Dr Bill Deagle, June 2007: 9/11 - The Twin Towers were Nuked

[Bill Ryan]

-------

Somehow, despite knowing 'Dr Bill' personally, I had quite missed this. Here's Dr Bill's presentation to Vancouver 911 Truth in Canada, on 24 June 2007. The YouTube videos have only had a few hundred views. I'd never seen this before.

The first part is this video, which is well worth watching for all those who, like myself, appreciate and value Dr Bill's intelligence, style, quickness of thought, and vast database of information.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eU9x69Wo_lk

The part about the Twin Towers being taken down by micronukes and thermate starts at about 5:38 in Part 2 (the first video embedded below). He's several years ahead of Judy Wood here, and cites the same evidence plus more.

For me, his presentation is a slam-dunk 12-0 non-debunkable jury conviction re the use of nukes, right there -- even though Dr Bill is formally scientifically cautious in places. I got to be impressed.

The second video below (Part 3) is the tail end of the presentation, lasting a further 4 minutes.

Enjoy Dr Bill's many gifts here, not the least of which is his extraordinary intellect. 9/11 being nuked pretty much starts at 5:38.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58LKv6dYJw8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdE5D7jHsig

[ThePythonicCow]

Excellent find, Bill.

Thanks!

[AlaBil]

Many thanks for this Bill. Most around me don't want to hear anything about this and mostly refuse to believe it when confronted with the truth.

Here is the complete presentation all in one video...


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

[Prodigal Son]

Thanks Bill. Undebunkable indeed.

Aside from the melted cars and the vaporizing antenna, there were two images that sealed it for me that nukes were involved.

In this aerial view of Ground Zero, the holes burned through the lower buildings, which did not collapse, is proof of superheated material falling through them, like a hot knife through butter.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzaerial3.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_arial2_ort.jpg

In this next image, we see a steel beam belonging to the Deutschbank Building across Liberty Street that is clearly melted and twisted. I don't know of any jet fuel that can do this to a steel beam belonging to another building. Ironically, we can thank FEMA for this photo.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/WTC7b.html

http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/WTC7/crinkle_mark_s.jpg

That Bin Laden was something else eh? :rolleyes:

[ThePythonicCow]

Later that same day, 24 June 2007, still in Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Steven Jones and Bill Deagle discussed what kind of evidence would be needed to prove the use of nuclear weapons on 9/11:

Steven Jones & Bill Deagle Discuss Nukes on 9/11 (Youtube Playlist) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&list=PL769AB1E9167AD928&v=nzZ9-RzMtzM)
~~~~~

Here's the first of the 5 youtube videos in that Playlist:

nzZ9-RzMtzM

[ThePythonicCow]

Later that same day, 24 June 2007, still in Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Steven Jones and Bill Deagle discussed what kind of evidence would be needed to prove the use of nuclear weapons on 9/11
Here is a transcript of that discussion between Deagle and Jones, made by Andrew Johnson, with comments added by Andrew Johnson and Judy Wood: Transcript of "Micronukes vs Thermite/Thermate at WTC" (http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jones_Deagle_transcript.html).

Note for example these notes added by Johnson and Wood:

18 (http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jones_Deagle_transcript.html#_ftnref18)) Again, directed energy effects are being discussed here (even if from some EMP or Micronuke weapon to which Deagle alludes) so this contradicts the earlier statement about “no evidence of directed energy” - see footnote 6.
19 (http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jones_Deagle_transcript.html#_ftnref19)) Is “para-magnetic” energy the same as “directed energy”?
20 (http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jones_Deagle_transcript.html#_ftnref20)) and the evidence for this thought would be? As his results of isotopic testing are “not in yet” - see footnote 29.
26 (http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jones_Deagle_transcript.html#_ftnref26)) What exactly is a “giga-tesla-type pulsed magnetic effect”? If it’s a magnetic effect, it sounds like it could be a directed energy effect...
29 (http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jones_Deagle_transcript.html#_ftnref29)) Deagle is discussing results he hasn’t had yet - so he has no evidence? Is this what he is saying?
39 (http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jones_Deagle_transcript.html#_ftnref39)) Where did Deagle get his samples? Is he testing Jones’ sample from which some of the Thermite evidence was supposedly determined? The McKinley dust? Where did the 2 other samples come from?
58 (http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jones_Deagle_transcript.html#_ftnref58)) Absolute? Or there may be another hypothesis that a negative result supports - such as the large-scale use of DEW?
64 (http://drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jones_Deagle_transcript.html#_ftnref64)) It very much sounds like Deagle wants to support the thermite hypothesis - which he already regards as proven

So far as I have been able to find in my modest efforts at searching so far, the test results for neutron activated isotopes of niobium, beryllium, and cobalt which Dr Bill Deagle expected to have in a couple of weeks (as of June 24, 2007) are not yet available (as of June 3, 2013).

Here's my views on this, so far:




We, in the general public, do not have specific knowledge of the advanced weaponry available to some of the black ops on this planet. Not only do we not have access to the technology; we don't even have reliable or comprehensive access to the underlying fundamental physics involved.

Most of us when we hear "nukes" think of "big badda boom" -- the initiation of extreme explosive effects using nuclear fusion (fusing hydrogen to helium) or fission (splitting uranium or plutonium).

Most of us when we hear "directed energy weapons" think of some microwave (or other frequency) beam of energy from some high tech "gun", like the special effects in a Star Wars movie.

To the extent that these views reflect our best understanding of the available technology and physics, to that extent, arguing whether it was micro-nukes or directed energy is an unfortunate distraction.

As best as I can figure at present, the key technical difference between nukes and directed energy weapons, as would apply here, is whether the effects include intense bursts of neutrons. It is the neutrons that impact other atoms, changing their nucleus, making them into radioactive elements and/or changing their atomic number.

So far as 9/11 goes, I don't actually care for the most part myself whether the mechanism used to dustify the various World Trade Center buildings was neutron rich or not. Perhaps if myself or someone close to me had been in New York City at that time, I would care more, for personal reasons. Either way, it's clear to me that Dick Cheney was several degrees closer to the center of those responsible than Osama bin Laden.

But the nature of the primary mechanism used to dustify the towers (in addition to all the other fireworks, explosions, cutter charges and whatever) does matter, in my view, in a couple of ways:

If seriously black op technology and physics was used, that narrows down the list of potential culprits to just those who had access to such capabilities.
If seriously black op technology and physics was used, that exposes more vividly the existence of advanced physics that could be put to some good use (e.g., abundant free energy) for humanity, rather than just secret use in major false flag operations.

I find Bill Deagle's willingness to accept Steve Jones' assertion that thermate had a major role in the destruction of the WTC towers to be suspect. I do not trust Jones any further than I could throw him, and this in turn leads me to be suspicious of others when they trust him or play along with him.

Deagle did not actually complete and publish the tests for neutron activated isotopes of niobium, beryllium, and cobalt which he anticipated back then, so far as I have yet determined. He does an impressive job of presenting his resume and passing on information told to him about various events, but he does not attempt to catalog, with careful records of source, anything approaching the volume of evidence regarding what happened to the WTC towers on 9/11 that Judy Wood does. Not even close.

[Mu2143]

..........................

[Sierra]

But the nature of the primary mechanism used to dustify the towers (in addition to all the other fireworks, explosions, cutter charges and whatever) does matter, in my view, in a couple of ways:

If seriously black op technology and physics was used, that narrows down the list of potential culprits to just those who had access to such capabilities.
If seriously black op technology and physics was used, that exposes more vividly the existence of advanced physics that could be put to some good use (e.g., abundant free energy) for humanity, rather than just secret use in major false flag operations.


Bump bump. :)

Which is why they fight so hard to keep us in the dark.

[Praxis]

AFter watching this I still do not think that the evidence points towards any kind of conventional explosion. I think that people are looking for a conventional explanation and that is why nukes are appealing.

WHile this may explain what happened to the building itself, which I think is debatable, it does not explain what happened to the surrounding areas and more importantly what DIDNT happen to the basement, retaining wall, paper, and subways. Why does not one have video of the sound of the impact of the building hitting the ground? It is because nothing hit the ground, and NO explosion is capable of doing that to a building while at the same time not doing anything to the surrounding buildings. Or videos that have the sound of the proposed nuke explosion? We should hear it on some video and they should be able to identify it right? I would imagine that a nuke would make a sound.

I stand by my statement: Judy Wood is the closest we have to a complete theory.
Never forget . . . the paper that didnt combust and the bathtub that didnt break.

p.s. I forgot about the fire fighters boots "melting". How would the nuke route explain this detail? I can see an explanation but I would imagine the fire fighters would also melt

[ThePythonicCow]

Deagle did not actually complete and publish the tests for neutron activated isotopes of niobium, beryllium, and cobalt which he anticipated back then, so far as I have yet determined. He does an impressive job of presenting his resume and passing on information told to him about various events, but he does not attempt to catalog, with careful records of source, anything approaching the volume of evidence regarding what happened to the WTC towers on 9/11 that Judy Wood does. Not even close.
There is one key point however where I do agree, with both Deagle and Wood:

No plausible amount of the most powerful conventional chemical explosives available, such as C-4, RDX, CL-20, HNC, ONC, ... (see list here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_effectiveness_factor)) comes even close to the energy levels or detonation velocities required to convert a million tons of steel and concrete to fine dust in twenty seconds (ten seconds per tower.)Some mechanism using "advanced physics" was required to molecularly disassociate that many chemical bonds, that rapidly. Whether that mechanism also involved intense neutron bursts or not is perhaps a bit more open to question. However some of the Hutchinson like effects that Judy Wood documents do not involve intense neutron bursts.

It is this obvious (to me at least) conclusion that I believe Steve Jones is doing his best to obfuscate. Something non-conventional, non-chemical, was a major and essential mechanism in the dustification of the WTC towers on 9/11.

[bennycog]

I found this article pretty interesting..

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2010/09/18/pictures-prove-mini-nukes-caused-9-11-devastation/

http://www.pakalertpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/dennis41.jpg

There are only two events known to cause ground-hugging pyroclastic flows (pictured above).

1.A volcanic eruption

2.A thermo nuclear detonation

by “Dennis”
All research provided by:

www.drjudywood.com and http://911u.org/

"And who planted the mini nukes in the first place"

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4608797285548387&pid=1.7&w=217&h=155&c=7&rs=1

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5000687263285799&pid=1.7&w=232&h=155&c=7&rs=1

[Lifebringer]

So they are gonna use the hidden weaponry upon us to disintegrate?

Boy what devious intent that brings as well as Karma.

Like Moses said to Pharoah, "The next curse will be from your own mouth." Know how that one turned out.
It's justice time people, justice. Nothing else will do. A promise is a promise.

[mojo]

Prefer Dr Judy Woods assessment of the events that transpired but in the end we agree that it was more more then the planes that did it and that is the sad commentary.

[robinr1]

Prefer Dr Judy Woods assessment of the events that transpired but in the end we agree that it was more more then the planes that did it and that is the sad commentary.


totally agree with this.....they both cant be factually correct........can they???

[bennycog]

Prefer Dr Judy Woods assessment of the events that transpired but in the end we agree that it was more more then the planes that did it and that is the sad commentary.


totally agree with this.....they both cant be factually correct........can they???

How many backup plans would you have if you were "the bastards in power"?

[Daozen]

•If seriously black op technology and physics was used, that exposes more vividly the existence of advanced physics that could be put to some good use (e.g., abundant free energy) for humanity, rather than just secret use in major false flag operations.

I never thought of this. Dustify a tower ==>> Dustify a landfill + tyrepit.

[Eram]

...

The first part is this video, which is well worth watching for all those who, like myself, appreciate and value Dr Bill's intelligence, style, quickness of thought, and vast database of information.

...

For me, his presentation is a slam-dunk 12-0 non-debunkable jury conviction re the use of nukes, right there -- even though Dr Bill is formally scientifically cautious in places. I got to be impressed.



Personally, I find dr. Deagle's way of speaking rather overwhelming, because I know so little about the subjects that he talks about.
The nature of explosions, heat, destructions of buildings, radiation etc. are not my field of expertise nor is it (for the larger part) for the audience that he is addressing (I would think).

He bombards us with data, difficult words and repeatedly pointing to his own experiences from his field of work (which should add to his credibility).

It makes me feel a bit uneasy, because listening to him is a bit like listening to an expert in bonds an shares, advising me how to buy and sell..... I just have to take his word for it, because his knowledge of the subject transcends mine by a million miles.
The picture that he paints of the events are believable though..... if all that he presents as proof is indeed non-debunkable that is.

One of his strongest arguments for the use of a nuclear device is his claim that 2/3 of the mass of the building disappeared into an atomic vapor, which is quite a statement and requires some proof in my opinion.
All the proof that he presents is a picture of 4 frames combined of the so called radio tower on top of one of the two buildings that where hit by a plane, that (as he claims) disintegrated into atomic particles, starting at 13:15 into the second youtube.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4113/towerz.png

He introduces the image with the question: "Did anybody see this radio tower go "poof"?"
Well... I haven't, so I though to search for some footage of that on youtube myself, which should be easy to find, because I argue that a radio tower that goes "poof" is not something that escapes the attention of the people who are eager to point out the anomalies of the collapses of the two towers.

To my surprise ... I couldn't find footage of a radio tower that vaporised, but I did find footage of the crumbling tower, leaving a part of the outer structure standing at first and than sinking into its own footprint.

goGGQhhTcDY

Clearly this is the same structure that dr. Deagle claims to be a vaporising radio tower and therefore, the picture that he presents as proof for the use of a nuclear device is debunk-able.
One could even speculate that whoever created that picture with four frames of the collapsing side structure of the tower and added the text: "911 WTC radio tower vaporizes" , was deliberately making false proof, because he probably got those four frames of film footage that would easily proof that it was not a radio tower that vaporised.

Here you see the north tower (with the actual radio tower on top) collapse, without vaporising the radio tower.

CKxtERce_PQ

That picture was at best poorly chosen and decreases the credibility for his case.
In my opinion, someone who makes speeches like these should be extra careful as to what he adds to his presentations to proof his claims.
A mistakes like this one should have been avoided.

[Mu2143]

.............................

[Cidersomerset]

I have no doubt these towers were not brought down by Aircraft, building seven is
the proof. There are several theories, Judy Wood seems to be on the right lines
and if it was mini nukes or some other explosives in the basement that is
probably the cause of the pancake collapse, if not a partical weapon. Certainly not
fire or expanding metal beams.

Bob Dobbs/Nevritt explains how these things are done with patsies, smoke &
mirrors. When JF was murdered by a hit team, Oswald was employed to fire
warning shots a JF while the rest of the team shot him and then to be caught
and framed. One of the shots was from the shooter in the floor above Oswald
window in the book depository to give the right angle to implicate him.
Oswald had previously fired two warning shots at the President in Miami
and Chicago, so he thought this was part of the scaring of the President
into giving up his programme on the fed and sacking J Edgar Hoover etc.
if you want to know more about that listen to Bob on Eben Rays show.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?52590-Bob-Dobbs-Reveals-the-Individuals-Behind-the-Kennedy-Assassination

Even if you do not believe him its a very plausible explanation.....

Anyway Bob has been playing a lot of his personal sessions with Ion over
the past few months. They are truncated among the larger five six
hour shows. He played one the other week which touched upon
9/11, which basically said it was impossible by the laws of physics
as we know it for the planes to have brought them down from where
they hit. At best they could have only caused the floors above them
to topple over but unlikely .Ion did go on to explain that for the
planes to have any chance of this, they would have to have hit
lower down and at a different angle, and then the Towers would
have toppled not pancaked.

Ion did point out the two towers were connected by the underground
car park and mall, and something possibly was planted there, But it could not
have been destructive in the sence they had to be careful not to breach
the Basin wall and let the Hudson River flood New York as it is well
below water level, If I can find more I'll mention it just for consideration.

As has been said the only people capable of this act has to be
inciders from within the US or similar powerfull group. Not
the patsies in the planes, if they were real .


===================================================

Actually Ed Long at Information Farm has posted some of it....explains 1993
attempt. A must listen imo , upto you if you go with it.


May 10, 2013


iON | The Twin Towers & 9/11

Payday

Bob Dobbs’ private session 209 with iON, 23 November 2009.

http://halkinnaman.com/ed/audio_rr/ion_world_trade_center_911.mp3


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__gUjUv1vvw&list=PLJ829gfJZMkGNu1jYyyauPpa7o6u2TMJa&feature=player_embedded#!

http://informationfarm.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/ion-twin-towers-911.html



I just relistened the first part ion explains the physics, it then goes into stuff that
is at the heart of the ion material in that reality is not what we think and we are
interacting with parallel worlds all the time and some elites realise this and have
been doing so for thousands of years.

[boja]

Folks,
Please don't get embroiled in the argument - Method (a), or Method (b) -- DISTRACTION.

What's important here is that "somebody" murdered several thousands of innocent people !

[Prodigal Son]

...

The first part is this video, which is well worth watching for all those who, like myself, appreciate and value Dr Bill's intelligence, style, quickness of thought, and vast database of information.

...

For me, his presentation is a slam-dunk 12-0 non-debunkable jury conviction re the use of nukes, right there -- even though Dr Bill is formally scientifically cautious in places. I got to be impressed.



Personally, I find dr. Deagle's way of speaking rather overwhelming, because I know so little about the subjects that he talks about.
The nature of explosions, heat, destructions of buildings, radiation etc. are not my field of expertise nor is it (for the larger part) for the audience that he is addressing (I would think).

He bombards us with data, difficult words and repeatedly pointing to his own experiences from his field of work (which should add to his credibility).

It makes me feel a bit uneasy, because listening to him is a bit like listening to an expert in bonds an shares, advising me how to buy and sell..... I just have to take his word for it, because his knowledge of the subject transcends mine by a million miles.
The picture that he paints of the events are believable though..... if all that he presents as proof is indeed non-debunkable that is.

One of his strongest arguments for the use of a nuclear device is his claim that 2/3 of the mass of the building disappeared into an atomic vapor, which is quite a statement and requires some proof in my opinion.
All the proof that he presents is a picture of 4 frames combined of the so called radio tower on top of one of the two buildings that where hit by a plane, that (as he claims) disintegrated into atomic particles, starting at 13:15 into the second youtube.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4113/towerz.png

He introduces the image with the question: "Did anybody see this radio tower go "poof"?"
Well... I haven't, so I though to search for some footage of that on youtube myself, which should be easy to find, because I argue that a radio tower that goes "poof" is not something that escapes the attention of the people who are eager to point out the anomalies of the collapses of the two towers.

To my surprise ... I couldn't find footage of a radio tower that vaporised, but I did find footage of the crumbling tower, leaving a part of the outer structure standing at first and than sinking into its own footprint.

goGGQhhTcDY

Clearly this is the same structure that dr. Deagle claims to be a vaporising radio tower and therefore, the picture that he presents as proof for the use of a nuclear device is debunk-able.
One could even speculate that whoever created that picture with four frames of the collapsing side structure of the tower and added the text: "911 WTC radio tower vaporizes" , was deliberately making false proof, because he probably got those four frames of film footage that would easily proof that it was not a radio tower that vaporised.

Here you see the north tower (with the actual radio tower on top) collapse, without vaporising the radio tower.

CKxtERce_PQ

That picture was at best poorly chosen and decreases the credibility for his case.
In my opinion, someone who makes speeches like these should be extra careful as to what he adds to his presentations to proof his claims.
A mistakes like this one should have been avoided.
Surely you are correct that it was not the TV antennae that vaporized but a remnant of the core as the video clearly shows the antenna going down into the building as the "collapse" was initiated. But I ask, what is the difference? Steel is steel. Is it any less impressive that it was the core and not the antenna?

Yes, Dr. Deagle made a mistake if he was indicating that it was the TV antenna that was remaining atop the structure that was momentarily still standing after the initial collapse. I even made a mistake in calling it a vaporizing antenna in my last post when I knew that it was part of the core. I just thought Dr. Deagle had seen something that I missed but it turns out he made a mistake. If it was legal testimony in a court of law a defense attorney would try to wipe out all his testimony but an equally good prosecution attorney would cross examine and rehabilitate his testimony. The defense attorney's job is to get the criminal acquitted on a technicality while discrediting witnesses which is exactly what you're trying to do.

Obviously all of the outer walls, floors and the bulk of the massive core had collapsed but part of it, a sliver with a very narrow piece of the framing resembling the antenna was still standing and was under sustained attack by this nuclear weapon until it too turned to dust. But is that a reason to discredit the entire presentation and Dr. Deagle himself? I have seen the government shills use those tactics over and over and over again. They have said that this was all an illusion, that the frame had actually collapsed but it left a trail of dust as it went down. That is total bunk. The tactic is, "you really did not see what you just saw". Well what I see is that it turned to dust and dissipated, very slowly descending just a little bit consistent with the weight of dust versus the free fall speed of steel beams.

[Mu2143]

.......................

[Eram]

Hi Mu2143 and prodigal Son,

I was addressing Bill Ryan's statement that dr bill Deagles presentation was/is a "slam-dunk 12-0 non-debunkable jury conviction re the use of nukes".
I don't agree with that, because most of what he claims is unverifiable by me. Only if I commit to do a deep study into the fields of science that he comes from and the sources that he quotes from.
I can only choose to take his word and judgment for it, because he is the expert and has extensive experience in working and dealing with different sorts of governmental bodies that give him access to information that the common man does not have.
The very few things that he says that I can verify don't hold ground when I investigate them and that makes the term "non-debunkable" invalid in my opinion.

For instance... at 53:30 in the presentation he says that a classified source in the NSA told him that it where not commercial air line jets that flew into the towers, but "A tens". if I do a search on that name on google, the only thing that it comes up with are A-10 Thunderbolts (Warthog) (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/), which don't even come close to what the actual footage of planes flying into the towers looked like, so that's another error.

Added to the erroneous picture of a radio tower vaporizing, the whole presentation becomes unsteady as far as I can judge.

Having said all that, I am convinced of dr Bill Deagle's good intentions and that he knows a hell of a lot more about the whole issue and conspiracy-reality in general then I do.



btw: In the presentation he speaks of three samples that are going to be tested on different sorts of isotopes (which could prove the presence of a 'set off' nuclear device).
Now 6 years later... has any info of the results of those tests come to surface?

[Hervé]

[...]

btw: In the presentation he speaks of three samples that are going to be tested on different sorts of isotopes (which could prove the presence of a 'set off' nuclear device).
Now 6 years later... has any info of the results of those tests come to surface?

According to him, not one lab able to perform the tests have accepted to process his samples: they all refused and that's at international levels, not only the US.

[Mu2143]

......................

[ThePythonicCow]

According to him, not one lab able to perform the tests have accepted to process his samples: they all refused and that's at international levels, not only the US.
Ah - good input - thanks.

Can you tell us where you heard/read that?

[Hervé]

According to him, not one lab able to perform the tests have accepted to process his samples: they all refused and that's at international levels, not only the US.
Ah - good input - thanks.

Can you tell us where you heard/read that?

One of his Nutrimedical report broadcasts a couple of months ago.

[Griff]

Overall a great presentation, and I am glad to have seen it, thank you Bill. I am still not totally convinced of the mini-nuke theory, as I feel that Judy Wood does a more through job of explaining what actually happened on 9/11. That said, I also don't think that Dr. Wood has everything right, especially her denial of molten metal in the basements and rubble pile that had been witnessed by many people.
I feel that the 9/11 truth movement has been sadly sidetracked for the past few years by arguing on competing theories on the ultimate cause of the collapse.
It's quite possible that a number of destructive technologies were used, nano-thermite, mini-nukes, DEW, and possibly others that have not even been hypothesized yet. The one thing for certain is that these kinds of technologies are at the disposal of a VERY limited group of people, while being almost entirely hidden from the rest of the world.
The key to finding the masterminds of 9/11 may be in determining who has access to these weapons of frighteningly mass destruction. It's certainly not a large group, and I definitely have my suspicions, as do we all. If I come up with something, I'll get back to you.:rolleyes:

Griff

[turiya]

According to him, not one lab able to perform the tests have accepted to process his samples: they all refused and that's at international levels, not only the US.
Ah - good input - thanks.

Can you tell us where you heard/read that?

One of his Nutrimedical report broadcasts a couple of months ago.

Dr Deagle Show 2012/10/11
At the 1:56 minute mark, Bill Deagle says that all laboratories doing such tests are required to notify the Department of Defense.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffuG-0_tyEk
Seems to me that Bill Deagle's presentation is pretty congruent with what Dimitri Khalezov (http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Dimitri-Khalezov.jpg) has said in his series of interviews. For example, Bill Deagle says that with the case of the Alfred P. Murrah building, along with the Hobart Towers bombing, the presence of micro-nukes were evidently used in both these events. Dimitri Khalezov has said the same in his February 18, 2011 interview with Kevin Barrett & Gordon Duff (http://youtu.be/brQqRLCxJew):

http://curezone.com/upload/_T_Forums/Turiya_Files_/AemericanFree/DIMITRI_KHALEZOV_02_18_2011_INTERVIEW_excerpt.mp3

Some may find it worthwhile to take another look of Dimitri Khalezov WTC Nuclear Demolition (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNuKAdGlxFo) series of videos for his explanation of what brought the towers down. The material he offers satisfactorily explains every aspect & detail of that event, imo. Dimitri has also written an article which describes how nuclear demolition of skyscrapers is possible (http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/). The article was initially posted on wikipedia, but later taken down, it can now be found posted on the bibliotecapleyades.net website (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium26.htm).

Of particular note: Within that material, Dimitri explains that because of his position in the Soviet military (a Nuclear Explosion Expert), and because the U.S. had a treaty with the Soviets to disclose peace-time use of nuclear devices, that he & his superior officers knew that the nuclear devices were a part of the architectural plans in the building of the World Trade Center. Dimitri says that he & his comrades had often joked about this because the idea seemed quite an American lunacy. He elaborates by saying that it was a requirement by the New York Department of Building prior to issuing a construction permit that the skyscrapers had to include within their archetectural plans how the building(s) would be demolished. I suspect that the owner of the complex would be privy to have the inside knowledge of this fact. This may be why Silverstein was caught on tape knowing the appropriate demolition term associated with bringing down the WTC Tower structures using a demolition method - i.e. saying, "the smartest thing to do is “pull-it” ".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p34XrI2Fm6I
Also of some interest is the fact that [B]Controlled Demolition, Inc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Demolition,_Inc.). (CDI), founded by Jack Loizeaux in 1947, is a firm headquartered in Phoenix, Maryland that specializes in the use of explosives to create a controlled demolition of a structure. This company had the government contracts to do the clean-up on both the Alfred P Murrah building & the WTC. (One may wonder... what better way to make it more certain that if any specific evidence needed to remain hidden from public scrutiny, than to deal with just one owner - of only one particular company, then the likelihood of security leaks would be much less... Just thinking out loud, here.)

An additional note:
Dimitri Khalezov has the most compelling evidence yet in explaining the pulverization of all three buildings into nearly complete dust. As well as the three hot spots that were shown by satellite. According to Dimitri Khalezov, Controlled Demolition Inc. would hold the answer to many questions here. You can bet that they are under a strict government contract for national security reasons, so as to keep 'certain' info out of public view.

In 2011, there was a video produced called AE911Truth Experts Speak Out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4). The conclusion by the so-called engineering experts on that film was that Thermate was likely used as part of a "controlled demolition".

One of the experts on that video was a man by the name of Tom Sullivan (http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/Q3e2K_gNU4I/mqdefault.jpg). Tom Sullivan only made a short appearance on that video. But interestingly enough he had worked at CDI (http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/thomas-sullivan-cdi-320-x-404.jpg?w=500) (Controlled Demolition Inc) for a number of years, he was a high school friend of Doug Loizeaux, of the same Loizeaux family as CDI's owner Jack Loizeaux (http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/315-explosive-evidence-at-wtc-cited-by-former-cdi-employee.html).

It appears to me that quite possibly the inclusion of Tom Sullivan's presence as a so-called 'Engineering Expert' whistle-blower is to steer the hound-dogs for truth off the track toward certain truth & into a Thermate-filled, smoke-screen quagmire - & well away from any possibility of considering that the WTC 911 event was, in fact, three(3) distinct nuclear demolition events.

Some seeds for thought...
turiya :cool: