perps used thermite. To cut the beams in a pattern that is the shape and size of the airplanes. Khalezov talks about this. He says this is the part that Mike Harari played in 911. Creating the explosions high up in the building to make it look like planes hit the building. I don't know how it was done. I am only speculating about thermite. It's a bit strange that the floors in both buildings where the planes hit were not occupied.

Hatha

[Joe King]

You'd need to apply a lot force from the outside of the building inward to bend/break those beams as they are. Explosives would have had to be on the outside of the building to cause damage like that. Anything exploding on the inside would push them out.

BTW, did you look at the other pics I posted of the sequence of collapse? It's pretty obvious the top part collapsed onto a relatively intact lower structure. {lower as in below the impact zone} http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?53966-9-11-Experiments-The-Great-Thermate-Debate&p=458804&viewfull=1#post458804
Had the tower turned to dust prior to collapse, the whole thing would have dropped together....but it didn't do that.

[Serpo]

I wonder what bent these beams inwards like this? Something from outside the building, perhaps?


1066

He explains that in the pdf which you didnt read

[Serpo]

1057


:D

He He He , No! I do not buy into that one ether!

So what do you buy

[Cebu_4_2]

Great Value Carrots of course!

[Joe King]

He explains that in the pdf which you didnt readIt was done with explosives, right?

If you understand the theory, how 'bout giving the Readers Digest version?

[Dogman]

So what do you buy


Great Value Carrots of course! Prefer shurfine brand myself, do not shop or have set foot in a wallmart in over 8+ years.

So far as the wtc and other sites, I am in the 3 planes really did hit the buildings camp, for me it is no great mystery or leap of faith, to believe they did.

The only questions I wonder about are the who and whys but not the how's.

So for me the mechanical side (planes and buildings) I believe, it is the motivation behind the act of 911 that I am open minded about.

[Serpo]

It was done with explosives, right?

If you understand the theory, how 'bout giving the Readers Digest version?

Page 35 of pdf.............http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/dropbox/Dimitri_Khalezov_Book_Third_Truth_911_free_11chapt ers.pdf
Detailed view of the damage inflicted by the alleged passenger “Boeing-767” to the WTC North Tower’s
steel perimeter columns. It could be clearly observed that perimeter bars were all cut by a few ridiculously
straight lines, moreover parallel to each other, so a shape of the alleged “impact hole” does not match a
silhouette of a plane even remotely. Actually, explanation to this ridiculous phenomenon is quite simple.
As you can see from this picture the Twin’s perimeters were made not from steel columns alone. There
was also additional aluminum coating fixed on outer sides of the steel perimeter columns. And, unlike the
steel columns (which were more or less solid from bedrock up to the Tower’s tops), the aluminum coating
was arranged in much shorter vertical segments. If you look at the above picture’s detail carefully you will
notice certain horizontal lines parallel to each other repeating on equal intervals – that are slightly visible
on undamaged parts of the Tower’s façade. These lines that are nothing else than joining points of the
aluminum coating pieces show what was an actual length of each piece of the aluminum coating. The
problem of 9/11 perpetrators was that they needed to position their hollow-shaped charges of
conventional explosives (that were designed to imitate the impact holes – the planes’ silhouettes) not
inside the Tower, but OUTSIDE the Tower – because their explosive energy should have been directed
inwards to make the entire set up look plausible. If they would position these charges inside the Tower,
then the entire section of the Tower that supposed to be “hit by a plane” would not fell inside the Tower as
it suppose to be. It would be blown out of the Tower and, instead of the “landing gear” and the “plane’s
engine” simpletons would find on a sidewalk pieces of the Tower’s own perimeters. Apparently, it was not
an option. To attach the cutting charges outside the Twin Tower’s facades was not an option either – they
would be visible by people. Therefore, the tricky 9/11 perpetrators placed their hollow-shaped charges in
between the outer aluminum coating and the actual perimeter steel columns. The explosive energy of the
charges was directed inwards – in order to precisely cut the steel bars in right spots. And, indeed, it
worked – as you could see the inner steel bars (that appear to be of “rusty” color as opposed to the
bluish-shining aluminum coating) were indeed cut in the right spots to imitate the complete planes
silhouettes precisely. Moreover, cut ends of these steel bars additionally bend inwards – exactly as
supposed to be. However, the 9/11 perpetrators miscalculated something. Even though most of the
explosive energy of the hollow-shaped charges was directed inwards – towards the steel, some relatively
minor part of the explosive energy was directed backwards – creating a kind of recoil effect. This
managed to blow out the aluminum coating. However, instead of actually “cutting” this aluminum coating,
the unruly explosion simply tore out the entire pieces of aluminum at their full lengths and threw them
back to the sidewalks. Therefore, depending of vertical disposition of the hollow-shaped charges in some
parts it was single vertical length of aluminum bars torn out, in some other places – double vertical length,
in some other parts – triple vertical length, etc. Therefore these “impact holes” look so ridiculously stupid
– being a kind of a “stepped” shape, instead of a perfect silhouette of a “plane” as supposed to be if there
were only steel bars alone. Besides of all, on this photo a woman could be clearly seen, desperately
holding to one of the sticking up columns; she was recognized as Mrs. Edna Cintron, who was still hoping
to get rescued at that last moment; unfortunately, she was killed in the North Tower collapse; but in that
last moment of her life she demonstrated to the world (by her mere presence at that supposedly “hot”
spot where steel columns supposed “to melt”) that the US Government was cheating the people.
36
It

[Serpo]

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.

[Joe King]

....creating a kind of recoil effect. This managed to blow out the aluminum coating. However, instead of actually “cutting” this aluminum coating,
the unruly explosion simply tore out the entire pieces of aluminum at their full lengths and threw them back to the sidewalks.
If you look in the upper right of the pic I posted, you can clearly see parts of the still-attached aluminum facade bent inward.


As far as the 707, it was assumed in the calculations that it would be a relatively slow 707 on landing approach, not one flying at 500 mph.
How the planes penetrated the buildings is the same way a chunk of foam penetrated Columbias rounded wing edge. ie the velocity of the object in both cases exceeded the amount required to break the surface those objects hit.

If those planes really should have "bounced off" like a fly hitting a screened door, there should be a mathmatical way of determining that.
ie the planes that are purported to have hit the towers carried a certain amount of energy into the building over a particular surface area. The force needed to break that surface should be calculable. It amazes me that apparently no one has run those numbers to either prove, or disprove your theory.


Edited to add: Do you really think that a pencil could not penetrate a window screen? I'm pretty sure I could easily push a pencil through a window screen.

[Libertarian_Guard]

http://i51.tinypic.com/2rh9t8k.jpg


http://i52.tinypic.com/1z1sakz.jpg


http://i54.tinypic.com/2ups00y.jpg


http://i51.tinypic.com/24m565l.jpg


http://i52.tinypic.com/102v2ox.jpg

[Hatha Sunahara]

Here is a video by the A & E 911 Truth organization that might explain why we saw the buildings collapse 'from the top down' when really they were watching Khalezov's damage and crush zone consuming the building's exterior after it had pulverized the core, they expanded outward, helped by the top of the building pushing down and forcing the blast to eject debris while everything below was being pulverized.

Hatha


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgN080yySe0

[Joe King]

Hatha, the point I was getting at with the pics I posted is that if the lower part of the towers had been turned to dust by an atomic explosion, the entire building would have lost support at the same time and it would be impossible to see debris from above alongside an otherwise intact lower structure.
ie the entire building would have collapsed as a single unit, not as we see the upper portion collapsing and in turn collapsing the part below the impact point.

Or do we have to suspend the law of gravity for the theory to work?.

[Joe King]

About your video....I'd have to dispute his assertion that a falling block and stationary block of the same size exert an equal amount of force. Apparently he never jumped up and down on his moms bathroom scale as a kid. lol
ie falling objects exert more force than a stationary one. When the top, damaged portion of the building initially fell, it exerted more force on the floor it fell upon than that floor could withstand.
...and as the concrete floors collapsed, the outside beams of the building peeled away from the sides of the towers in an outward thrusting motion. Which would only leave the core which is insufficient to hold the entire structure up.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Have you watched the videos of WTC 7 falling? Did WTC 7 look like it came apart from the top down? WTC 7 came straight down into its own footprint. No explosions at the top. It just lost all support in an instant, and fell to earth as a pile of dust. No beams blowing out. No ejecta. It was 47 floors. The whole building was in the crush zone. As the nuke beneath detonated, it pulverized the whole building.

The taller WTC 1 and 2 towers were too big for the nuke below to turn them entirely to dust. From what I can see, I would estimate that the top of the damage zone--where the building was being turned to debris--larger pieces than dust, was at the point where the top of the building initially drops into the disintegrating part of the building below. That was maybe the 80th floor. Below that, the core had turned to dust, and the crush zone and damage zone were emanating from the core outward, both pulverizing and causing larger debris to form, while being pushed down by the undamaged top of the building. We got to see the limits of the powder and debris destruction in the tall towers that we could not see in WTC7. The shock wave went straight up the core to the 80th floor or so, and then expanded outward, first at the top of the destruction. It reached the outside of the building first at the 80th floor, and lower floors followed when the destruction zone reached them from the top down. If the tall towers were 400 feet shorter, we would not have seen any debris. Just dust--like WTC7. Each building had an earthshaking explosion beneath it and came down 10 seconds later. Doesn't that suggest something to you? How much energy would it take to turn 3/4 of each building to dust? And break apart another 1/4 of each tall building into pieces small enough to haul away easily? How could you possibly release that much energy so that a building covering an acre and 1200 feet tall would fall into its own footprint in about 20 seconds total? That source of energy could only derive from the equation E=MC2. Plus a little deuterium and tritium. Do you know of anything else that would give you such a big bang? I don't. I'm doing something similar to adding 2 Plus 2 and getting 4. Not three, Not 5. 4. Have you got a better answer?

Hatha

[Cebu_4_2]

I think that there were several types of demolition happening in the 2 main towers. We have no clue what they could possibly have used since that type of science is not in sheeples grip yet. We know about thermite and nano thermite, we don't know if they have mini nukes or what else, C-4?
Blg 7 looks like a regular demolition to me.

[Serpo]

How do buildings explode like that,it just dosnt make any sense if we look at it in a conventional sense.Buildings dont normally explode.

[Joe King]

Have you watched the videos of WTC 7 falling? Did WTC 7 look like it came apart from the top down? WTC 7 came straight down into its own footprint. No explosions at the top. It just lost all support in an instant, and fell to earth as a pile of dust. No beams blowing out. No ejecta. It was 47 floors. The whole building was in the crush zone. As the nuke beneath detonated, it pulverized the whole building.We weren't talking about bldg7, but rather the 2 towers.
...but since you brought it up, if a nuke brought them all down, why wouldn't they be seen as having the same effects when collapsing? Bldg 7 just dropped from view, but the towers did the opposite. ...and no, bldg 7 did not turn to dust either. Pics show lots of solid debris.



The taller WTC 1 and 2 towers were too big for the nuke below to turn them entirely to dust. From what I can see, I would estimate that the top of the damage zone--where the building was being turned to debris--larger pieces than dust, was at the point where the top of the building initially drops into the disintegrating part of the building below. That was maybe the 80th floor. Below that, the core had turned to dust, and the crush zone and damage zone were emanating from the core outward, both pulverizing and causing larger debris to form, while being pushed down by the undamaged top of the building.But the top part of the towers did not remain in one piece, but rather fell apart. Even the guy in the vid you just posted points out that it seemed to disintrigate.



We got to see the limits of the powder and debris destruction in the tall towers that we could not see in WTC7. The shock wave went straight up the core to the 80th floor or so, and then expanded outward, first at the top of the destruction. It reached the outside of the building first at the 80th floor, and lower floors followed when the destruction zone reached them from the top down.Why would it stop at the 80th floor? Or for that matter, why wouldn't it take the path of least resistance and blow out the bottom of the tower as soon as it reached ground level?



If the tall towers were 400 feet shorter, we would not have seen any debris. Just dust--like WTC7.apparently you didn't see the pic that I posted showing bldg 7s debris. Shows lots of non-dust debris.



Each building had an earthshaking explosion beneath it and came down 10 seconds later. Doesn't that suggest something to you?It suggests that it couldn't have been nukes that did it. There's no way it would take 12 seconds for a nukes shock wave to travel the distance of 80 floors.
Blink of an eye? Yes, most def....but the guy said it took 12 whole seconds. A lifetime relative to a nuke going off.



How much energy would it take to turn 3/4 of each building to dust? And break apart another 1/4 of each tall building into pieces small enough to haul away easily? How could you possibly release that much energy so that a building covering an acre and 1200 feet tall would fall into its own footprint in about 20 seconds total?But the towers did not fall into their own foot print. The pic I posted showed debris from the 2 towers spread out over quite a large area. In fact, even the guy in the last vid you posted was asking why debris was spread over two football distance from the towers.
So which is it? Own foot print, or spread out? Can't be both.



That source of energy could only derive from the equation E=MC2. Plus a little deuterium and tritium. Do you know of anything else that would give you such a big bang? I don't. I'm doing something similar to adding 2 Plus 2 and getting 4. Not three, Not 5. 4. Have you got a better answer?My answer would not include 450KT of nukes, I know that much.


As for bldg 7, that was a demolition. If you look at vid of controlled demolition, it looks exactly the same and they weren't done with a nuke, but rather conventional explosives placed in a few strategic points in the building.
All it takes to drop a building like that is to kick its legs out from under it by blowing the support columns on the ground floor.

If you had a top-notch demo team who'd been studying the buildings blueprints ahead of time, you could probably get a building like #7 wired with enough explosives in a couple hours time, to bring it down.
All it would take is to know which columns to place the explosives on, and to have your crew hit the ground running with everything they need on-hand.

[Joe King]

How do buildings explode like that,it just dosnt make any sense if we look at it in a conventional sense.Buildings dont normally explode.
When you say "explode", what exactly are you looking at? The debris pouring out from the area of collapse? Like in these pics?

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?53966-9-11-Experiments-The-Great-Thermate-Debate&p=458807&viewfull=1#post458807

[DMac]

As for bldg 7, that was a demolition. If you look at vid of controlled demolition, it looks exactly the same and they weren't done with a nuke, but rather conventional explosives placed in a few strategic points in the building.
All it takes to drop a building like that is to kick its legs out from under it by blowing the support columns on the ground floor.


So you think controlled demolition occurred on WTC7. What about WTC1 and 2?

Along those lines, do you believe the rest of the Official Conspiracy - 19 Arabs pulled off this operation?

[Hatha Sunahara]

If you had a top-notch demo team who'd been studying the buildings blueprints ahead of time, you could probably get a building like #7 wired with enough explosives in a couple hours time, to bring it down.
All it would take is to know which columns to place the explosives on, and to have your crew hit the ground running with everything they need on-hand.

Are you a demolitions expert? This is patently absurd.


Joe King, it is obvious that you have not watched Khalezov's video nor read his book. The answers to your questions are contained there. However, I doubt that you intend to familiarize yourself with anything the Khalezov says. You seem to have an extraordinary resistance to the idea that nukes were used. Also, you seem to be on a crusade to discredit and to frustrate the people who are familiar with Khalezov's story and believe that nukes were used.

I frankly don't care whether you believe it or not, nor do I care what you believe. I can only assume by your posts that you are being paid to disrupt threads like this. I'm not going to respond to any more of your comments or questions unless I see that you have made some effort to know what you are talking about.


Hatha

[Libertarian_Guard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&NR=1

[Joe King]

Joe King, it is obvious that you have not watched Khalezov's video nor read his book. The answers to your questions are contained there. However, I doubt that you intend to familiarize yourself with anything the Khalezov says. You seem to have an extraordinary resistance to the idea that nukes were used. Also, you seem to be on a crusade to discredit and to frustrate the people who are familiar with Khalezov's story and believe that nukes were used.I'm not on a crusade for anything other than restoring the Republic to its rightful place.
As for the nuke theory, that's all it is, a theory. What I've been doing here is trying to examine the particular details of that theory because I find it rather extraordinary.

So far its been all over the map.
When I watch his video he presents as "evidence" of the tower shaking, I see the camera shaking. When I point that out to you, you tell me that yea, the ground shook when the nuke went off. But he says it didn't. So who is right? You can't both be right on that.

Then he says the whole lower part of the tower turned to dust, but when I post pics of the debris falling alongside an otherwide intact lower part, you say that it wasn't all turned to dust. Which is it? It can't be both.
ie gravity would have pulled it all down together as soon as the lower part turned to dust and it therefore would not have been standing intact as gravity effected debris rained down around it.

I contend that had it "turned to dust" as has been claimed, the entire tower would have lost support at the same instant....but it didn't as evidenced by the pics and vid.

There was in fact non-dustified building below the point of impact point that was holding the upper part until that upper part gave way and collapsed into the part of the tower below the impact point.

As far as the impact point goes, it's very obvious that something hit those towers from the outside. Whether that be plane, missle, ufo, or whatever.
To use explosives sufficient to bend/break the outer beams as seen in the pics, the aluminum facade would have been found blocks away. Rather, the ones that didn't fall off during impact were bent inward.
The fact that the aluminum was also bent inwards along with the beams is proof that explosives could not have been underneath them. If they had been, any of the facade that didn't come off would have been bent and curled outward in an obvious tell-tale sign of internal explosion.



I frankly don't care whether you believe it or not, nor do I care what you believe. I can only assume by your posts that you are being paid to disrupt threads like this. I'm not going to respond to any more of your comments or questions unless I see that you have made some effort to know what you are talking about.I'm not trying to disrupt anything. What I am trying to do is to get you to talk and think about this theory in an objective manner.
....and I have tried to understand the theory. I watched several of his vids as well as read what you've posted and it tends to just leave me with more questions because I'm hearing conflicting answers to my previous questions.

Also, keep in mind that anything I'm posting is not an attack on you in any way. I think you're alright Hatha. You come across in your posts as a nice guy who is sincere.
All I want to do is to analyze the theory, not just simply take his word as absolute fact.

[Serpo]

When you say "explode", what exactly are you looking at? The debris pouring out from the area of collapse? Like in these pics?

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?53966-9-11-Experiments-The-Great-Thermate-Debate&p=458807&viewfull=1#post458807

Post 125 is a picture of a building exploding

[Serpo]

Are you a demolitions expert? This is patently absurd.


Joe King, it is obvious that you have not watched Khalezov's video nor read his book. The answers to your questions are contained there. However, I doubt that you intend to familiarize yourself with anything the Khalezov says. You seem to have an extraordinary resistance to the idea that nukes were used. Also, you seem to be on a crusade to discredit and to frustrate the people who are familiar with Khalezov's story and believe that nukes were used.

I frankly don't care whether you believe it or not, nor do I care what you believe. I can only assume by your posts that you are being paid to disrupt threads like this. I'm not going to respond to any more of your comments or questions unless I see that you have made some effort to know what you are talking about.


Hatha

Mt thoughts exactly as I couldnt care less either what JK believes and as far as I am concerned this is going no where

[Joe King]

Post 125 is a picture of a building explodingNo, it's actually not of a building exploding. It shows the debris falling as a result of upper part of the building collapsing on the part below the point of impact.

Edited to add: If you look at my post #99 (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?53966-9-11-Experiments-The-Great-Thermate-Debate&p=458804&viewfull=1#post458804)you can clearly see that the debris falling out the sides is due to collapse, not a bomb going off. If it was a bomb, the debris would come out just prior to the upper portion falling, but it doesn't do that.

[Joe King]

Mt thoughts exactly as I couldnt care less either what JK believes and as far as I am concerned this is going no where
When you choose to have blind faith in a particular theory, the mind closes to objectivity. All I'm asking is to objectively examine the so-called evidence of nuclear demolition.

Remember, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. What you're asking is for people to accept what the Russian guy says at face value with no questions allowed.
...unless of course they lead to his conclusion. ::)

[Serpo]

No, it's actually not of a building exploding. It shows the debris falling as a result of upper part of the building collapsing on the part below the point of impact.

Of course I should of realised

[Serpo]

. All I'm asking is to objectively examine the so-called evidence of nuclear demolition.

. ::)

I have......

[Joe King]

I have......Do you believe that the building is shaking in that video, or is it the camera shaking? Can't be both. Russian guy says no one on the ground would have felt it. So which is it?

How can debris from above, fall alongside a "dustified" building? If it was dust, it had no support and gravity should have pulled it all down together, but it didn't.
What we see is a relatively intact lower part of the tower still supporting itself until the point of collapse passes on its way to the bottom of the tower.
Does gravity not work in New York the same as it does everywhere else?
The Russian guys diagrams specifically show the tower dropping into the pit created by the atomic explosion, but that's not what we see happening in the videos posted as "proof".
So which is it?

In another video posted as "proof", the guy says a stationary block and a falling block of the same size exert the same downward force. Wrong. A falling object exerts a lot more than a stationary one.
In order to believe this theory, do we have to suspend a belief in physics too? As well as gravity? lol

Like I told Hatha, this theory and the responses from those here who support it seem to conflict greatly with one another.
However, no questions allowed. Asking reasonable questions mean you're being disruptive.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Here's a link to a story about 4 'Art Students' who put up a balcony on the 91st floor of the North WTC tower.

http://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/apps/blog/show/8636674-preparing-the-wtc-for-destruction


It's about some Art Students who built a balcony on the 91st floor of the North WTC Tower. The New York Times even wrote a story about this 'project'.


Hatha

[Joe King]

That was an interesting read, thanks for posting it.
...but what does it have to do with the theory of atomic demolition?

[Neuro]

Here's a link to a story about 4 'Art Students' who put up a balcony on the 91st floor of the North WTC tower.

http://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/apps/blog/show/8636674-preparing-the-wtc-for-destruction

It's about some Art Students who built a balcony on the 91st floor of the North WTC Tower. The New York Times even wrote a story about this 'project'.


HathaHmmm the link is empty for me, can someone post the text?

[Joe King]

Try this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/18/nyregion/balcony-scene-unseen-atop-world-episode-trade-center-assumes-mythic-qualities.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm


Or if you can read sideways, there's this.
http://www.gelitin.net/mambo/files/newspaper_articles/NYT180801.pdf

[Neuro]

I found a link to the original NY times article, from 18th August 2001. That Austrian art group is interesting to look into...

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/18/nyregion/balcony-scene-unseen-atop-world-episode-trade-center-assumes-mythic-qualities.html?src=pm

[Neuro]

Try this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/18/nyregion/balcony-scene-unseen-atop-world-episode-trade-center-assumes-mythic-qualities.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm


Or if you can read sideways, there's this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/18/nyregion/balcony-scene-unseen-atop-world-episode-trade-center-assumes-mythic-qualities.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Thanks, I managed to find it myself...

[Neuro]

From the New York times article above:


Mr. Janka was happy to talk about the project, at least at first. After weeks of planning, he said, one night Gelatin -- he, Florian Reither, Tobias Urban and Wolfgang Gantner -- waited in the studio until dawn. At the appointed moment, the four, wearing harnesses, unscrewed the aluminum moldings that hold the window in place and used two large suction cups to remove the glass (air pressure adds about 300 pounds to the effort).

I wonder what these people do nowadays. They were part of a group called Gelatin, and they lived in WTC 91st floor in March 2000...

[Dogman]

From the New York times article above:



I wonder what these people do nowadays. They were part of a group called Gelatin, and they lived in WTC 91st floor in March 2000...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelitin

[Libertarian_Guard]

Bump for the pictures I downloaded on pages 9,10,11 etc.