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

[Eric J (Viking)]

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!!!

WTC NUCLEAR DEMOLIT&.pdf

viking

[Snowbird]

Posted by smat (here)
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]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Folks, I've just read Dimitri Khalezov's whistleblowing book:

9/11thology : The “third” truth about 9/11

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]

alan hart bbc correspondent finally speaks out

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xHbOh...eature=related

[JoeNashville]

Posted by Strat (here)
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.

Posted by noxon medem (here)
..
- 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]

Posted by JoeNashville (here)
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]

Posted by noxon medem (here)
..
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]

Posted by viking (here)
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!!!

Attachment 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]

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]

..
- 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_T...ATH_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]

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]

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

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

[Snowbird]

Posted by iceni tribe (here)
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?pag...=we_have_holes

[noxon medem]

Posted by Snowbird (here)

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.
..
-'-
..
-'-
..
click images to view

[noxon medem]

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


..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...8186293238834#
..

[zurx]

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]

Dimitri Khalezov

Torrents: http://www.torrentz.com/ea8125db18ed...dddd2b3fd6ccb0

This is Zionism: http://thisiszionism.blogspot.com/20...emolition.html

[Zook]

Hi Swami,

Posted by Swami (here)
Dimitri Khalezov

Torrents: http://www.torrentz.com/ea8125db18ed...dddd2b3fd6ccb0

This is Zionism: http://thisiszionism.blogspot.com/20...emolition.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/91...-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]

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:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xKTi6RDXqSI

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

nm

[Zook]

Posted by noxon medem (here)
[...]
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?



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.