Did Nukes Take down the twin towers and building 7 on 9-11? [Archive]

smat

19th May 2010, 18:52

Yer, I suppose that would explain the mushroom cloud and shock wave damage to other buildings. And to think of all those construction workers getting radiation poisoning, cancer, becoming sterile and producing deformed children. Oh the humanity.

You obviously haven't watched the video, it explains that underground nukes react differently to airborne nukes and it was the shock wave that took the towers down.
I understand that your beliefs of what took the towers down may be different than mine, none of us know all the facts neither are we demolition experts. This seems to fit with what I believe although I only heard of this theory a couple of days ago. Please watch the video and see if you still feel the same way.

Strat

2nd June 2010, 00:16

What I still cannot understand is why aren't the general public of the states demanding more answers on what happened; surely there must be a lot of them awake by now over this?

There are people demanding answers but most people are apathetic. Most believe what the news tells them. My own mother thinks I'm being silly when I bring it up, I don't really bother anymore. This is the general mindset of the States. Work the 9-5 get home, watch the news, go to sleep, repeat. Not all are like this but most and I don't blame them. It's a matter of perspective I guess.

In US atm anyone talking about things like this is a terrorist or a racist and he isnt well treated not to say the networks wont allow them to publically talk about this. Listen to Alex Jones if you want to understand things in US atm.

This isn't really true. I've talked about 9/11 at parties and social situations before. It's generally your attitude about the subject. The "you need to open your eyes" attitude bothers people. It's somewhat condescending. I like people and I get along with most of them. I have a great sense of humor and a wealth of knowledge on the subject, this makes me a nasty person to run against in the 9/11 argument in the social situations. If you have the ability to go on a tangent like a comedian going off on a silly subject then people start to listen.

Nobody has ever called me a racist or a terrorist though, paranoid maybe, but not the other two. The sad thing is now a lot of people over here are getting cynical towards Muslims and that bothers me. The general attitude towards them is, "I'm sure there are 'some' good Muslims out there." Just today on the 700 club Pat Robertson was saying that some Muslims teach a message of hate towards the western world inside their mosques. I have a nagging suspicion that he is lying through his teeth.

TThinking

14th July 2010, 20:28

Nukes possible,still a fascinating story 911.Big question why didn't anybody pick on silverstein.Cleaning the towers from asbestos would have cost him a billion.Now he made billions.

Bill Ryan

15th July 2010, 00:12

I've watched the entire video and I am convinced that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were taken down with Nuclear Devices.
I have done a lot of research on 9-11, this video doesn't explain everything about that day. But this guy puts across very good evidence that 3 Nukes were used on 9-11 and also names and shows a picture of the Missile that he thinks was used on the Pentagon which penetrated 4 thick concrete walls and came out the other side which is impossible for an Airplane to do.

http://www.project.nsearch.com/forum/topics/the-twin-towers-and-bldg-7

Folks, I've just read Dimitri Khalezov's whistleblowing book:

9/11thology : The “third” truth about 9/11 (http://depositfiles.com/files/s5socosne)

This man describes himself as:

Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former officer of Soviet Nuclear Intelligence, officially known as the Special Control Service of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry.

He says he KNOWS what happened (he is a whistleblower with inside information) - and it was a nuclear demolition.

http://nuclear-demolition.com

http://911thology.com/home.html

http://depositfiles.com/files/s5socosne

If the book is not available at the Depositfiles URL, let me know and I'll link it on the Avalon server. He's published the first 11 chapters as a free e-book. Serious 9/11 researchers MUST read this.

Teakai

15th July 2010, 00:54

There's an interview on Veritas (love it!) with Dr. Judy Wood speaking about 'direct energy technology' being used on 9/11. I haven't listened to that program yet, but here's the link to the first part if you're interested.

http://www.veritasshow.com/veritasplayer.html

It's episode 51.

Anchor

15th July 2010, 01:15

Yer, I suppose that would explain the mushroom cloud and shock wave damage to other buildings. And to think of all those construction workers getting radiation poisoning, cancer, becoming sterile and producing deformed children. Oh the humanity.

Damn it man, you broke my sarcasm detector ;)

I think mini-nukes would be a better description. Their effects can be shaped like any other explosive given the right environment. Like being underground for example.

Also not all nukes are dirty in terms of long lived radiation - I am sure these would have been at the pinnacle of thier design and a "clean burn".

I think it a plausible theory. Along with the thermite that was used to cut the steel into truck sized lengths - for which evidence was also found.

John..

Tuza

15th July 2010, 03:39

Exactly John, with the nuclear bombs they have now if they used even a small one to bring down the towers it would have wiped out New York City and beyond, I don't think so, has to be something similar to what Dr Wood said; having looked at controlled demolitions plenty of times and how they fall down without other buildings being taken down I still think this is the more likely scenario. The stupidity that all of us would think that one plane or two planes could bring down the twin towers like a pack of cards makes me think that those responsible for this are not that bright really.

noxon medem

15th July 2010, 15:05

..
- It is quite obvious that some type of advanced and well-timed explosions
took place on 11. septemper 2001 in the World Trade Center, Twin Towers,
and was the maine cause of the collaps of the buildings.
That basic fact most truthseekers can agree upon.

This leads us to the next questions of Who (suspect) and Why (motive),
and How, since that will limit he range of suspects (and is part of the story).
- If Thermate was used (as proven by professors Jones and Harrit)
then we are looking for someone with extensive access to the buildings.
- If a Ray/beam from a satelite was used (as stated by John Lear)
we are looking for someone with access to secret spaceprograms.
- If Micro-nukes were used ( a theory also put forth by Bill Deagle) we look
for someone with access to both the advanced explosives and the buildings.
...
While on the subject:
I want to share a concern, or precaution-point, to the 911 truthmovement, and
the many other groups or individual working to get to the facts of the case, and to
bring the real story of the terror-acts to the light, and the real bandits to justice.

- Do not put too much weight on building 7 in the story, even if it is a "smoking gun".
The demolition of Building 7 could easily be explained (away) within common reason.

There are many reasons why a high security building like wtc7 would be secretly
rigged with explosives, so it could be taken down, if taken over by an enemy in war,
or by other qualified circumstances, defined in some Emergency-protocol.
It could turn out it selfdestructed by accident or system failure, and its kept secret
of embarrassement, or to protect the knowledge of the protocol, or whatever.

Do not put the trust (credibility) of your story on Building 7, because if I am right
with my intuition on this, the alternative (real) story could fall with it, or badly injure.
...
There is plenty of evidence (actual and circumstantial) in the rest of this sad saga.
The Twin Towers are packed with evidence on their own, and even more together.
Personally I find the testimony of witnesses to be the best eye-opener and evidence,
combined with expert analysis of the technical side of the matter.
..

Bill Ryan

17th July 2010, 11:15

-----------

Dimitri Khalezov interviewed by Bill Deagle on 28 June:

Dr Bill Deagle Show 100628 1/4 - Dimitri A. Khalezov
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JSV6k7VZu-k

Dr Bill Deagle Show 100628 2/4 - Dimitri A. Khalezov
http://youtube.com/watch?v=saKty3BQyfo

Dr Bill Deagle Show 100628 3/4 - Dimitri A. Khalezov
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6_-3CoHMd3E

Dr Bill Deagle Show 100628 4/4 - Dimitri A. Khalezov
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7unmuLSL01k

JSV6k7VZu-k

saKty3BQyfo

6_-3CoHMd3E

7unmuLSL01k

Eric J (Viking)

17th July 2010, 11:35

Snowbird

17th July 2010, 21:04

I think that might be another show on who he claims is responsible, I'm not sure but I will see if I can find out

Please do!

I just now completed watching ALL the videos and my jaw is still hanging open. I thought that I knew quite a lot about 9/11, but I just learned a great deal more during this extended sitting.

Thanks for posting these smat!!

Snowbird

18th July 2010, 19:47

Folks, I've just read Dimitri Khalezov's whistleblowing book:

9/11thology : The “third” truth about 9/11 (http://depositfiles.com/files/s5socosne)

This man describes himself as:

Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former officer of Soviet Nuclear Intelligence, officially known as the Special Control Service of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry.

He says he KNOWS what happened (he is a whistleblower with inside information) - and it was a nuclear demolition.

http://nuclear-demolition.com

http://911thology.com/home.html

http://depositfiles.com/files/s5socosne

If the book is not available at the Depositfiles URL, let me know and I'll link it on the Avalon server. He's published the first 11 chapters as a free e-book. Serious 9/11 researchers MUST read this.

I've linked two additional web pages. I'm actually in search of his book which I prefer to purchase as this will help him. However, of course, as I live in the U.S. this book is nowhere to be found.

You know, I think I'll just contact him and ask him how I can get a copy. If all else fails, go right to the source.

Welcome to the personal web page of Dimitri A. Khalezov

I am pleased to inform everybody that "The Third Truth about 9/11 Foundation" intends to publish several information web-sites and discussion boards that deal with these topics:

http://dkhalezov.com/911thology.html

http://www.911thology.cn

iceni tribe

26th July 2010, 15:26

alan hart bbc correspondent finally speaks out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHbOhauHELc&feature=related

JoeNashville

26th July 2010, 18:20

This isn't really true. I've talked about 9/11 at parties and social situations before. It's generally your attitude about the subject. The "you need to open your eyes" attitude bothers people. It's somewhat condescending. I like people and I get along with most of them. I have a great sense of humor and a wealth of knowledge on the subject, this makes me a nasty person to run against in the 9/11 argument in the social situations. If you have the ability to go on a tangent like a comedian going off on a silly subject then people start to listen. Nobody has ever called me a racist or a terrorist though, paranoid maybe, but not the other two.

I think etherios was talking about the MSM branding people who try to talk about 9/11 terrorists, or conspiracy theorists or some other label. That is absolutely true and part of the plan. Attack the messenger to negate the message.

..
- Do not put too much weight on building 7 in the story, even if it is a "smoking gun".
The demolition of Building 7 could easily be explained (away) within common reason.

There are many reasons why a high security building like wtc7 would be secretly
rigged with explosives, so it could be taken down, if taken over by an enemy in war,
or by other qualified circumstances, defined in some Emergency-protocol.
It could turn out it selfdestructed by accident or system failure, and its kept secret
of embarrassement, or to protect the knowledge of the protocol, or whatever.

Do not put the trust (credibility) of your story on Building 7, because if I am right
with my intuition on this, the alternative (real) story could fall with it, or badly injure.
..

While the rest of your post makes good sense. This does not. What would the reason to 'pre-wire' a building for destruction in one of the most populated cities in the world. If documents that sensitive needed to be stored a more secure place was easily available. There was nothing related to legitimate government that would make it worth while to destroy a building.
I can't believe even our government could be that stupid! And I'm a cynic.

The theory of DOJ files relating to ongoing cases is the best reason to destroy building 7. An ancillary bonus for those involved.

Building 7 is the perfect smoking gun. And the Pentagon was never even close to looking real and has clearly been proven to be a false flag.

There has never been and will never be a real investigation because who ever pulled off 9/11 is 'in control' for lack of a better phrase. Compared to pulling off 9/11 keeping it quiet is a piece of cake when you're dealing with a gleefully ignorant population.

There is so much evidence out there it takes more effort to believe the real story than not believe it in my view.

The scary part is what's next? They have the methods down cold. First JFK, then Oklahoma City, then 9/11 to name a few. Considering the theory of increasing severity, what could be next??

And so my heart weeps...

noxon medem

26th July 2010, 23:07

While the rest of your post makes good sense. This does not. What would the reason to 'pre-wire' a building for destruction in one of the most populated cities in the world. If documents that sensitive needed to be stored a more secure place was easily available. There was nothing related to legitimate government that would make it worth while to destroy a building.
I can't believe even our government could be that stupid! And I'm a cynic.
The theory of DOJ files relating to ongoing cases is the best reason to destroy building 7. An ancillary bonus for those involved.
Building 7 is the perfect smoking gun. And the Pentagon was never even close to looking real and has clearly been proven to be a false flag.

..
Hello, Joe.
I know it does not make sense, and like I said it is an intuition, not a certain knowledge.
And I am warning not to put too much weight on Building 7, not telling to leave it out of the story.
Because the fall of that building is so obvious, it is also an interesting intellectual exercise to do so.
Anyway something is rotten there, Building 7, even if the pre-wiring should turn out to be true.
But, another important thing, there are no known ( acknowledged ) casualties, deaths, connected
to the Demolition/Selfdestruction of Building 7, so it can be "given up" without any murdercharge.

I felt like sharing it even though its a bit "out there", just because everytime I read or see something
about 9-11, and the main focuspoint is Building 7, my stomach gets upset, and I think: careful there ....
It is my belief that something like what I stated is in "their" deck of cards, and that "they" have not used it
is for me a signal that not much pressure exist in this case, sadly enough. (-many hearts weep over this)
Do not take me too seriously, the last thing I want is to spoil anybodys strategy in the 9-11 matter.
Just some thoughts I wanted to be out there for consideration ...
..

JoeNashville

27th July 2010, 00:44

..
Hello, Joe.
I know it does not make sense, and like I said it is an intuition, not a certain knowledge.
And I am warning not to put too much weight on Building 7, not telling to leave it out of the story.
Because the fall of that building is so obvious, it is also an interesting intellectual exercise to do so.
Anyway something is rotten there, Building 7, even if the pre-wiring should turn out to be true.
But, another important thing, there are no known ( acknowledged ) casualties, deaths, connected
to the Demolition/Selfdestruction of Building 7, so it can be "given up" without any murdercharge.

I felt like sharing it even though its a bit "out there", just because everytime I read or see something
about 9-11, and the main focuspoint is Building 7, my stomach gets upset, and I think: careful there ....
It is my belief that something like what I stated is in "their" deck of cards, and that "they" have not used it
is for me a signal that not much pressure exist in this case, sadly enough. (-many hearts weep over this)
Do not take me too seriously, the last thing I want is to spoil anybodys strategy in the 9-11 matter.
Just some thoughts I wanted to be out there for consideration ...
..

I would be the first to advise someone to go with their intuition. Mine has served me well. But I use mine as a gauge and as an adjunct to intellect and common sense.

Building 7 is the thing that got me really interested in the deeper story of events of the day. I saw the footage of the implosion and assumed it was at least days or even week after 9/11 and upon researching it found out it was just later that same day. And after listening to Siverstein say he gave the order for them to 'pull it' I had seen enough.

There were no casualties because they had all day to get everybody out. The building was on fire so it would be a no brainer to clear the building. They obviously have no compunction about killing any number of people anyway.

I don't have a 'strategy' relating to 9/11. It's not to hard to figure out all the ins and outs if anyone cares to look. I'm done with it until the people wake up. Normally, I wouldn't even post in a 9/11 thread but this board is more into open minded discussion.

I've heard the theory of space based weapons to bring down the towers and that is why they are having trouble building on ground zero site because the residual effects are damaging the new construction. That was an interesting theory which I heard on a Veritas interview. I would like to look into that. From what I've seen the delays are standard and typical trying to get anything done in NYC BS.

But I know the towers were brought down with a variety of methods including standard implosion techniques and thermite. I've seen the pics that prove thermite was used and there was ample evidence of white phosphorous use. It's no surprise why they wanted to seal off the site and clear away the evidence. My only 'goal' would be to have a real and thorough investigation and let the chips fall where they may. But I know that would be very ugly and freak most Americans out.

Oh well...

kcw_one

27th July 2010, 03:07

I tried to upload this document a good few months back
but wasn't quite sure how to upload PDF ...

Anyway a bit wiser down the road now...here you go...

Yes it was a nuclear explosion!!!

1419

viking

I just finished reading this document that viking posted. Very well put together, well researched, and well documented. I've not looked too deeply into the ins and outs of the WTC fiasco aside from hearing the odd bit of theorizing here and there. From what was contained in this document, it does appear that a core meltdown of a couple of nuclear reactors may have caused the demolition. Having heard some reports of hidden underground installations being built in many locations, it isn't too far a stretch to think that a couple of nuclear powerplants could have been hidden "in plain sight" under the towers of corporate hegemony. We may never understand why this crime was committed, or by whom, but I think we've heard enough to know that these assninjas haven't got much regard for the lives and safety of the rest if us. I wonder if this destruction of a seemingly strategic asset of the NWO crowd has anything to do with the power struggles going on amongst the American factions of the illuminati crapknockers. Baby Bush did seem caught off guard when they told him what happened while he was reading to that group of schoolkids. Though he could have just been outta the loop, being little more than a figurehead anyway.

K626

27th July 2010, 13:29

Bush Jnr would have know nothing about the 9/11 conspiracy, but Bush snr it is my understanding along with Cheney would have had some scant details of the opp, not the logistics but certainly the projection of global power that was to be the fallout from it. A cabal or cell withing the US intelligence community is now a clear and imminent danger to the planet.

K

noxon medem

30th July 2010, 01:49

..
- Very intriguing theory about the nuclear bombs being planted for future demolition.
- It was supposed to be required by city building administration, and here is one point that raise a question :
- If I understand things correct there is (was?) a subway-station right under the world trade centre complex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_%28PATH_station%29

- When so. How can they make such a demolitionplan and get it approved by the city council ?
A Nuke ( or two, was it one covering both towers ?)
- Wouldn't that affect subwayconditions (blow it to pieces), and traffic, just a tiny bit .. ?
- Are existing damages to the subwaystation consistent with the nuke theory ?
..
& Where has common sense and human science gone to hiding, in all of this ..

kcw_one

30th July 2010, 06:56

After having watched a couple of videos showing the collisions and collapses of the buildings, I am certain that there is something definitely wrong with what happened there (well duh right?). What hit me this time was how these huge buildings left almost nothing behind compared to what was there when they were standing. Think of all those tons of concrete, steel, building materials, furnishings, etc. that were present in the mass of the twin towers before they fell. You'd think that would leave quite a heap of rubble, but when you look at the aftermath, once the dust dispersed, there is only tow holes. I know there were basement structures that went kinda deep, but c'mon. All those tons of debris. Where'd it all go? And why were all the pieces reduced to such small pieces? I'm no engineer, but I've seen demolished buildings before and there's usually some reinforced concrete chunks and stuff lying in a heap, but according to rescue people there wasn't much of anything bigger than a phone receiver. Aside from the neatly cut steel support columns that is.

Fishy. Even looking at the video once more, it looks way more like an explosion the way the tops flew off in pieces like that.

iceni tribe

3rd August 2010, 15:49

just released today , 22 minute film by richard d hall , very very interesting

http://www.richplanet.net/911.php

Snowbird

3rd August 2010, 19:41

just released today , 22 minute film by richard d hall , very very interesting

http://www.richplanet.net/911.php

This is an excellent study that Richard Hall has performed and shared with the world.

His last few words, Do not be duped are profound in more ways than one. After all these years, I am just now coming to the conclusion that there really were no planes that hit the twin towers. I remember when I first heard about the no-plane theory by Morgan Reynolds, below, I honestly thought that the man had some screws loose. What a difference a few years make and some sound education!

As heinous as the truth is in that we know the enormity of what happened to those who were murdered within the twin towers and the Pentagon, I wonder if we will ever know the fates and the locations of those who were passengers on the flights.

Morgan Reynold, Ph.D.

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

noxon medem

3rd August 2010, 20:32

As heinous as the truth is in that we know the enormity of what happened to those who were murdered within the twin towers and the Pentagon, I wonder if we will ever know the fates and the locations of those who were passengers on the flights.
..
- There are rumours the passengers were taken to a Nasa facility,
and other rumours that "they" are colonizing Mars ...
- If we put the two together and let imagination run with it,
maybe they were given a shovel and a designated piece of
land up there, and told to start getting the old planet going,
- again ...
- Or The Men in Black showed up with their neat memory-eraser (?)
- Maybe they all live happily ignorant that they were the passengers
of the four famous 9-11 airplanes. Do you remember the flightnumber
when you fly ? Maybe they tricked with the passengerlist, who knows.
..
Some of them could actualy have died, or all. I too find this documentary
by Richard Hall very interesting and a fine way of presentation.
We must keep up pressure in this case, but there is a lot of things
to keep up with. Oh well ...
All well, to all.
..
1587 -'- 1588
..
1586 -'- 1589
..
click images to view

noxon medem

4th August 2010, 01:00

..
September Clues, the film
mentioned by Richard D. Hall in his documentary (see post 32)
..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6407548186293238834#

..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6407548186293238834#
..

zurx

9th September 2010, 15:22

I'm still working through the Khalezov material. But I've got a question now that I've been able to sleep on it (I'm halfway through). I know this came up in one of the videos, but it would take me forever to track it down. If there were nukes on the planes that hit the twin towers (which is what Khalezov says is what made our government decide to hit the button and demolish the buildings) why would demolishing the towers help at all? I mean... wouldn't that just cause the nukes to fall to the ground, causing them to go off? I don't understand why that decision was made... it doesn't sound the most wise thing to do. I know I'm missing something, so if someone could answer this for me it'd be much appreciated :)

After posting this, I went back and watched part of the video, and I don't think was addressed. I have another problem with this too... He says that the demolition alarm system was turned off the morning of 9-11, which we all know. The interviewer says that this means there was some kind of foreknowledge, to which Khalezov says, "No, I think there was some kind of conspiracy." Ok, well, what? This is never explained. I'm completely convinced there was foreknowledge, just watch Michael Ruppert's presentation on 9-11. There is more to this story that Khalezov either isn't telling, or isn't addressing, which just isn't good enough for me.

I'm just going to add more comments as they come. The other problem I have with what he says is regarding the Pentagon. I have no doubt in my mind that a missle hit the Pentagon. However, after watching this documentary (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/national-security-alert/ - National Security Alert, the Pentagon Attacks) there are just too many eyewitnesses seeing a PLANE heading for the Pentagon. So perhaps the missle was made to look like a plane? I'm not sure.

Swami

9th September 2010, 18:05

Dimitri Khalezov

Torrents: http://www.torrentz.com/ea8125db18edeaa5a78fb19ac5dddd2b3fd6ccb0

This is Zionism: http://thisiszionism.blogspot.com/2010/05/dimitri-khalezovs-nuclear-demolition.html

Zook

11th September 2010, 15:56

Hi Swami,

Dimitri Khalezov

Torrents: http://www.torrentz.com/ea8125db18edeaa5a78fb19ac5dddd2b3fd6ccb0

This is Zionism: http://thisiszionism.blogspot.com/2010/05/dimitri-khalezovs-nuclear-demolition.html

I find Dmitri Khalezov`s account to be less than credible. For one, he claims that the crushed zone created by a 150-kiloton thermonuclear device located some 50 meters below the bottom of (either) twin tower - some 77 feet below ground level - would shoot up the tower to heights in excess of 290 meters. But if this were the case, then all of the tower below 290 meters would have been [I]crushed[/I into microscopic dust and sequentially from bottom up because the crushing occurs closest to the nuclear device first. To wit, there would not have been top down destruction as observed, rather, the top part (beyond 290 meters) would have fallen at free fall speed into the virtually absent bottom part composed of microscopic dust. Khalezov condemns his own account further by noting that the dust is primarily made from pulverized steel. See below excerpt.

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

*************beignExcerpt*******************************
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.
**************end***************************

Secondly, Khalezov maintains that WTC7 was also brought down by a similarly placed nuke. However, all available video evidence of the WTC7 collapse shows the features of standard controlled demolition: explosive sounds, a central kink, ejected squibs, flashes of light that encircle the structure, free fall speed into its own footprint, etc.

Mind you, nukes may yet have been used at some of the nodes (in tandem with standard and nonstandard demolition techniques). Exact details of the collapse(s) will reveal themselves in the proper time, to be sure. For now, discussion of nukes is not necessary to establish the Inside Job nature of the attacks; indeed, such discussion is likely to obstruct establishment.

Cheers
Uncle Zook

noxon medem

29th October 2010, 18:07

Doubt this post is remotely, or somehow related ,
- well what the hell. I choose to post it anyway .

And then: about David Wilcock, and the humorous Makarov-connection :

If David say some people laugh when he mention Makarov, in the a famous group
of three brilliant russian scientists, then it is because there was a classic line-up
including a fantastic (an artist) ice hockey player, from the cccp (he he)
called Makarov. So there you go. Now you know.
Krutov was one of the other, Larionov, and ....
- in the classic, genious, lineup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKTi6RDXqSI

Great goals by Larionov, Makarov, Krutov, Fetisov, Kasatonov

nm

Zook

29th October 2010, 18:53

[...]
And then: about David Wilcock, and the humorous Makarov-connection :

If David say some people laugh when he mention Makarov, in the a famous group
of three brilliant russian scientists, then it is because there was a classic line-up
including a fantastic (an artist) ice hockey player, from the cccp (he he)
called Makarov. So there you go. Now you know.
Krutov was one of the other, Larionov, and ....
- in the classic, genious, lineup:
[...]
Great goals by Larionov, Makarov, Krutov, Fetisov, Kasatonov
nm

Such memories you bring back, Nox (Midnight??). I go a few years further back than that. Kharlamov, Mikhailov, and Yakushev!! Don't forget Tretiak. And Helmut Balderis!! What a name ... what a player! Everyone oughta have Helmut for a name, even to be king for just a day! Wot?

:nhl_checking:

Back to topic ... it is of MHO that disinfo is being promoted with both the nuclear device hypothesis (Khalezov) and the energy beam hypothesis (Judy Wood). For the reasons I stated in my previous post. Also, why would they use two fundamentally different methods of building demolition (nuclear pulverization and controlled demolition via thermite/nanothermite) for virtually the same task, e.g. building down skyscrapers? Seems highly implausible for that reason alone. After all, the collapse of WTC7 has the indisputable features of standard controlled demolition. By comparison, the destruction of the twin towers appears to be a nonstandard top-down demolition but with plenty of evidence for thermite/thermate/nanothermate (iron spherules, sulfidized steel beams, white smoke, demolition squibs and light flashes, explosions, etc.). The two observable techniques used in bringing down the three towers are different in some ways, true, but fundamentally similar.

I can only speculate that as the evidence for false flag becomes more and more established, the perpetrators of the false flag are pumping up the volume of the dark-tented phony "truth" movement, e.g. to match the penetrating sound of the diasporic real truth movement.

:typing:

Hiram

29th October 2010, 19:11

I can only speculate that as the evidence for false flag becomes more and more established, the perpetrators of the false flag are pumping up the volume of the dark-tented phony "truth" movement, e.g. to match the penetrating sound of the diasporic real truth movement.

:typing:

Great post Zook. I agree completely. It is pretty standard to encourage wildly speculative theories around the false-flag in order to discredit the actual case, whenever it is brought forward. This is the same approach certain parties take with disclosure of ETs, etc. Saturate the media with almost precisely the same "fictional" stories, and viola, you have ostensibly explained away all of the actual experiences by association to these new fanciful works of fiction.

Its quite brilliant actually. The only defense is to be very persistent in publicizing what is actually there in the evidence. Publicize it again and again. That is the only defense.

I don't know what was actually involved with taking the towers down. I have some good ideas that I think are supported by the evidence coming out. There may have been some very new technology used. But since I have no basis for understanding or proving the use of energy beams, or micronukes capable of such a thing, I choose not to focus there. It's possible.

The whole operation was such a huge gamble...whomever did it was really going for broke, and they had to have known that if it didn't go through somewhat as planned--their very lives would be forfeit.

I would be surprised if many of the people who were involved in the operation are still alive at all. The best bet would be to initially pay off the players, let them think they have retired in comfort on Lake Como or some such thing...and then quietly eliminate them. Eliminate everyone who knows. That is what happened with Kennedy.

iceni tribe

6th January 2011, 15:38

holograms .....here is a demo from 2004 showing what they are capable of

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJjOEgbXlKE&feature=player_embedded#!

so the whole audience thought they saw a helicopter flying over their heads , then we get richard d halls sphere crashing into the secound tower.
http://www.richplanet.net/911.php

so what if we put the 2 together.
we get a holographic image of a plane coming from the sphere , everyone saw a plane you would have to be mad to say no planes hit the tower wouldn't you , and if it was your operation you wouldn't care less if 1200 archetects say it was brought down by thermite because it could never be proved in a court of law because that's not how it happened.
then their is the cartoon hole in the second tower , how can the wing of a plane which is made from aliminium cut through a section of the building , can we not see charges going off to make that hole.
so im asking myself , which floors had the initial inpact , who owned or was working from these floors.

then we have "september clues"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im1pLbev5NI

please dont get me wrong , im not on some sort of crusade to make everyone believe this is what happened that day , im just putting this out their for a opinion.

we humans are always watching the magicians wand as it twirls round and round , and stand in awe of the trick , which is always a illusion or a slight of hand.

Lord Sidious

6th January 2011, 17:47

What I have done with the whole Sep 11 deal is work on what I DO know and leave what I don't alone.
What that means is this; the tight turns the two airliners pulled before hitting the buildings in NY aren't possible for a manned civilian airliner.
You need to be wearing g suits to be able to resist black out while pulling high g turns.
Airliners don't have them and you can't just take one on board, there is nowhere to ''plug'' them in.
As for a nuclear detonation, that sounds like a bridge too far.
Regardless of anything else, I don't think a nuke can detonate without emp, electromagnetic pulse.
There wasn't any on the day.
This isn't a conclusive deduction, it is just my conjecture, but I would be interested in the emp part of the theory.