Presenting the Next CIT Snipe Hunt: Meet Dimitri Khalezov and the Rebranded Mini-Nukes Theory

by Scott Creighton

UPDATE (see the end of this article for an update) UPDATE 2 UPDATE 3 OMG it gets better UPDATE 4 no wait… there’s more… UPDATE 5

The “Citizens Investigation Team” or CIT for short, served a great purpose for the ongoing psyop in the Truth movement. It was a heated distraction for two years which took up a lot of time and eventually drove many in the Truth movement back into the waiting arms of the “rational” leaders who steered them right back to the official story of what hit the Pentagon. They succeeded in making any mention of what happened at the Pentagon aside from that official story such a contentious issue, that it is abruptly dismissed on even well-meaning sites (not to mention the obvious fake truth sites which dominate the blogs).  With such a successful model to go by, is it any wonder that someone would come up with another attempt at it, this time dealing with the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers?

Like CIT, this new distraction is designed to be easily dismissed.  CIT’s claim was that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon after a major explosion at rush hour in clear weather, and no one saw it happen. CIT’s “evidence” is off-the-record statements from 13 “witnesses” who are employed by either the Pentagon or the Department of the Army, and most of them actually claim that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. It’s ridiculously stupid but people like Dwain Deets (head of NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center (drone aircraft development)) supported it in a video testimonial, which probably should tell you more about Dwain Deets than anything else.

Imagine that. The head of the agency who created our drone aircraft right up until 9/11 endorsed the psyop that lead to the marginalization of research into the possibility that anything else other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.  Go figure.

Now we have this Dimitri Khalezov guy and his rebranded mini-nukes theory coming out about the same time BYU’s “nanothermite” distraction is losing ground.  Anyone see a pattern?

I was asked by some well-meaning Truth advocates to look into this… it didn’t take long.

His videos, though they claim that Big brother has been steadily removing them from Youtube for years I guess, are up now. They’ve been up since Jan. 15th 2011.  For some reason I guess, Big Brother simply forgot to censor all this secret wisdom.

I pulled up his second video because it looked like that was the one where the interview started and now I am going to transcribe, word for word, what is said in the first 2 minutes of it.

Interviewer: Ok. In your book we talk about airplanes. We talk about American Airlines Flight 11 which we are told struck the Pentagon and 9:37 am. United Airlines Flight 175 which we are told struck the South Tower at 9:16am. American Airlines Flight 77 supposedly struck the North Tower at 8:46am and United Airlines Flight 93 crashed as Shanksville at 10:06. Now one of the claims of your book is that that didn’t happen.

DK: Yes.

Interviewer: How do you justify that claim?

DK: Ok, you see… everybody who has a little experience in the military service or in the explosive core or in ordinary physics knows that the aluminum targets cannot penetrate steel… aluminum projectiles cannot penetrate steel targets. It’s obvious. So how would it happen that a subsonic aluminum plane could penetrate double walled steel perimeters of the World trade Towers which were as thick as tank armor?

Interviewer: Well, along with the rest of the world, the morning of Sept. 11th, I saw what I thought was live coverage of a plane doing exactly that.

DK: Yes but.. many people, they change their opinion since then. There is a lot of research on the internet and on the Youtube you can find a lot of movies shown by professionals who prove that uh, the contemporary Sept. 11th coverage was just a digital manipulation of the planes.  It’s very easy….

Interviewer: So you are saying that at that speed a plane would not penetrate the side of the Tower?

DK: It would just smash itself flat and fall away.

Ok. You got that?  Flight 77 did not hit the North Tower, it hit the Pentagon. Flight 11 did not hit the Pentagon, it hit the North Tower.  The perimeters of the Twin Towers were not double walled steel as thick as tank armor, but in fact they were made up of 1/4″ steel walled columns with roughly 3 feet of glass and aluminum between them. Now, I am not going to rehash the equally ridiculous “no planes” theory, just suffice to say…

… Dimitri Khalezov was at least at the point of the interview… a “no planer” and a “tv fakery” advocate. All that aside from not knowing which planes hit which buildings, how the buildings were constructed, or the basic laws of physics.

Got that? Good.

wrong columns

Oh wait… again he’s wrong because then he went on to show a picture of the interior columns of the WTC and wrongly claimed that they were from the exterior walls. Not only did he show interior columns, but he showed interior columns from lower floors which are larger than even the interior columns of the upper floors where the planes hit. He shows the thickness of the steel of those columns as 2.5″ which is correct in the lower floors, but again, the thickness of the steel which made up the exterior columns was 1/4-3/8″.

wrong layout

Then he shows a diagram of the column layout in the towers, which is wrong, the old “tube in a tube” crap.

So let’s sum it up shall we? Dimitri Khalezov is a “no planer”/”tv fakery” proponent who has no idea about the construction of the Twin Towers and we are supposed to accept him as an expert on the demolition of the Twin Towers?

Does that about sum it up?

I don’t care what this guy says about mini-nukes or nukes underground at the Towers. Just like the tragic flaw in BOTH the “no planes” theory and the “flyover” theory, his problem is as obvious as what you see with the naked eye. We all saw those towers being demoed from the top down. Explosives were going off, floor by floor, not from underneath.

Greg Bacon left a comment over at Kenny’s Sideshow in which he claims that this nuke theory has credibility because according to him the only time we saw people and materials being “vaporized” was when we dropped atomic weapons on Japan. Thus, I suppose, this revised mini-nuke theory has some credibility.

1. A blast furnace, which quickly reduces solid metal to its liquid state, is operated between 3,600 and 4,200 °F. “The temperatures they deal with may be 2000 °C to 2300 °C (3600 °F to 4200 °F)”

2. The kind of steel that made up the trusses in the Twin Towers ( a combination of ASTM A-242 and an ASTM A-572 equivalent) melts at around 2,750 °F. ” Carbon Steel 2600 – 2800″

3. PETN is the most commonly used high explosive in the demolition industry as that it makes up the core of Det Cord, a high explosive cable that looks similar to fiber optic cable and is used to connect linear shaped charges to wireless remote detonators and is also used at the same time to break up concrete structures like…. floor systems.

4. PETN’s Explosion temperature: 4230 °C or 7646 °F

5. PETN’s Detonation velocity: roughly 8500 m/s

6. the temperature of the surface of the sun is approximately 5505 °C or 9941 °F.

These are just simple facts. The temperatures created by PETN approach that of the surface of the sun and they greatly exceed the working temperature of a blast furnace, more than enough by far to “vaporize” the metal of the missing trusses from the Twin Towers and more than enough to “vaporize” metal objects like file cabinets inside those buildings.

At a detonation velocity of 8500 m/s, PETN is certainly capable of pulverizing the floor systems and everything else that was close to them or standing under them or standing on them.

Since neither NIST, nor FEMA, nor even Steven Jones and Gregg Roberts will test for explosive residues in the dust that they have, and since det cord is commonly used in the demolition industry, and since explosive demolition contractors were on the scene at Ground Zero even before the 2nd plane hit the towers… and since NIST’s excuse for not checking for explosive residues came from that very same explosive demolition contractor…

I would recommend rather than following a “no planer”/”tv fakery” proponent who doesn’t know how the towers were even built down yet another distraction of a rabbit hole, why don’t we just push Jones and others who have Ground Zero dust to test for the one thing that is obviously capable of creating the evidence that we now have regarding what happened to the Twin Towers?

Or you can go on another embarrassing CIT snipe hunt. The choice is yours.

The following is a little info to help you out.

In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event.

Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly if seen in combination.

… The differences within the WTC Dust and typical background dusts include the fineness and evidence of heat

The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporizeRJ Lee

The following is from David Ray Griffin, a real Truth advocate who is currently under attack from the fakes…

The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been reached “at which lead would have undergone vaporization”– meaning 1,749°C (3,180°F).

Another study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose of which was to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Besides also finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this study found that molybdenum had been melted. This finding was especially significant, because this metal does not melt until it reaches 2,623°C (4,753°F). Griffin

This diagram shows the construction of the pre-fabricated floor sections of the WTC. Notice the built in electric ducts that would have been inside the actual pour of the concrete.

NCSTAR page 6

Now look at what I theorise as the placement of the det cord as we all know there was an ongoing contract to upgrade the fiber-optic cables in both the towers and it was handled by the security company.

my own drawing

Imagine that kind of heat and that kind of pressure right above the ceiling tile and the occupied office spaces of the Twin Towers.

That’s how it was taken out. That’s what happened to the desks, the lamps, the computers, the carpet, the doors, and tragically, the people who were still there. It wasn’t super secret government magic pixie dust, it wasn’t ray beams from space, it wasn’t mini-nukes or earthquake weapons. It was a controlled demolition.. the one thing no one will really test for.

UPDATE: I just listened to an interview on Kevin Barrett’s show with Gordon Duff and Dimitri Khalezov and it’s even worse than I thought.  It’s literally every single despicable “conspiracy theory” from no-planes, to TV fakery, and now you can actually add… “the Jews did it”.  On this show Dimitri talks about how he is good friends with legendary Mossad agent Mike Harari and he tells of how on Sept. 12th 2001, Harari had him over for breakfast and they were celebrating the demolition of the Twin Towers, which according to Dimitri, Hariri took full credit for. Not only that, but apparently Dimitri spends ALOT of time in Thailand and that is where he just happened to meet Harari who, once he got to know him and liked him, told him about the super secret “nuclear controlled demolition” process sometime before 9/11. That’s right… “the Jews did it”… we can add that to the list of things Dimitri brings to the table right before the tenth anniversary of 9/11.

Dimitry goes on to say he was arrested several times in Thailand in 2003 and that the first time he paid $50,000 U.S. and the cops just let him go. Does anyone here know what Thailand is famous for?

UPDATE 2: Gordon Duff then wraps the whole thing up with this statement: “Dimitry is the ONLY admissible evidence we have in the 9/11 truth movement of a conspiracy” Does that sound right to anyone?

UPDATE 3: During the interview, Dimitry states that

“under the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centers in New York, there were special underground nuclear demolition devices intended for the emergency demolition of the Towers and these devices were 150 kiloton thermonuclear devices” Dimitry

Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 –  uranium based Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima… Little Boy was a 13-16 kiloton nuclear device… this was the result

Nagasaki,  on August 9, 1945 – plutonium based Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki… Fat Man was a 21 kiloton nuclear device… this was the result…

So Dimitry says that the weapons that brought down the towers were at least 7 times larger than those used in Japan at the end of WWII?

can we please stop with the bullshit now?

UPDATE 4: Why couldn’t I just stop watching the interview? Dimitry is left to his own devices for a few minutes when Gordon is off the air and Demitry starts to explain the whole thing. Apparently what hit the Pentagon was an old Soviet missile that had been rigged with a nuclear warhead. That’s right. He also claims that the planes that didn’t hit the Twin Towers were actually missiles with even more nuclear warheads. Are you with me? But they didn’t go off, but since somehow everyone knew the two missiles stuck in the Twin Towers were actually nuclear warheads with a half megaton yield, the powers that be decided to use the emergency demolition nuclear devices that were built under the Twin Towers back in the 60s when the basin was created. Now of course, according to Dimitry here, those three (one built under Building 7 as well I suppose) were 150 kilotons each, which added up equals 450 kilotons, which is about equal to the half megaton stuck in the Twin Towers. Now, apparently someone told the American officials that the planes were really nukes and so, of course, to minimize the damage, they used the underground nukes to nuke the power of the above ground nukes stuck in the Twin Towers. Got it? ok.

UPDATE 5: I can’t believe I am writing this… According to Demitry and Gordon Duff, the 1970’s Soviet missile that was tipped with a nuclear device that hit the Pentagon was stolen by the “God of War” and sold to “the terrorists” and had to be launched from a submarine. Ok? is that it? I’m not writing any more. (you can actually hear someone trying to keep from laughing in the background, probably Barrett)(yeah, that is definitely Kevin Barrett laughing at the end of this ridiculous show)

do I really need to keep going here? do I have to hear anything else about nuclear bombs in the basement of the Twin Towers again?

Advertisements

139 Responses

  1. Excellent, Willy.

    DK sounds comical…..

  2. A small fighter plane of 20 tons can at least cut a steel cable easily. Now imagine what damage an airliner of 100 tons may cause in full speed. It was not a tiny Cessna nor a bullet of 10 grams. It was 10 million bullets at the same time! And of cause there are massive steel and titanium parts in a plane – think of the landing gears and the jet engines. I don’t want my house to be hit by an airliner!

    I agree, Controlled Demolition is the most plausible explaination for WTC 1, 2 & 7.

  3. I think I’m going to start advocating a ‘No-Buildings Theory’, then I’m going to move onto a ‘No-New York Theory’:)

  4. actually… someone already beat you to the “no building” theory. a guy keeps calling me trying to tell me that the buildings were built hollow and that is why there was nothing found from inside them. There were no victims and the buildings were actually hollow.

  5. Hilarious!

  6. Wily and the rest – you’re simply not being intellectually honest about the VIDEOS showing purported plane impacts at the WTC towers.

    Go look at some of these horrid video game quality impact vids 10 years later… and it’s screams obvious now. We were duped people. They had complete media control, and the 911 story played out on TV for ALL of us. So we can only argue about the images of planes – nobody saw a plane hit…unless you like Harley Guy — remember he told us how the buildings “collapsed” too (wink).

    You do understand that NBC is actually caught red handed broadcasting live an explosion of the south tower during the morning – -and then later that night -showing the same footage with a plane spec in the background diving down behind the tower. It’s there. It can’t be refuted. We can only ask – why ? why the same vid showing 2 different effects ? Doctored footage – and the media distributed it. Remember all news sources say they don’t have their “original” tapes anymore…the reason is culpability…

    We know “911” was a treasonous act – and YES, it goes to these depths and extremes.

    Unless you can make an argument as strong as your “test for PETN – det cord wrecked the towers” then you can’t dismiss the conclusions one draws after watching September Clues. You certainly can’t dismiss it out of hand as you did in your post. Actually one would think you would debunk it as methodically as your case for testing PETN in the dust and the WTC construction.

    Even the route Erik comments with is a joke: “10 million bullets at the same time!” “I don’t want my house to get hit by an airliner!” …. Erik, planes can’t enter whole into buildings, period. They actually can’t enter your house like that either. And they can’t fly 500 mph. at that altitude. And the evil doers behind this psyop don’t need to use planes – because they showed you video simulations 10 years ago on september 11th – and WE all fell for it.

    Why does everybody “freak out” when the illusion of planes is lifted for those who haven’t figured that part out yet?

    If anyone reading this has learned anything after stumbling into “911 truth” – it’s to look at everything for YOURSELF, and don’t fall into camps people.

    On that note, I would love to read a debunking by Wily of the information media complicity, video inserted planes, and synced live footage from all 4 networks found in the video: september clues.

    note for those in silent agreement: notice way back when, how ALL the first 911 truth vids started with the plane and the pod, etc? Like the media pounding the impact vids into your heads with repeat airings, it’s VERY important for them not to lose that thread, it holds the whole mess together – and keeps those arguing the fraud of the videos on the fringe and marginalized.

    If you give an honest look at the videos put forth in September Clues, a collection of network live airings from 9/11/01, you will be shocked at how they pulled this off – and will make you realize the rabbit hole this created for them in making people debate ad nausem planes vs. no planes – because it’s the next step after “the towers were destroyed” – the plane conundrum leaves you reeling further about the depths these people are going to control reality and world events.

    It’s nothing to be afraid of, but we have to say enough is enough at some point. The end take away from all of this is that in the years to come, we need to be observant when the try another stage show on this scale and use our new HD 3D flat screen TV’s to sell it to us.

  7. Ahey:

    I lived in Manhattan for 6 years (1993-1999) I personally know people who were there, watching the North Tower burn, when they saw with their naked eyes, not on TV, the plane (later identified as Flight 175) slam into the South Tower. They saw it with their own eyes, real time, and they would not lie to me.

  8. No one who was there, has said planes did not hit the WTC. But, people who were there, and saw it, have said they didn’t think the planes were large passenger planes. Indeed, Barry Jennings said that he was told “a small Cessna” hit the first tower. Video manipulation? I don’t know. But, eyewitnesses have confirmed that planes had hit the towers.

  9. Willy,

    The problem is that your response does not speak to the fake planes inserted into the videos we saw on TV. What actually “happened” in NY has nothing to do with doctored/fake cg images that the news media distributed on televisions that day.

    The two events are not mutually exclusive. It would be if I said the videos were legitimate. Then you certainly couldn’t have it both ways. But in our argument, in theory you could. Here’s why:

    See, the problem is that when this issue comes up two things happen.

    1. The debunking of the thesis that: news media aired “fake/doctored images of plane impacts in the towers” is met with either: Yes, it can happen – planes can melt and disappear into buildings whole (ie: Erik’s eloquent 10,000 bullets analogy (cough))

    OR

    2. “Damned straight planes hit! Thousands witnessed it and saw it, real time!”

    with the latter response, it’s usually accompanied with someone saying they know “people” who saw it happen just like on TV – but they saw it “live” and they were “there”. Note: We never get to meet these people. They are friends, friends of friends, etc.

    Now, here’s the most important take away from those two responses: NONE OF THEM MATTER.

    See, it doesn’t matter if a plane could hit the WTC – because the debate is about the “doctored/CG footage” that the news media actually aired and distributed to televisions to convey that illusion. The footage is not legitimate – it’s special FX, it’s not REAL, that is the argument. The argument speaks NOTHING about “true events in NY skies on 9/11/01”

    It also doesn’t matter if someone had 10,000 friends who saw a plane, a commerical plane, hell, even an American Airlines plane hit the WTC — why? Yup, you got it: because the debate is about the “doctored/CG footage” that the news media actually aired and distributed to televisions to convey that illusion. The footage is not legitimate – it’s special FX, it’s not REAL, that is the argument.

    They’ve been caught – people have spent hours going over it – the only cop out the media has is to disown the footage as they have. Including the BBC and CNN – According to them, they don’t have the “master source tapes” anymore.

    See, you can even think of the Pentagon in these regards as well, because, I sure don’t know why that if an event (like planes hitting the WTC) happened, why the media would show us phony footage of it and not the real mccoy. But they did.

    So we don’t need to talk about serial numbers on plane parts, and landing gear in the streets, and Aunt Edna seeing flight 175 ( or was it 77?) hit the towers because, all in unison now:

    because this “no plane” “tv fakery” argument you keep hearing about but get poo poo’d from looking into is all and only about:

    The “doctored/CG footage” that the news media actually aired and distributed to televisions to convey that illusion. The footage is not legitimate – it’s special FX, it’s not REAL, that is the argument.

    Because many controlled opposition sites (and even honest “truthers” who just haven’t looked yet) refuse to seize on the PREMISE and ORIGIN of the argument regarding the “TV fakery” (quite a buzz word) is only further confirmation that it hits close to the source.

    So WIly that’s why it doesn’t matter if they saw it “with their own eyes, real time”. It also doesn’t matter if they’re honest about that. Because we’re talking about doctored videos that were broadcast depicting those events that have been revealed to be fraudulent, tampered, CG/special FX’d….etc

    To put it another way – it’s between the media’s defense of airing that footage (and most importantly where they got it, ie: who did the work?) and those calling them on it ( the grassroots masses).

    False Flag Ops is certainly a card THEY will continue to play — but more importantly, their control of the airwaves and technology to “make us see things” ala Plato’s Cave is a power they’re not gonna give up easily. It’s best for us to expose that.

    Everyone, google things like “Patch Match” — see what off the shelf CG/special FX programs are out there now, say over the last couple years…. think the military has at least a 10 year jump on any of that? Oh most definitely…

    They got rid of some old real estate in New York, the buildings aren’t there anymore – gone. But everything else that “happened” that day (ie: the how, the who, the why) all came from the television folks.

  10. ahey, your funnier than Elmer Fudd.

  11. Let me tell you something, if you wish to come out and call me a liar, then do so. Don’t beat around the bush about it.

    If people saw what looked like a commercial jet hit the Twin Towers, then why CG it? Why the tv fakery? If nothing had hit the tower and it just blew up, then why would friends say that they saw a plane hit it? As the other commenter noted, many claim they saw something hit the tower, some claim it was smaller, but they all saw something.

    are you suggesting it was a missile? like the ones Demitri talks about?

    How much sense does it make to blow up the North Tower then wait almost 20 minutes till every single news camera and camera owned by the million or so tourists in New York is filming the burning North Tower, and then, while everyone is watching, fly a missile or nothing into the South Tower and simply blow it up? You think maybe someone would have figured out the flaw in that plan before they actually did it?

    Does that sound like a plan you would come up with?

    How about this?

    You bought into a theory that turns out to be wrong, but rather than admit that and move on, you keep trying to find more and more convoluted ways to justify hanging onto the old theory?

    Which of these sounds more likely?

  12. And if these planes are going 500mph into a building, that would be quite remarkable for everyone to be able to identify just how large, or what type of planes they are.
    Do broadcast television stations use CGI? They are quite capable, nowadays to use it. The Beijing Olympics come to mind. But, I don’t know how the art of CGI has somehow gone backwards since 2001, since Beijing looks fake, but 9/11 looks real? Was there a coordinated effort on the part of all television broadcasters that day to use special effects to hide a missile, a drone, or nothing at all? I suggest looking into Judy Wood’s analysis, if that’s where you’re going to go, or my soon to be released “No-New York Theory”. This theory culminates in blaming god:)

  13. Willyloman, update 4&5 are so funny! When I read: “Apparently what hit the Pentagon was an old Soviet missile that had been rigged with a nuclear warhead.”, I actually said out loud, “What?” And the next thing you wrote was, “That’s right.”, and I spit my drink on my computer screen! LOL!

  14. Wily,

    Actually, I never called you a liar, I just said you’re not being “intellectually honest” in your argument because you’re not addressing the merits of the ‘aired tv footage’ – and I’ve repeated that THIS is what the “tv fakery” “no planes” is all about. Nothing more, nothing less.

    “If people saw what looked like a commercial jet hit the Twin Towers, then why CG it? Why the tv fakery?”
    Great point. I haven’t a clue. One could argue to convey events to appear to happen in a certain way that actually did not occur in “reality”. But if we go with – planes did impact the WTC – Then we’re back to guessing the “why” aren’t we?

    Ah, the “why” bag…Why the trade centers, why planes, why demo building 7 in broad daylight, like I said – the rabbit hole is endless, especially for “why” questions. But what does the revelation that the media footage aired on 9/11 with respect to plane impacts tell us ?

    (that’s your hint to start debunking Wily – explaining to me why I’m not seeing what I think I’m seeing: CG/special FX.)

    Can you refute their analysis that it’s phony footage? Of the dual shots by NBC of an explosion only, and then later, a plane swooping down — again: the same shot. One aired earlier, one later at night.

    you say: are you suggesting it was a missile? like the ones Demitri talks about?

    Hmmm, another side step — Why are you attacking me and not the footage I’m pointing out to you and readers ?

    In your entire response you don’t go into any refuting of the evidence put forth of manipulated video – all gleamed from september clues. That would be a great “why” to answer.

    Folks I’m just a conductor for the message here – you have to attack the video evidence Willy ( like you did on the WTC demo theories) not me.

    Remember, it’s not about one’s opinion of a “sound plan” or stating someone is “hanging onto an old theory”.

    Wily, the debate doesn’t end with me picking your A or B choices – it ends when you can refute the video evidence put forth (ie: the one and only argument here) of plane impacts into the WTC.

    “everybody saw it” and “cameras owned by the million or so tourists documented it” —

    None of that applies to the act of mainstream news sources broadcasting doctored footage of planes hitting the towers.

    For the lurkers reading this exchange, you have to admit that the contention of the argument at hand is being side stepped.

    “You bought into a theory that turns out to be wrong,”

    –how is it WRONG Wily? Explain to me how I’ve been duped by believing the video footage is faked and the presence of planes within it is a “CG type effect” — how is it wrong? That was the point of my post – let the debunking commence – what happened in NY has nothing to do with this actually – we’re debating whether broadcasted news footage is authentic. (something we’ll have to continue to do about world events)

    But you can’t lead with – friends saw it, everybody saw it, millions of tourists with cameras, etc — you do understand why that lends absolutely no sway over the argument of “faked footage” right ? Because the two are not mutually exclusive.

    It would be possible to have planes hitting towers in NY witnessed by thousands — snapping away pictures — and STILL not bend or destroy the proposition that the media footage broadcast that day of planes was faked…it only begs a “why”..and only the perps can answer any why question.

    So alas, you have to debate the tv footage Wily – because that’s the argument. As I’ve stated repeatedly, the argument speaks NOTHING in regards to what happened in New Year that day.

    In a nut shell: media culpability of broadcasting phony footage of planes hitting the twin towers.

  15. I think “ahey” should explain how all the amateur video coincides with the NBC video? There is no video, amateur or professional, which shows anything but a plane hitting the tower. None. No witnesses that said anything but a plane hit the tower. None.

  16. I’m not going to get into debating “no planes’ and “tv fakery’. relament makes a very good point, I made made several very good points, and in the body of the article, it is clear how wrong Dimitri’s “evidence” for the construction of the exterior of the WTCs is. Even to the point of using misleading photos of lower interior columns and claiming they are exterior columns.

    More to the point, Ahey dismissed the logic of what I asked him, and asked if I would rather debate the “evidence” of fakery from the distraction sites rather than point out how illogical the entire theory really is.

    Same is true for CIT fans. They would rather not talk about the 13 witnesses who claim what they saw hit the Pentagon, they would rather talk about north or south of the Citgo and hope you forget the rest of it. They too don’t like talking about the logic of it. Because there is no logic. The debate of the “evidence” is itself the trap, and endless circle of circular logic and falacies going nowhere and signifying nothing.

    If you are legit Ahey, just stop. Here is one of your strongest proponents, Dimitri… notice anything about his story?

  17. “I’m not going to get into debating “no planes’ and “tv fakery’”

    that’s all you had to say Willy..

    alas, a very simple proposition put forth and instead of countering it, everybody talks about “not being logical” — without even discussing a frame of video or debunking the REASONS many people now realize the plane impact vids are faked. Unbelievable.

    Then instead of going on about WHY it’s not being logical, lets start linking to CIT (another side step), then to Dimitri – whoever he is… (he thinks a soviet missile hit the tower? I would disagree with that, oops, guess he’s not one of my proponents anymore.)

    (note on Dimitri: you understand the concept of a honey pot right? where we get gold nuggets from people then they serve us a nice steaming turd? All well known truthers steer us into those turds or into dead ends — Dimitris appears to be the soviet missile ploy)

    “the debate of “evidence” is itself a trap” — so true Wily, so true..

    especially when one wants to keep the focus off of media culpability in the 9/11 stage show – and make sure readers understand that is NO MAN’s LAND and off discussion. You are with the mainstream 911 truth choir on that one, for sure.

    This is either
    A) a controlled opposition site
    B) a low level truth site with a conductor who just hasn’t looked into the media complicity angle enough.

    You get a “A” for effort on distracting – but lose a reader…

    the discussion of the plane impact videos is the litmus test for real 911 truth. Willy no longer passes the smell test…. because he refuses to discuss it calmly, collectively, or friendly, and instead attacks the messenger. Again I say: why all the emotion and discomfort on the issue people? You’re just a dude with a blog right Wily?

    Hey so, let’s hijack planes, no wait, use remote control tech on commercial planes, no wait, remote control tech on military planes — then let’s blow up the trade centers, and pray to God nothing goes wrong with those planes.

    OR: let’s use NLP (neuro linguistic programming) and show people planes hitting towers, ad nausem. Then blow up the WTC. So we just need to rig buildings and the MSM will do the rest? Yes siree Bob. Because plane crashes are messy, heck, evidence would be – Pentagon and Shanksville are great clues of no planes were used at all in this massive psyop on the US and world audience. The last domino mentally for people is the twin towers.

    We’ll give the masses as many witnesses as they need – on TV.

    Please note: I have ZERO doubt the intended purpose of this complete mind$%&# by the powers that be was an intended part of the ongoing “911 truth saga” and just like “demo theories” – the no planes video theory is guised to divide and conquer.

    There won’t be another investigation people – just get used to another decade of “new clues” and “new theories”… See the JFK assassination for further details, almost 50 years and counting….

    My last plea:

    Please help Willy pay for a PETN test. No one will test it except Willy, so find out how much he needs (I’ve asked, no reply on that one) and get him the funds to do it so he can take his theory to the next level here. Certainly no point in debating it for another couple years right? We do want closure on issues, and exploration of valid theories right? why is this experiment so hard to do and get going?

    My advice would be to get your funds, buy your test equipment, THEN worry about where to get your sample. Then go viral with it and keep kicking the truth movement until you get your sample.

    Too legit too quit – Ahey

  18. this is as far as I had to read…

    “the discussion of the plane impact videos is the litmus test for real 911 truth.”

    see ya

  19. ah, I had to read the rest, why do I do these things to myself…

    You’re absolutely correct. No one else will do it, so I should. The test kit isn’t expensive though I got nothing, and I should go ahead find a way and get it and then look for the sample. In fact, maybe I can request RJ Lee’s so I know it’s legit.

    I will give you that. I should do it. because no one else will. [edit for personal reasons]

  20. Fake planes on TV using CGI, based on the documentary “September Clues”. I’ve seen “September Clues” twice. I personally don’t know “Ahey’s” fascination with it. It’s actually quite a blurry video. The presentation is amateurish, in that the producers don’t take into account the camera angles. They seem to think that 2d, is 3d! There is nothing at all convincing about shadows, light sources, angles, film speed, the illusion of slow motion, the quality of footage, etc. Yet, this is the foundation for Ahey’s criticism of willyloman, as if Ahey produced the film!
    There is so much involved with investigating 9/11, that fake TV images of the event would be yet another amazing aspect. But “September Clues” is so badly made, so lacking in explanation, such a magic show, that to rest upon such a work, and to judge others for not appreciating it, really shows a lack of understanding of well documented evidence.
    Ahey brought up JFK. “September Clues” is like the JFK assassination “theory”, of the driver shooting Kennedy! Where if you show a blurry copy of the Zapruder film, you can convince some people that the driver has a gun! But, if you see a clear copy, you realize the “gun” is an illusion of light on someone’s head collated with the movement of the hand in slow motion.
    This is a well done website, which I have read for years now, and it is worth much more than a quick and spurious dismissal. Willyloman’s work is much better than Ahey’s disapproval warrants.

  21. You are spending considerable time taking down the man’s areas that he is not an expert in and very little considering what I personally ask of you.

    I don’t know this man, so I don’t know much. But from what he says about nuclear weaponry and my limited time to study this in depth, there appears to be some credibility in the theory.

    So, I would appreciate your effort towards that, instead of what appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to planes disappearing.

    Thanks.

  22. A test of this magnitude would have to have at least ten samples; samples from ten different collectors…. all collectors would have to be proven to be trusted…. samples delivered to a group of appointed objective people who then place samples in guarded place….where lab people who know what they are doing.. take samples and begin testing…. having a video taken of the entire process.. with a group of onlookers who will also be taking notes…. the outcome has to be broadcast immediately… with copies of report emailed to as many people as possible and other copies mailed out….. this is not a test that can be done by one person… in a private room….
    can any lab be objective? Can honest samples still be found? People who have them… are they afraid to say that they do? I bet ‘searchers’ have been asking and inquiring about who or harrassing anyone who has any samples…. buying them up and destroying them… been doing it for ten years.

  23. It’s not a knee-jerk reaction. If his other theories are clearly flawed and illogical, then why do we assume he has credibility in other aspects of his argument?

    But, fair enough… you want to talk about his theory, specifically with regards to 150 kiloton thermonuclear devices planted under the twin towers when they were built? Fine. let’s do it.

    In a Mathaba World Exclusive interview, Dimitri explains his background in dealing with discovering nuclear tests in relation to various treaties. This is his official background on the subject.

    “… responsible for gathering various kinds of nuclear intelligence, primarily for the detection of nuclear tests of various adversaries of the former USSR. In addition, this organization was tasked with official controlling functions regarding the observance of various international treaties”

    http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=625926

    He is quite honest in a Feb 5th interview with Jim Fetzer when he makes it clear at the beginning that he is not a scientist.

    “Fetzer: Did you have a background in physics and science before you came into the military?

    Dimitri: No. No. I don’t have anything to do with nuclear science at all.”

    Now, later in the same interview, Fetzer tries to give Dimitri an opportunity to explain why the demolitions of the Twin Towers happened from the top-down while the demolition of Building 7 was a bottom-up type, that is, since according to Dimitri they were both brought about by the same mechanics, an underground demolition of a 150 kiloton nuclear weapon.

    Dimitri stumbles along but finally gets to the point of saying that the difference is only because of the construction types of the differing buildings.

    He also tries to claim that they had no prior plan to demo not only Building 7, but also the Twin Towers. According to Dimitri, these things were spur of the moment decisions. He offered Fetzer no reason for having to demo Building 7 at the spur of the moment.

    When asked to explain the demolition process and how blowing up a nuke 50 meters under the Twin Towers would result is what we saw, he went on and on about nuclear explosions and in the end what he said was that “gravity” pulverized the towers and started the top-down demolition because the rock under the foundations was turned to dust.

    Ok?

    Molten metal.

    Now this is the point you were interested in, wasn’t it?

    Dimitri keeps referring to one article in New Scientist he read whenever asked specific questions especially about the molten metal under the towers and building 7.

    Now there is no doubt from aerial thermal imaging that hot spots were present for many weeks after 9/11, but as Fetzer tried to point out to Dimitri, and that under Building 7, they were much smaller and faded quicker. He offered up the aerial imaging as his proof.

    To me, that is certainly what you could expect from a demolition that used way more high explosives than any previous one (to pulverized the 220 floors of the Twin Towers). That would create molten metal and that metal would eventually pool under the rubble and with no reason to disipate, it would remain for quite a while. As was observed.

    But Dimitri went on to say that the only source for his info on molten metal being there for 4 months was a quote from that New Scientist magazine, which he never directly gave us the date of or the name of the article, but I think he did read a quote from one guy who was working there who said something to that effect.

    The molten metal should not have been there, not in a gravitational collapse and not from office fires or even jet fuel, which was long gone before the building came down.

    Dimitri then went on to claim many of the same mistaken claims made by debunkers, like, Building 7 could not have been controlled demolition because the rubble pile would have been 14 stories high which is ridiculous.

    This is his theory Buelahman. Go listen to his interview and see what you think. See if you think he is avoiding questions or not.

    Do you believe that both the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by the same mechanics? Do they look the same to you? They don’t to me. And I don’t buy his explanation that a 150 kiloton bomb 50 meters under the rock of Manhattan would make the 79th floor of the South Tower explode.

    There you have it. I addressed his demo theory in detail, with references.

    I did not mean to dismiss your legitimate questions about his hypothesis, I just got caught up in the interview he gave Barrett. sorry.

  24. Jan;

    Ten would be great. Could probably find more than that once people begin to trust the process leading up to the tests. But 5-10 would certainly do it.

    The process would be a little more complicated but you have the idea.

    First you would have to verify that each sample matched the accepted finger print of Ground Zero dust. That means it has to match the study from the RJ Lee Group.

    That in and of itself would be enough, but unfortunately, I think that samples could be created based on that study as well so there would have to be a second test to verify the age of the sample… something like carbon dating.

    Then you would have to make sure that there was no way someone could scrub the residue out of a sample. It could be done, but it would leave traces of whatever solution was used, so that would also have to be tested for.

    Then, after all that, the simple tests. It’s like a Griess Reagent test but more accurate these days.

    After that I would recommend sending parts of the samples to undisclosed independent labs and ask for tests from them. You could send two parts of the same sample to two separate labs to ensure the results were the same.

    For the actual field tests themselves, I would recommend someone with lab experience to perform or at least oversee the tests and video cameras to record the results.

    Last I checked, kits cost about 280 each and having labs run the tests would cost about 340-450 per sample. God knows what it would cost to verify the samples and the video technicians could probably be found via a local truth group.

    accommodations might be offered via locals as well.

    In order to do it right, it would take a little time and effort but it could be done on an independent basis and I think, under the right conditions, it would be admissible in court. Of course, upon completion and positive results, the remaining samples could then be given to prosecutors if so requested. That would be the owners decision since I would rather they kept the samples themselves and presented them for the testing, thus reducing the chain of custody links to hopefully, one.

  25. BuelahMan,

    I’m not saying that it’s impossible, I’m just saying this guy doesn’t seem to be the best representative of the hypothesis for several reasons.

    Perhaps the other guy, the one that Kenny linked to first in his article, perhaps he is a better representative of the theory and he has a better understanding of the science. I would have to read his work.

  26. ahey,

    as a mechanical engineer (aeronautics) I have little experience in aviation, and I have been working inside big commercial jets (A380). So I think I have quite an impression of the masses and sizes of a plane’s structure. A 757 hitting WTC 1 or 2 is not like an empty beer can hitting a tank and it is not like an egg in a slicer – it is something in between. Both structures will damage each other in the seen way – plausible. Not plausible is the Pentagon damage (sharp round holes (getting smaller instead of bigger) through several walls in a row but no wings nor tail planes penetrating the outer wall, too little debris found).

    And sorry, but 100 tons is 10 million times the weight of 10 grams. Correct me, if I am wrong.

    The “no plane”-theory is tempting (“it is all just an illusion…”). But it does not explain the inward bounded steel colums in the impact zone. That would be quite tricky to fake!

    It is ok to question the TV footage and to document any editing and inconsistancy. But focus on the most important events to question: the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7! The 3.000 victims of it were real – or were they just an illusion too?

  27. Willy,

    You actually touched on all the issues I take as bad science and explain them very well.

    I suppose all that I am saying is that after I began looking into the thermonuclear aspect, it began to explain several things in my mind about the demolition.

    Obviously, if there were enough other explosives used (perhaps the ones you list) then that might be all I need to know.

    But I never intended for anyone to consider the bogus plane theory of Demitiri as any proof. It sounds hair-brain to me.

    So, I want to focus solely on the nuke idea, which would explain as well as other explosives used. But much easier to deploy and less manual labor.

    Besides, I don’t believe I ever said anything about this particular man in my email or comments at my blog (I may, but I don’t remember).

    Again, we both believe explosives were used. I simply want to confirm IF nukes are possible.

    This is one of my go-to sites on this subject and you are one of the most versed.

    But, as in our little deal with Chomsky and 911, some very smart people say the stupidest things (and I believe Chomsky has an ulterior motive). This could be the same for Demitri or many other public faces, as well.

  28. Honestly I think Demitri is a pre-positioned heel or a foil for someone to come along and build their reputation by exposing them. He just goes through a virtual laundry list of divisive issues (no-planes, tv fakery, ect.) and in the end doesn’t really have any good scientific knowledge of the one issue he purports to represent: nuclear demolition of the towers. also notice his story, it sounds like it was vetted by a PR guy… notice he claims it wasn’t a conspiracy to take down the towers, it was a reaction to the “nuke” in the Pentagon… notice he claims it wasn’t a conspiracy to take down Building 7 but rather a last minute decision. In fact, his entire claim is that the explosives were built into the WTC when it was first designed, thus ending any notion of pre-meditation.

    This is typical for a PR guy to do, to try to use the opportunity of Dimitri’s story to help facilitate a narrative that moves away from the false flag event even while seeming to be an anti-establishment story-line.

    My guess is this guy is a foil for someone like Steven Jones to come along and rebuild his reputation on. In the meantime they can actually discredit the real research done by Ed ward on the subject.

  29. BuelahMan:

    I believe that the New Scientist article that Dimitri mentions is talking about this interview with this fire chief, though I can’t know until I find that article. He is talking about this molten metal 6 weeks after the demo. Clearly there is molten metal (which the debunkers try to claim was caused by friction during the gravitational collapse) during the interview and I am sure it didn’t just go away the next day…

  30. Clearly, Dimitri Khalezov can’t be the poster boy of any particular theory, he’s fouled himself, by buying into too many “kook” theories, like “no planes” or is it now missles?

    The nuclear device he proposes 150 kiloton is too big. The top down collapse contradicts the “one huge bomb” in the basement.

    Khalezov specifcally rejects the micro-nuke theory in favor the basement nuke idea.

    I gather that the micro-nuke theory doesn’t go down well on this website, but something to consider:

    There are anomalies that the thermite “only” theory and even the PETN “only” theory doesn’t explain. And, as one of the comments stated: All the facts & evidence must be explained, including anomalies.

    These anomalies are burning cars well removed from the footprints, witness statements of exploding cars, removed from the footprints, “hanging” skin on victims from WTC 1 basement, evidence of EMP’s, multiple radio nucleotides found on the WTC complex site, and unquenchable hotspots at the footprints and molten metal in the pile, taking those anomalies into consideration, the conclusion of nuclear destruction is reasonable.

  31. Before I get too much grief, I suggest a nuclear-thermitic combination with a string of pearls micro-nukes in the core, with an initial micro-nuke in the basement (not a big nuke) to account for the “hanging” skin, also video exists of a live video that gets distorted and a “boom” an instant before the plane, YES PLANE, hits WTC 1.

    Thermite found in the dust must be accounted for, or is that thermite now in dispute?

    Thermitic cutting charges set on the outer wall columns ignites, but a micro-nuke likely detonated in the cap, severing the core columns (that’s why the North tower antenna fell 10 to 15 feet before the actual onset of collapse) then the “string of pearls” micro-nukes goes off in a timed sequence down the building, with a final nuke in the basement, but nowhere near as big as Khalezov proposes.

    Thermitic cutting charges would also be timed in sequence down the building.

    The PETN cord idea, I had not heard, but I would be open to consider it, if it can explain all the anomalies.

  32. “These anomalies are burning cars well removed from the footprints, witness statements of exploding cars, removed from the footprints…”
    If you look at pictures of the Islamabad bomb blast, the cars look very similar.

  33. Which Islamabad bomb blast?

    I’ll check it out if provided a cite.

  34. String of pearl micro-nukes… what are they? And how would anyone install them without being noticed?

  35. “These anomalies are burning cars well removed from the footprints, “

    In the dust, as proven by RJ Lee and the USGS survey, were molten spheres of iron, still red hot, during the collapse, which as I have shown, can easily be created by PETN… those spheres land on cars, in cars, windows blown out by the blast wave, and there is your burning cars well removed from the footprints…

    “witness statements of exploding cars, removed from the footprints,”

    See above… fire in cars eventually cause… exploding cars…

    “hanging” skin on victims from WTC 1 basement,”

    Clearly high explosives can cause this as well.

    ” evidence of EMP’s, multiple radio nucleotides found on the WTC complex site,”

    Show me this evidence.

    ” and unquenchable hotspots at the footprints and molten metal in the pile,”

    really? unquenchable? I don’t think so… after reading, go to the aerial thermal imaging and look at the report based on the facts.

    “Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800oF. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16 (Thermal Figure 1).”

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

    ” taking those anomalies into consideration, the conclusion of nuclear destruction is reasonable”

    There is that word again… “reasonable”. I don’t need anyone to tell me what I should consider “reasonable”. Present your evidence and leave the commentating to the gallery please.

    Upon further review, and little effort, it would appear that your “anomalies” aren’t quite so mysterious as you might think.

  36. relament:

    Thank you. Interesting. The picture of the crater and the blast column are important, if a little off topic, that is a deep crater and, for whatever reason, the blast column has a yellowish-brown tint (could be the night time lighting).

    It is very hard to cause a crater if the bomb is above ground. Some folks have alleged that micro-nukes have been used in terror plots, as the false flag weapon of choice for governments to sow discord and “chase” wavering governments into the “war on terror” policies — I wont’ go much further than that.

    But that CIA operative caught in Pakistan after killing two people…Mr. Davis, he’s no good and policy in Pakistan is designed to keep Pakistan in the “war on terror.” In fact, there’s a story on Yahoo that asserts Davis was passing “fission material” to Al-Quaeda.

    http://in.news.yahoo.com/cia-spy-davis-giving-nuclear-bomb-material-al-20110219-224833-452.html

    Okay, I’ll say it, “Could it be possible that crater in Islamabad is the result of a micro-nuke?

  37. Jan, “String of pearl” is just a colloquial expression, to mean seperate micro-nukes timed for sequential detonation. But ‘micro-nukes’ are real, they are simply miniaturized nukes with minimized nuclear signature, particularly radiation, so that it’s hard to be detected after the bomb is detonated.

    In other words, micro-nukes can pass for a conventional bomb blast.

    Micro-nukes are allegedly attractive for false flag events because they are easy to conceal and transport and plant. The same blast would take large amounts of conventional explosives.

    Of course, in a foreign country the last thing you want to do is get caught with a big truck bomb, so a small micro-nuke allows concealment and plausible deniability — which is crucial to false flag black-operations.

    “And how would anyone install them without being noticed?”

    About the same way you would install PETN detonation cord, perhaps easier to install without getting noticed because you wouldn’t need to do as much installation as PETN detonation cord would take.

    These micro-nukes, mind you, I’m no expert, are small, and can be very small, smaller than a backpack. So, installation would be easy to do — especially if you have control over the security in the building.

    In terms of comparison, a series of micro-nukes likely would be easier to plant and set up than lots of PETN detonation cord running through out the floors of the building.

  38. you do realize of course that mentioning unproven facts as what “some people have written” or “some people say” is about as valid as suggesting that Israel belongs to Jewish people because “some people say” God promised it to them?

    ““Could it be possible that crater in Islamabad is the result of a micro-nuke?”

    That’s like Fox News running those endless scrolls at the bottom of the page…

    “Could it be that JFK shot himself because he was in love with Nixon?”

    “Did Ronald Reagan actually walk on water? Some people say…”

    “Some folks have alleged that Jimmy Carter hates God and eats babies for breakfast, but I won’t go into that”

    What’s wrong JFE? didn’t feel the need to address my statements about your “anomalies”?

    Ok… I’ll say it “Could it be that this sudden and clearly organized onslaught of resurgent micronukes BS is just another attempt to redirect Truth sites since the “nanothermite” distraction is now reduced to an electric match?”

    oh wait, that doesn’t work because I actually have offered evidence… shucks. I thought I was being clever.

  39. Willy,

    I can’t believe that you compared JFE’s statement to those comments you made.

    That was bogus.

    You don’t have proof of Det cord or anything else, yet you don’t mind one bit that people talk about them.

    I am not spreading theories to do anything except find the truth, nor do I think that JFE’s statement or discussion is in any form out of line and I appreciate people talking thru things without such a series of bogus retort.

    Why would you do such a thing?

  40. actually, it wasn’t a bogus retort. it was exaggeration of the fallacy in his argument.

    putting forward a question in quotation marks to “imply” a conclusion is not an argument that I let ANYONE get away with here.

    Please… PLEASE… be my guest and find an example.

    Also, claiming “some people say” or “Some folks have alleged” is ALSO an argumentative fallacy.

    and again, please, find an example of where I let others get away with that.

    I see that shit on the MSM and in the Times and the Post all the time. It’s the equivalent of siting “undisclosed sources”

    Also, in case you haven’t noticed…

    I addressed his anomalies, politely, right up there, one after the other. Even asked him to site references for one the claims he made.

    what does he do? He ignores me first of all and then…

    He comes back with “some people say” and “is that a crater?’ Inquiring minds want to know.

    All of a sudden you can’t see this? All of a sudden, this is what legitimate discourse is in your book?

    and one more thing, BuelahMan…

    if you haven’t noticed a recent onslaught from these “mini-nuke” guys all of a sudden popping up and you haven’t made the connection between Davis getting busted trying to get some CIA patsy in Pakistan to bring some nuclear material over here, you had better think about it. You do know that Dimitri is CIA as well right?

    All of a sudden, out of the fucking blue, we got these guys who have NEVER been here before running around pushing mini-nukes as terrorist weapon stories AT THE EXACT SAME TIME THE CIA IS TRYING TO SET UP ANOTHER FF…

    and you want to take that guy’s side over me? after all this time? because I called him out on his bogus little tricks?

    really?

  41. I ain’t taking sides, dude. I am thinking thru each and every possibility. Too bad I don’t get that same feeling from you all the sudden.

  42. I’m sorry, did you forget our last discussion? I researched that stuff man. we talked about this.

    Look, think about it. All of a sudden we have a spate of these guys all saying the same thing… that “mini-nukes” are the weapon of choice for “terrorists” and FF attacks.

    Really? this stuff was debunked years ago.

    But we also got a guy, Davis, CIA, in Pakistan, where we need to start a war, Russia is saying that there will be all out war there very, very soon.

    And that guy was dealing with some more patsys trying to give them nuclear material when he got into some trouble and had to kill two of them., The CIA actually sent two more guys to get the first guy and they had to flee for their lives….

    and here we are with all these people pushing the “mini-nukes” and terrorists stories…

    Do you see any kind of connection there perhaps?

  43. you know where the old “suitcase nukes” stories came from? They came from the cold war. We had to create some big scare aside from the nuclear missiles so along came the “suitcase nuke”

    did you check out that link I put up to the hot spots at Ground Zero? the aerial thermal imaging? did you check those out?

    you should.

  44. now, out of respect for you, I researched this stuff, and we talked about it. Turns out Dimitri is an obvious set up. for either Jones, or maybe this new guy… or maybe the guy who emailed me today. who knows.

    but that’s not the point.

    I didn’t let AHEY get away with baiting us into endless discussions about the “evidence” of tv fakery and I am not about to let someone come here and start up with “mini-nukes” after all these years when the best thing he has to offer is innuendo and “some people say”

    you understand?

    It is also not required by me to allow my site to be used as a billboard for that kind of “evidence” based megaphoning. And I might also add, that were this not a topic you feel strongly about, you would probably agree with me.

    Have I banned him? no. Have I called him names? no. I responded to him and asked for references. and here we are.

    If he is going to come to my Truth site with “mini-nukes” or “tv fakery” or “ray beams from space” he damn sure better come loaded. cus I do my homework.

  45. Dude, There are a lot of things that I don’t agree with you on. But, much of what this Demetri guys says is bogus, obviously. I have never championed him and never even brought his name up in our previous discussions.

    I thought JFE’s statements were clear and concise and never got the feeling he was billboarding his opinion on your post.

    I am trying to focus on the aspect of nuclear demolitions and I appreciate hearing from more than one soul and his opinion.

    And you have attempted to thwart that evaluation for some reason.

    And I agree with you that this is your blog and you conduct your posts in any way you see fit. With that point made, I’ll leave this subject for you and the others who don’t really want an open-air discussion (except when it comes to opinions that you agree with, then its ok).

  46. you and I have had an open air discussion, on this subject. even in emails.

    this guy came here, out of nowhere, listed his anomalies, and made the following statement…

    “The PETN cord idea, I had not heard, but I would be open to consider it, if it can explain all the anomalies.”

    I then explained each and every one of his anomalies, one after the other… here

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/presenting-the-next-cit-snipe-hunt-meet-dimitri-khalezov-and-the-rebranded-mini-nukes-theory/#comment-24337

    and what has he said to me since? nothing. he addressed relament, Jan, and since that… nothing.

    so. I did what he wanted, asked him for a reference. and nothing.

    do I discuss opinions I don’t agree with or do I not?

    yours is an unfair assessment of what has happened. I now know more about the mini-nukes theory than I ever have. so no, between what I have been doing with you, and with this guy, no BuelahMan, that is not a fair assessment of this.

  47. willyloman, I will respond specifically to your answer. I appreciate your answer. I had limited time so I got back to the pictures, which I did have time for.

    But, while I’m here, as a preliminary question:

    willyloman, do you deny the existence of micro-nukes?

  48. J.F.E.,
    The reports I was getting, at the time of the Islamabad incident, was that a truck with explosives pulled into the Marriott and detonated. But, there were reports of American military seen carrying a large black box into the hotel. They then locked the doors to the lobby. Certain people were escorted out of the back entrance of the hotel, and soon afterward the “bomb” was detonated.
    You can see the horrific fires that took place in some of those pictures. There was never any speculation of nuclear devices used. Indeed, I find nuclear devices to be quite detectable because of radiation. These are my opinions of course, but in the investigation regarding nuclear devices used, there is no evidence put forth in the proceeding investigation of the Islamabad tragedy which evens mentions a suspicion of such a device.
    Bomb blasts are quite horrific and damaging in themselves. And do notice yet another huge building engulfed in flames–the entire building–yet no collapse.
    I am very much against the idea of a nuclear device used in anything I’ve seen in the continuous horrors perpetrated by the U.S. on peoples through out the world. Chemical attacks, and depleted uranium being used in various U.S. and Israeli horrors? No doubt. But a nuclear device? There must be evidence, as such things linger about with all types of physical, testable evidence of it’s markings. Those markings remain in the air well after the event, and that air can not be shipped to China…

  49. no no no….

    this is quid pro quo. You said you would address det cord IF I answered your list of anomalies, which I did here.

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/presenting-the-next-cit-snipe-hunt-meet-dimitri-khalezov-and-the-rebranded-mini-nukes-theory/#comment-24337

    I addressed your “unquenchable hotspots”… did you look at the link? Did you see how they were “quenched” from Sept. 16th to the 23rd and the clear evidence of that fact is right there for you to see?

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

    Did you come back with the reference that asked for?

    Did you take a look at the heat output of PETN?

    This is quid pro quo.. you asked me… I answered.

    I asked you… you want to ask me something else.

    I’ll wait till you have time to check those links. Been doing this for 4 years now… I got time.

    Oh by the way… I really liked the “string of pearls configuration”. Nice. What is that from? The Rock?

  50. First, willyloman, you requested a cite on the radio nucleotides:

    The following paper is relied on for the discussion of radio nucleotides. The USGS found Strontium, Barium, and a couple other radio-nucleotides, per the author of this paper, at the vacinity of WTC complex.

    Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demoltion of The World Trade Centre

    William Tahil, B. A.

    http://www.nucleardemolition.com/files/Download/GZero_Report0.pdf

    In addition, Ed Ward, M .D. reports on 55 times higher than background levels of tritium:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/141

    As is known, low level radiation exposure (and/or short duration exposure) generally doesn’t result in instant cancer, rather, cancers appear over time. Numerous first responders have, in the years since 911, come down with various types of blood cancers and some with thyroid cancers, which are consistent with radiation poisoning.

  51. willyloman: Weapon of choice for government sponsored false flag attacks.

  52. willyloman, Hey, sorry, I saw your link on Google, about about nukes and I made a comment.

  53. High levels of tritium reports were argued 3 years ago I think when what’s his name did the debate with Steven Jones. I won’t reference Jones cuz I know he’s a f-in fraud, but if I remember correctly, the man debating Jones tried twice to ask Jones why he didn’t test for residues of high explosives in the dust and both times Jones avoided the question.

    You probably know the debate I am talking about.

    I don’t know tritium jack but I do know that tritium doesn’t only come from nuclear weapon detonations, does it? Could it also come from components pulverized in the demolition? computer parts, florescent tubes, or something else?

    many cancers are “consistent” with radiation poisoning but also caused by other things, correct? I mean there is no one cause for these illnesses that you are speaking of, otherwise you wouldn’t use the word “consistent with”, right? It is not confirmed medically that they are sick from radiation poisoning, is it? Yet it IS confirmed that many of them are sick from the dust and the carcinogens, correct?

  54. relament, a fine answer, best that be all on that subject.

  55. willylomen:

    There are reports of hotspots into December, and even later. These hotspots are well documented.

    Do you deny the hotspots lasted to December?

  56. Now you yourself have mentioned that you are not an expert on this subject.

    How do you suppose they solved the problem of the minimum mass of fissile material required for the nuclear reaction? You see cus that was always a problem. In order to produce anything other than a “fizzle” (their term) they needed a certain amount of fissile material, but that much material needed so much shielding, it would make the “suitcase nuke” to heavy to carry. And if they did scrimp on shielding, then it killed the people trying to move it from radiation.

    Speaking of radiation…

    since you mention cancers that are ‘consistent” with radiation poisoning, why don’t you tell me how many first responders have been diagnosed with radiation poisoning.

  57. willyloman:

    Do you accept 911 reseach.com for authority?

    If so.

    “Persisting Heat
    Fires in the Rubble Persisted for Months

    Fires continued to burn far down in the rubble piles for over 100 days after the attack, despite the spraying of water on the rubble for extended periods. 1 The temperatures inside the rubble piles can only be estimated.

    One source of data is a thermal map of Ground Zero created from infrared data collected by a NASA plane that overflew the site on September 16. The map, created by the U.S. Geological Survey, shows hot spots on the surface of the rubble that were above 700ºCelsius. 2 3 After five days of cooling and despite being sprayed with water, they were still above the melting point of aluminum. The temperatures deep in the rubble pile, and their decline over time, can only be guessed. People living and working around the World Trade Center site, and for considerable distances downwind, had to cope with toxic odors for weeks after the attack.”

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

  58. and there is certainly such a thing as a “mini-nuke”. It is a miniature nuclear reactor. In 2010 they were writing about them being about the size of a mini-van.

    as far as weapons are concerned, didn’t they ban the development of miniature nuclear weapons in 1993? It’s called the Spratt- Furseban

    In 2004 they passed a defense authorization act which allowed for further development and in fact Rumsfeld moved right along with it.

    They are 5 kiloton yield weapons, not a “string of pearls” designed to take out a steel column.

    By comparison, Little Boy was 13 kilotons.

    I remember when they passed that and allowed funding for development of these but that was in 2004… 3 years after 9/11.

  59. 911reaearch.com? are you kidding?

    Jim Hoffman and Gregg Roberts” site? You really don’t know me do you?

    http://911research.com/about/index.html#who

    Jim Hoffman and Gregg Roberts are steadily engaged in making the Truth movement believe the official story of the Pentagon and I know for a fact that Gregg Roberts is probably behind the recent attacks on David Ray Griffin.

    Jim Hoffman tried to hypothesize that hundreds of illegal aliens ran around the Twin Towers planting 1.8 million ceiling tile bombs at a rate of 6 per minute…

    Does it sound like I respect their “authority”?

  60. J.F.E.,
    I read your reply to my question and I looked up micro-nukes. I found out that they might be possible but not very reliable; they have a fizzle problem… and they are very expensive to make.

    Also, they would be much harder to install than PETN which can be run as easily as computer cable ….

    The sheer number of baby nukes needed to take out the towers would create such a great amount of radioactive material in the air that people in Washington, DC would have had to have been hospitalized……. since little nukes don’t have the ‘kick’ that their parent’s do… something about the multiplying of particles compacted together triples the power….. so the baby nukes don’t have that kind of ‘kick’ but they do have the poison.

    And considering the sheer expense and waste of these things…. wouldn’t ‘whoever’ set up the demolition want a reliable and neat and easy to conceal method ? A method proven to work…. without the risk of poisoning Wall Street and the Bankers?
    NO… i don’t buy the nuke theory.

  61. willyloman, it has been argued that Tritium came from exit signs in WTC buildings, but the place was hosed down with water to keep down the dust, the heat, and, I assert, as a radioactive decontamination protocol, So, the argument is that the Tritium level could have been even higher before being diluted with water. Tritium is a radio nucleotide.

    But what about the Strontium, Barium, and the others cited in the paper? And, yes, they are radio nucleotides above background level.

    They were also bringing in dumptruck loads of dirt, spreading it and then removing it and repeating over and over.

    Water and dirt are used in radioactive decontamination efforts.

  62. now, here is something interesting, you will all like this…

    the link that you just posted to Hoffman’s site takes it’s information from the EXACT same place that I posted 40 comments ago and reposted just about 12 comments ago….

    with one exception. He links to the New Scientist article that Dimitri also tried to quote and that I mentioned earlier.

    This is the link that Hoffman gives as a reference for his “100 days” claim, however, if you take the time to check that link, guess what?

    no article.

    http://www.newscientist.com/section/science-news

    So, Jim Hoffman is quoting the same sources as Dimitri? and you are quoting Hoffman? Only, it doesn’t exist anymore.

  63. I hope this question comes across in the friendly manner it is meant: What residue would be left-over from PETN detonation?

  64. a series of nitrates ranging in size and types. That’s why you use the Griess Reagent type test.

    you didn’t answer my question: has anyone been diagnosed with radiation sickness from Ground Zero that you know of?

  65. Is there a source for your claim of 100 days of molten metal pools aside from Hoffman’s site which has a dead link, and aside from the New Scientist article that Dimitri seems so found of?

  66. “They were also bringing in dumptruck loads of dirt, spreading it and then removing it and repeating over and over.”

    what? are you saying they were spreading dirt over the pile at Ground Zero and then picking it up again? come on man…

  67. Wikipedia: “Ground zero workers and cancer”

    “On November 28, 2006, the Village Voice reported that several dozen recovery personnel have developed cancer – as opposed to having contracted respiratory ailments, and that doctors have argued that some of these cancers developed as a result of the exposure to toxins at the Ground Zero site: “To date, 75 recovery workers at ground zero have been diagnosed with blood cell cancers that a half-dozen top doctors and epidemiologists have confirmed as having been likely caused by that exposure.”[12]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks

    I’ll look for more recent citation and number.

  68. AE911Truth huh?

    “and at least 25 images by EarthData, taken between Sept. 16 and Oct. 25”

    well, that goes through Oct. 25th, and I guess it was cool enough at that time to stop filming. Is that 100 days? Is that December?

    sept 17th (very hot)

    http://www.newyork.earthdata.com/thermal.html

    oct 15th (certainly cooled off)

    http://www.newyork.earthdata.com/thermal.html

    oct 21st (almost nothing)

    http://www.newyork.earthdata.com/thermal.html

    now, what does that say for 100 days or even December?

    what does that say about your “unquenchable fires”? This is your evidence… your link…

    what does that say?

  69. cancer is not radiation sickness. they are different you know. I didn’t ask if someone from Ground Zero had cancer. I know they have cancer from exposure to carcinogens… we are talking about radiation sickness.

    does that mean your answer is no?

  70. Yes, willyloman, I’ve seen the pictures of dirt on the site and dumpstrucks on the street near the site.

    “John McNamara is the most recent ground zero first responder to die from cancer. He battled to save lives that day but lost his own battle aged just 44 – a victim of his own bravery.”

    “Retired police officer Mike Valentin has had four biopsies for a precancerous tumor in his throat and has to take 15 pills a day. He calls 9/11 America’s Chernobyl.”

    “The people that will die from illnesses will surpass the number of people that were killed on 9/11. I am talking about thousands, tens of thousands of people that will come down with cancers,” forecasts 9/11 first responder Valentin.

    http://rt.com/usa/news/nyc-firemen/

  71. willyloman, do you deny that radiation exposure causes cancers, particulary blood cancers and thyroid cancers?

  72. You saw pictures of what looked like dirt and some dumptrucks?

    I gave you your chance. I didn’t want to rehash this stuff, but so far I have proven with links and even your own links…

    1. no, there is no evidence that there were “unquenchable” hot spots 100 days after or into December and what little you have is from Jim Hoffman and the dead links on his site

    2. the 1993 Spratt- Furse ban was not even attempted to be lifted until 2004, and that is when development STARTED for micro-nukes under 5 kilotons nominal yield. So there may be SPECULATION of development of these weapons prior to that, but no official confirmation.

    3. you will not answer the question about whether or not there are confirmed cases of radiation sickness in the First Responders, which would of course have been prevalent if some much nuclear material was used.

    4. you continue to try and conflate every cancer case in First Responders as proof, yet fail to admit that carcinogens at Ground Zero have been diagnosed as the cause… not radiation.

  73. The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug up.
    – Richard Riggs, Debris Removal Specialist in “World Trade Center: Rise and Fall of an American Icon,” THC, 2002. (Watch at http://exposureroom.com/members/911conspiracyTV.aspx/assets/2a78106209204bab828d58efd3b79a7d/ — His name and title shows at video run time 51:26. The quote is from vrt 54:00.

    Said Kathy Dawkins, NY Dept. of Sanitation spokeswoman: “…NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains….” (Tom R. Arterburn, “D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers’ Challenge of a Lifetime” Apr. 1, 2002 at http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/

  74. They did not dump dirt on the rubble pile at Ground Zero then pick it back up and put it on the trucks.

    They did not load irradiated steel onto the backs of trucks, drive them uncovered through midday traffic in New York, load it up on ships in massive quantities and then set sail for China. The crew would be dead by time they got to Panama

  75. Your link doesn’t work… there is no mention of what day he was there making these observations…

    http://exposureroom.com/members/911conspiracyTV.aspx/assets/2a78106209204bab828d58efd3b79a7d/

    I’m done with this.

  76. Here… you want to see something that does work? Something that isn’t super secret unknowable military secrets?

    Take a look at this…

    at 50 seconds you will see the white hot result of hitting one drop of nitro with a hammer

    at 1:05 you will set super slow motion of PETN det cord ignition. Notice the shower of sparks near the pole on the right. Look familiar? notice the white hot explosion and the flames afterward and notice the whitish smoke.

    then watch the rest. a series of RD and HMX shaped charges. notice the heat they put out and the black smoke. look familiar?

    Now, go to Youtube and see what a low yield 50 grain PETN det cord does to a 5″ concrete wall (think vertical floor slab)

  77. and let me also say that while this guy attempted to use the illnesses of the first responders to make his case, the fact is, their illnesses have been linked to many causes already. They know what they are dying from. Cancers caused by carcinogens, asbestos, mercury and lead poisoning and a myriad of other painful illnesses. They are not diagnosed with radiation sickness not one of them and this guy knows it. He just won’t admit it and to me that is in very poor taste.

    I am going to bed. He is banned. I gave him his chance.

  78. Some spread the “no plane-theory” where obviously there were planes (WTC, many footages and fotos). Others spread the “Flyover theory” with cops whitnessing they have seen a plane where obviously there was no plane (Pentagon, no footage or foto).

    The first rule in design is: Keep it simple! You don’t need nukes or aliens from outer space for your theory if conventional explosives like PETN/Detcord or thermate or a combination of both (my personal favorite!) can do the same – or even better.

  79. “In forensic science, a good theory is one that can take account of all the relevant facts in a self-consistant way. A bad theory is one that is inconsistant with some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is inconsistant with all the relevant facs – and that’s the official theory about 9/11!” – David Ray Griffin (01:30:13)

  80. What? Banned the guy for that? Seriously?

    You just lost a huge amount of credibility with me for that action,

    I thought you were open to discussion and dialogue, but it appears that is the case if people only agree with you.

    I’ll ban myself, thank you.

  81. When someone asks about fires burning a hundred days or thru Dec. and I show him, with links, photos, and even his own resources that it was not the case, in a discussion about tangible evidence, in a give and take, what you expect is at some point the guy will say, “oh. Hadn’t seen that” or “oh, didn’t know that”… some kind of confirmation

    you see, that is why Truth sites allow open discourse, to review evidence, and judge it based on it’s merits.

    Did what’s his name do that?

    When we talked about radiation sickness and I asked he repeatedly to show me one person diagnosed with radiation sickness or proven to have developed cancer as a result of radiation, he repeatedly just listed people who have been diagnosed with cancer from sources other than radiation.

    He didn’t CONVERSE about the evidence, he kept trying to present evidence that he KNOWS is misleading

    Did he enter a discussion with me about the 1993 ban on development of nuclear weapons under 5 kilotons that wasn’t lifted until 3 years after 9/11? No.

    I was up til 2am putting up with that guy simply because I wanted YOU to see the evidence he had to present.

    No BuelahMan, there was NOT “unquenchable fires” burning for 4 months in the rubble at Ground Zero.

    No, BuelahMan, there are no people dying of cancer from radiation exposure at Ground Zero.

    No BuelahMan, “mini-nukes” did not bring down the Twin Towers.

    If you have the gall to sit here and tell me after these past 3 days that I have NOT entered into open discussion on this subject…

    that guy was not here to discuss openly, he was here to try to persuade with poor evidence. So yeah, I banned him.

    I gave him his shot. Had he ONCE actually discussed this.. had he ONCE said, “you know, I didn’t know that. Hmmm.” I would not have banned him.

    he wasn’t here to share info and discuss this and if you can’t see that BuelahMan, too bad.

    you asked me once about fires burning at Ground Zero for 4 months afterward…

    there’s your answer.

  82. Hi to everyone. My name is Dimitri Khalezov. I found this thread accidentally, just googling for my name. It seems that people, who are discussing this issue here did not bother to watch my video presentation (the infamous 26+1 parts prohibited on YouTube) before making their comments. I strongly suggest you watch the video – it explains everything. If you have no time (it is well over 4 hours) to watch – yes, this is your right, the time is indeed precious, but then you will have no right to comment on my claims, because you do not actually know my claims to be able to comment on them and not to look silly in the same time. The videos could be found here: [edit- you don’t get to post links to phishing sites here] and there on the top of the list there is yet another file in PDF format – my answers to “debunkers”. Hope many of you find this one worth your precious attention. Another good point – download and review pictures of huge underground cavities under the WTC covered with molten rock that perfectly correspond to 150 kilotons hydrogen bombs, and by no means to laughable “micro-nukes”. These pictures in zip-archives are available on the above web site as well. Hope these nice pictures that Larry Silverstein’s Co. calls “ancient glacier” and Steven Jones prefers to ignore whatsoever will clarify something to you. Best wishes. Dimitri Khalezov.

  83. It is reported that the mercury, lead, and other dangerous elements (like even burned plastics) entered the atmoshere above and at ground zero; these particles have caused terrible deaths and illnesses for 9/11 responders. Any computer that was crushed, vaporized, or burned inside the buildings released poison in the air. And we know the buildings were full of computers. The plastics were everywhere. And all that insulation in the walls
    and ceilings….
    For that person (JFE) to use the victims ,as a shield for his nuke theory, is sickening.

    Yes, Erik, you make a good point.

  84. If a 150 kilotons bomb exploded then how did ‘they’ find that old wooden boat? (just had to put this in…. 150 !!! good grief)

    “In July 2010 a team of archaeologists at the site discovered the remains of a 32-foot (9.8 m)-long boat over 200 years old; it was probably made in the 18th century and dumped there along with wooden beams and trash in about 1810 to make up the land.[17] The boat had been weighted to make it sink as part of foundations for a new pier. Samples of its wood have been taken for dendrochronology.” from Wikipedia speaking of the clean up of 9/11 towers site.

  85. Actually, I did watch it, as you can tell from the write-up, quotes and links I provided.

    First, I noticed in your recent print interview just like in this 26 part interview, that you are still showing interior lower columns from the Twin Towers and falsely identifying them as exterior columns in order to support your claim that there were no planes hitting the buildings on 9/11.

    Please stop doing that.

    I also noticed that you misrepresent the construction and design of the core columns as well….

    Please stop doing that.

    If you have a hard time understanding the design and construction of the Twin Towers, here’s a layout of the trusses, exterior columns, and interior columns as per the 67th floor of the North Tower..

    and just in case you still have problems, here’s a 3d model I did…

    Now, since you are here, why don’t you try to work out the details of how it is that a 150 kiloton detonation 50 meters under the Twin Towers resulted in the top-down demolitions that we saw since you really didn’t do a very good job explaining that one on Fetzer’s show.

    and while we are at it, what was Barrett laughing about at the end of your interview with him?

    Why is it that all of a sudden you’re brought out of obscurity and given all of these interviews and made a poster at Veterans Today, all around the same time this year?

    Why don’t you also tell me about the nukes that were in the top of the Twin Towers and the nuke in the tip of the vintage 70s Soviet missile that you claim hit the Pentagon?

    For that matter, why don’t you tell us about that part of your story that claims that regular merchant ships can be rigged to launch these vintage missiles you keep talking about…. isn’t that the EXACT same BS talking point the neocons have been trying to say about the nuclear threat from Iran?

  86. Let’s put this to bed shall we?

    This is a subsistence crater caused by the underground detonation of a 20 kiloton nuke.

    There has never been to my knowledge, an underground test of anything more than a 30 kiloton nuclear device… that was in 1968 in the Bowline test series…

    http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Nts.html

    Why is it you think that they concluded they needed 150 kilotons, something 5 times larger than the biggest they had tested to that point, in and around 1968, when they were actually running these underground tests?

    [edit] – I stand corrected. There is a site which I found which lists many more tests in Nevada than I previously thought took place. I cannot confirm the list, but it does have underground tests, some with yields higher than 150, but not many, including the name of the test shot and the date it took place.

    http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Nevada.html

    Take a look at this… 104 kilotons Sedan test. Displaced 12 million tons of earth formed a 1,280 foot diameter crater that was 320 feet deep. Notice how it literally lifts up the surrounding surface of the ground (at the 38 second mark). Had that occurred in New York, 50 buildings would have been toppled all around Ground Zero… look at the shock wave as it traveled across the ground surface for miles. That in itself would have shattered glass windows all across lower Manhattan… and Dimitri here suggests they used 3 devices EACH being 50% larger than the one shown in the video.

  87. Excellent questions, willy… also, didn’t you say that the Fat Man bomb was 21 kilotons? And Dimitri is talking about 151 kilotons?

    At youtube videos, you can see all kinds of underground nuclear explosions
    (so called testing) Some were as small as 1.2 kilotons.. others were 120 or 100…. in these larger ones you can see the earth move upward….. and outward… the ground shakes and heaves up and then down… the 121 test left a hole 320 feet deep and over 1,200 ft in diameter in width… all this . within packed sand and earth……. what chance would New York have when a 151 kiloton explodes within a simple basement….. seems it might explode the walls and then the rock walls of Manhatten which is an island… and it would have let in the bay on one side and the river on the other.
    New York would have sunk.

  88. Intelligent sincere people are being bamboozled still, which is why this site is so incredibly important now. Trying to get at the truth for myself I confess has often left me bewildered by the bogus “evidence” and convoluted “arguments” of robots and fakes. So BRAVO! willyloman for fighting this good fight with integrity and tenacity.

    This latest round is clarifying things. As willy is showing, the DRG-bashing and multiple distractions are actually becoming aids in identifying the phonies.

    For one thing I can’t help but notice how things heat up when willyloman advances well-grounded and common-sense propositions about controlled demolition using conventional materials. I don’t have or claim any technical expertise but, man! do they start freaking out whenever willy gets going on detcord and PETN. And it occurs to me, not only can this explosive sutff be tested for, but it’s a small world of people who know how to bring down big buildings. The experts in the field are known and some of them arrived very early at the scene of the 9-11 crime (willy, do you have a good link or cite for the early appearance of demolition experts?). Whereas the nanothermite and mini-nuke distractions involve wispy theoreticals and unknowns and absurdities at every turn, but conveniently draw attention away from….detonation cord and PETN. DET CORD!!! PETN!!!

    Yes from here out I will try to pay more attention to what the clowns and fakes don’t want me to look at and think about, like

    conventional explosives bringing down the three world trade towers

    what really made that hole in the Pentagon

    Drones, Dryden, Deets, and so on, and not forgetting

    WORLD WIDE REBEL SONGS!

  89. sing: “WORLD WIDE REBLES” 🙂

  90. Scott:

    Thank you for those kind words (you too Jan)…

    To answer your question…

    “Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm…” Blanchard of Protec

    Protec is a company used by CDI to monitor seizmic activity during demolitions so that they can prove later in court that their demolition did not harm other buildings…

    “Protec was engaged in vibration monitoring activities for private construction sites in Manhattan on Sept. 11th 2001”

    http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

    I will find the rest of the info

  91. Dimitri,

    sorry, but I didn’t get it. Could you please explain:

    * why the buildings’ tops disintegrated first? (WTC 1 & 2)
    * why there was no blast wave visible moving fom the bottom to the top?
    * why the first nuke pulverized WTC2 from the bottom to the 400 m top at once but didn’t harm anything else nearby?
    * if everything was pulverized – where do the steel remains come from?
    * how the bone fragments came on top of the Deutsche Bank building?

    And if you really think that aluminum can’t cut steel you will probably reject the fact that fleash and bone can cut titanium. Shall we calculate the kinetic energy of a 757 at a given speed and compare it to the energy of explosives?

  92. Scott:

    I have found the elusive (here is that magazine again) New Scientist interview with the owner of CDI which not only places him in New York on 9/11, but also confirms he called friends and warned them the buildings were coming down… and… CONFIRMS 1. HE STUDIED THE DESIGNS OF THE TWIN TOWERS PRIOR TO 9/11 AND 2. HE WAS ACTUALLY IN BUILDING 7 LESS THAN TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO 9/11 AND 3. HIS JOB AFTER 9/11 WAS TO “CLEAN UP” THE DUST WHICH CONTAINED THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD PROVE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

    Q: And you’ve got a new job in New York?

    A: We’re part of a team in a 14-month project with the Deutsche Bank, including cleaning up the 9/11 dust. It’s not sexy, but standard and typical environmental remediation of the building. But naturally the project does have very unique community relations problems, which was one of the reasons we were involved.

    Q: “When you watched 9/11, did you imagine that the towers would come down like that?

    A: I did a report on the World Trade Center when I was at college and I knew exactly how it was built . I understood the concept. When I saw the FIRST PLANE hit, my mind first went to: “Oh my god, what’s happened? Is it a plane, a PRIVATE plane?” But I was watching ALONG with most of the western world when the SECOND plane hit. And everything changed. When I saw what hit, that it was an airliner, that it was loaded with jet fuel, I remembered the long clear span configuration from the central core to the outer skin of the World Trade Center from the report I did. And we had just taken down two 40-storey structures in New York.

    I still had some cellphone numbers so when the SECOND plane hit I said: “Start calling all the cellphones, tell them that the building is going to come down.” It was frenetic, nobody could get through even with speed dialling. And I just sat there, just sat there. Of course, building number 7, which is where the emergency management headquarters was, was on fire. I’D BEEN IN THAT OFFICE TWO MONTHS BEFORE. And I sat there watching, I picked up the phone and I called a couple of people on the National Research Council Committee involved in assessing the impact of explosives. They said: “What do you think this is, that they’re going to fail, they’re both going to fail?” The expression around was they’re going to pancake down, almost vertically. And they did. It was the only way they could fail. It was inevitable. And it was horrific.”

    Q: But you’ve been involved in a very wide range of projects that sound dangerous?

    A: Yes, but we are very, very careful. We follow my dad’s motto of stay small, stay sharp, stay safe. We have to stop other people sometimes. In 1995 we were involved in demolishing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that Timothy McVeigh bombed.

    http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/new_scientist/BaltimoreBlast_Loizeaux.html

  93. I wish some of these “interviewers”, when confronted with the “pancake theory”, would simply ask: Why did the core disintegrate? Where is the core of the building? Why do videos show long rods in the center of the building, evaporating?
    And if he studied the WTC towers, and understood it, why would the designers of the building think the towers were deigned to take at least one hit by a large passenger plane? After one hit he’s claiming to have known the buildings are going to fall?
    What a bunch of poop.

  94. I think it is VERY interesting that he just happened to be in Building 7 two months before 9/11, around the exact same time that Tom Sullivan, an admitted employee of CDI at the time, was getting his explosives handler’s license in New York City

    now that is interesting

  95. Dimitri Khalezov commenting for us to actually watch 4hours of his nonsense? That seems like a hate crime. It would be like watching an entire Academy Awards show.

  96. relment, thanks for the laugh…
    an entire Academy Awards show….. LOL

  97. 🙂

  98. Thanks willy for the link and excerpts from the New Scientist interview which I did not know about. Great to have this information. Just the kind of thing Steven Jones and company don’t want people talking about and investigating.

  99. It’s riveting. I watched as much as I could take, then I plucked out my eyes and joined up with a band of roving street prophets. We beg during the day and pray to the great ashtray god at night. Somehow the blank indifference of a painfully mundane existence appeals to me now. I would recommend the film to everyone. It’s like being in that rehabilitation scene in A Clockwork Orange, only more intense with less laughs.

  100. One little thing I want to point out that was mentioned in this thread about Raymond Davis and this al qaeda/cia patsy nuclear material connection.

    As far as I can tell this story was started by the infamous Sorcha Faal on Feb. 11.

    http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1448.htm

    EU Times was the next disseminating site for Faal and then it was yahoo news and on and on.

    Please correct me if I’m mistaken about the time line. I suppose it could be that the Faal site does get some things right but even then it’s going to be mixed with BS.

    The point is that sometimes things get repeated and tweaked so often that people take it as truth without looking to see where it originally came from. Same with 9/11.

  101. Feb. 11th? Sorcha Faal?

    how about these…

    Feb. 8th 2011 International Herold Tribune

    “The United States on Monday called the suicide of the widower of Muhammad Faheem shot by US citizen Raymond Davis “a tragedy” but renewed calls on the country to free the American. Shumaila, the wife of Faheem, took poisonous pills and died on Sunday in a hospital, doctors and police said.

    “We are aware of this and it is clearly a tragedy for that family,” State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters in Washington. But he added: “We continue to make clear to the government of Pakistan that our diplomat has diplomatic immunity; in our view, was acting in self-defence and should be released.” Crowley said the United States raised its concerns at high levels, including during a meeting Monday”

    http://tribune.com.pk/story/115741/us-calls-death-of-faheems-widow-tragedy/

    Jan 30 2011 International Herold Tribune

    “Presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar said on Sunday that the detained American Raymond Davis who shot dead two Pakistani men in Lahore will not be released despite pressure on the government.

    Speaking at a ceremony, Babar admitted that the government was facing pressure in the case. However, he insisted that the decision will be taken by the courts since the matter is subjudice. He added that authorities were looking into the case to see whether the American had diplomatic immunity or not.

    Meanwhile, authorities have sent a list of questions to the US consulate and embassy regarding the individuals who fled in a Land Cruiser after running over a third man in Mozang.”

    http://tribune.com.pk/story/111378/davis-will-not-be-released-despite-pressure-babar/

    Jan 29th 2011 International Herold Tribune

    “The murder of two Pakistanis by the American man identified as Raymond Davis has riled many Pakistanis. Besides fanning the anti-American sentiment, it has also perplexed Pakistanis because of the rather mysterious manner in which the whole incident played out. From a legal standpoint, solving the mystery of the American’s identity is the most critical part of the ongoing investigation, since it would determine whether or not he has diplomatic immunity from criminal prosecution in Pakistan.

    There are some indications that Raymond Davis is not a diplomat. However, irrespective of his identity or legal status, the relevant question is whether Raymond Davis should be allowed to get away with murder?”

    http://tribune.com.pk/story/111024/ascertaining-raymond-daviss-indentity/

  102. I was only referring to the allegations of Davis supplying nuclear material to ‘al qaeda.’ Your links say nothing about that.

  103. here you go Kenny, this article is quoted in the Faal piece, but not this section…

    TIME Feb. 9th 2011

    “A series of documents obtained by the Pakistani news channel DawnNews — some said to have been in Davis’ possession but whose authenticity can’t be verified — suggest that the 36-year-old Nevada native carried a diplomatic passport and was a member of the Embassy’s “Administrative and Technical Staff”. These documents reportedly also name him as a Department of Defense contractor, and co-owner of Hyperion Protective Services.(See photos of Pakistan beneath the surface.)

    Equally misleading, say Pakistani officials, is the claim in Pakistani media that Davis’ victims had been “ordinary men”, or even as “robbers,” as the State Department has suggested. “They were from the ISI,” says a government official, referring to Pakistan’s military intelligence agency. It isn’t clear, the official says, whether they were full paid-up agents or local informants.”

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2047149,00.html?xid=rss-mostpopular

  104. however… as I look at “Faal”‘s work I find that the big parts of the story, the nuclear material and the biological agents, refer back to a Russian Intelligence Report that he keeps calling the SRV report. Only has one link to it, and that link goes to a Russian language website, not translated, and it’s the front page, and apparently not a separate article on the report.

    http://svr.gov.ru/

    That is very fishy Kenny… I will admit.

    I also noticed though that in his original article dated Feb. 11th, three links go to the same article, dated Feb. 18th 2011.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_pakistan_detained_american;_ylt=AmYpbE7rtSia5UgCRVVwnW9H2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTM3cDQyaW1zBGFzc2V0A2FwL2FzX3Bha2lzdGFuX2RldGFpbmVkX2FtZXJpY2FuBGNjb2RlA3ZpZXdzaGFyZQRjcG9zAzkEcG9zAzkEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawN1c21hbm9yZGVyZWQ-

  105. even Washington Blog write-up on this goes on and on then in the end says they can’t verify it.

    apparently it all comes from an ANI story about the Russian Intelligence agency report, and everyone is quoting the ANI piece, but when I go to ANI it’s some cheezy little news website with no search tool that I can see.

    hmmmm…

  106. ANI is so fucking cheezy, their “most popular stories” archieve only goes back to Feb. 19th, but I didn’t see the article in there.

    http://www.aniin.com/index.asp

    who would report anything from that site as news?

  107. seems like a black hole once it gets to ANI and ATS noticed that as well….

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread666060/pg1

  108. ATS also notes that it can’t be found on ANI’s website…

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread666060/pg2

    odd that Washington’s Blog got taken in by this.

    I mean it seems the guy was CIA contractor and it seems they suspect, with good reason, that he was aiding “terrorists” in Pakistan…

    but the nuclear material and the biological agents seem to come from Faal and ANI and they both end in a dead end.

    good catch Kenny

  109. You’ve got it now. I feel sure Davis is a CIA killer and most likely has been paying some ‘Taliban’ characters to assist in who knows what. But why has this most likely hoax story about the nuclear material has been thrown into the mix?

    Take a look at the Faal site every few days and then watch for their spin to show up in various places without a link back to the source. I’ve never seen yahoo news pick up one of their tales before and that’s a bad sign.

    EU Times is usually the first to re-post Faal but without ever acknowledging the source so always look for links or references to them.

    One more note on the Faal site and their ‘main articles’ is that there doesn’t seem to be any criticism of Israel. That may tell us something about who may be behind the site.

  110. Faal is psyop for sure. and you’re right again, the scary thing is how quickly other agencies picked up that element of the story and ran with it. It looks like they all got it from ANI and I still can’t find that one.

    what also gets me is the fact that Washington Blog ran with this story as well. That’s where I read it originally and why I just mentioned the nuclear aspect of it without thinking about it. Usually you can trust Washington Blog to vet their stuff pretty well.

    very odd. and it does coincide with the new push for mini-nukes…

  111. I just can’t get over this “Aluminum can’t cut steel!”-theory. So I looked up some data:

    Pure aluminum (Al99,5) has a tensile strength of 75 – 110 N/mm²
    Dural® (AlCu4Mg1) has a tensile strength of 430 – 500 N/mm².
    Construction steel has a tensile strength of 310 – 630 N/mm².

    So you can see clearly that a plane’s material is as hard as construction steel. Not to mention all the extra hard struts and bolts and gears and engines.

  112. I like this relatively old clip on 9/11 (from Eric Hufschmid?).

    00:00 Pentagon
    00:40 Burning vs. Explosive
    10:45 WTC 7
    14:45 FEMA investigation
    20:50 Demolition
    22:40 Secrecy about WTC 7
    25:33 WTC 1 & 2 did not simply “fall down”
    28:28 Core Columns / Exterior Columns / diagrams
    31:33 plane comes into the diagram
    32:55 Can jet fuel destroy steel buildings?
    39:10 Controlled Demolition Inc.

    This leaves not much space neither for the “no plane”-theory nor the “mini-nukes”-theory. But get an impression of Thermite instead!

  113. Was nice of you to block Khalezov reply.

    What did he do ? tear your arguments to pieces?

    He always answers in full detail.
    You just received 1 out of 5 shill stars – good job

  114. actually “Josh”, Khalezov is not banned, nor is his reply. He only replied once that I know of, and as you can see, he didn’t offer much in the way of facts.

  115. and I just checked the pending and the spam and trash bins and no, your hero has not tried to respond.

  116. Hi to everyone. Sorry, guys, I indeed did not reply, because I was just busy with other things and I can’t monitor all sites discussing me. Usually I care to answer all questions only on GLP forum and as much as I could afford – on the Veterans Today. I just learned that some questions were asked. I will try to answer. See below.

    Erik, on February 24, 2011 at 12:51 pm said:
    Dimitri,

    sorry, but I didn’t get it. Could you please explain:

    * why the buildings’ tops disintegrated first? (WTC 1 & 2) ————————– it was explained in my 26-parts video in the most understandable form, also supported by moving graphics to make the explanation even more illustrative. If you ask this question it only means that you did not watch my video presentation. Watch it and get your answer.

    * why there was no blast wave visible moving fom the bottom to the top? —————– it was not blast wave. It was “crushing wave”. You could not see it because it travelled at about 4 km per second. Moreover, it travels in hard materials just “dustifying” them (the preliminary stage before final disintegration). You can not notice such a process with the naked eye.

    * why the first nuke pulverized WTC2 from the bottom to the 400 m top at once but didn’t harm anything else nearby? ———————— explained in the video in the most comprehensible manner supported by moving graphics. I can’t answer here in the plain text better than I did in the video. Just watch the 26 parts of my video and get the answer.

    * if everything was pulverized – where do the steel remains come from? ————————- from two sources: a) from the very top of the Twins that were not reached by the “crushing wave” because of being too far from the hypocenter underground; b) from one corner of each Twin Tower that was spared by the “crushing wave” because it occurred within the “dead space” due to the fact the underground nukes were “off-center” in either case of each Twin Tower.

    * how the bone fragments came on top of the Deutsche Bank building? ——————— because besides “crushed zone” there is also “damaged zone” that is the next layer. While roughly 350 meters of each Twin Tower’s bodies were “dustified” (i.e. belonged to the “crushed zone”), some 50 meters or so above it (but under completely undamaged tops) were representing the “damaged zone”. There materials were not pulverized, but broken to pieces. Those poor souls were within the “damaged zones” immediately under the Towers tops. So the tops falling down scattered some debris around and among them – the bones. Some of them landed on top of the Deutsche Bank building. Read my free pdf book for more explanation. This particular case was explained there in precise detail.

    And if you really think that aluminum can’t cut steel… ———————— I do not actually “really think”. I am rather sure about it.

    …you will probably reject the fact that fleash and bone can cut titanium. ——————– I don’t quite understand what you are talking about. But if you mean that flesh and bones could cut through some structural thick titanium (not titanium foil, but titanium bars)? I don’t think so. I remember when I was in a high school one of our teachers used to flog students with his titanium pointer when the came late to his lessons. But I did not notice that titanium suffered anything from the encounter with someone’s ass or back… May be you have to try it on someone. Just get the titanium rod and hit some person. And see if the rod will be broken or not.

    Shall we calculate the kinetic energy of a 757 at a given speed and compare it to the energy of explosives? ———————————- yes, you can. But what is the point? The explosives would not be able to cut the steel anyway. They could only cut steel if you put the explosives inside the enclosed room surrounded by steel. Then they will tear it apart. But if you simply detonate any volume (does not matter how huge volume) of explosives just besides some thick steel structure the explosion will not harm them anyway. You could only use a special hollow-shape charge to tear through steel, and not just ordinary explosives. I guess anyone who has experience with explosive works and with the military realizes it. What would happen if you detonate an ordinary hand-grenade (not the hollow-shaped one) against the armor of a tank? Nothing will happen. Explosives can not harm the armor of a tank irrespective of the quantity of the explosives (unless, of course, the explosives are hollow-shaped). The same applies to the structural steel. You can not cut structural steel with explosives (unless you stuff the explosives into the tubes of the columns, or unless you use hollow-shaped charges). So if you can not use explosives to cut steel, what is the point to make your calculations trying to figure out if aluminum can penetrate steel? It can not, folks. Aluminum can not penetrate steel. Whether you like it or not.

    You know, all “planers” argumentation is based only on two main reasons:

    a) Someone who used to believe (formerly) into the planes theory after getting acquainted with the no-planes suggestion can not simply adjust his brains to the reality. He is too prejudiced by his former suggestion and the mere fact that there were no planes in reality sounds too outrageous for him to force himself to believe it. I guess this is merely psychological problem that eventually will solve itself. You will see – with the course of time more and more former “planers” would switch to the no-planes truth, simply because it is self-evident. And this process is underway now. For the last half-year the camp of “no-planers” grew by hundreds of times. If at the beginning of 2010 it was merely a few thousands of desperate no-planers (mostly Simon Shacks) supporters, now there are hundreds of thousands of no-planers, and many of them are educated people, doctors of physics, for example, not to mention professional pilots and professional architects who know the strength of steel very well (along with the special requirements that buildings must withstand possible impact of a fully loaded aircraft). I guess soon the no-planers will number in millions.

    b) Desperate shills who are still struggling to save the Freemasons and the Mossad agents. Because all of those who filmed the “planes” and many of those who “saw” the planes are known. They have shown their pretty faces on the TV that day. And now, with the establishment of the no-planes truth, all of them must be arrested and tortured into confession – to reveal who ordered them the job. Add here that many of them work in mass media outlets (such as a financial director of CNN who reported personally the first “plane”, for example). Could you imagine that all of these folks are facing arrest for their self-evident complicity in the most heinous crime of the century??? Of course, they will fight to death for the “planes” version. And they will pay any money to the shills who will argue with us to the contrary – trying to convince us that there were “planes”. This is pure logic. The stakes are simply too high to afford to surrender the “planes” version without fight. The shills will fight to death. And you can see it now right here. (To say “to death” is possibly too much, since the shills are mostly anonymous, so they do not really lose anything, just work off their money, but they will fight really hard.)

    Sincerely yours,
    Dimitri Khalezov.

  117. are you actually suggesting that we torture witnesses who saw planes hit the buildings on 9/11?

  118. and by the way, I watched your video as is referenced in the article above. You do not cover how the buildings collapse occurs from the top down in two examples (buildings 1 and 2) and then from the bottom up in the third (building 7)

    “dustification” of the steel columns caused by 3 150 kiloton nukes buried under the ground?

    Why don’t you address the fact that you mislabel lower interior core columns as exterior columns and you misrepresent the design structure of the core itself.

  119. wilyloman,

    Dimitri posts his comment at 12:39 and 20 minutes later you post yours indicating that you have watched all 26 parts of the video. How do you do that in 20 minutes…its a 4 hour video? I know you didn’t watch all of when you wrote this original blog, otherwise you would not of questioned the size of the nukes and compared them to Hiroshima. Have you actually watched the entire video series yet?

    Where did you get your data that the steel was 1/4″ where the “planes” struck? It seems unlikely to me that they would use steel this thin when there’s still 200 feet or more of structure above.

    Also, 767s can’t fly at 560 miles an hour at sea level. They break apart. Check with a 767 pilot on that one.

    Finally, you totally dissed ahey2012 in all of his comments, completely missing the points of his arguments.

    All of the above tell me you have a separate agenda!

  120. jb1776…

    Pay attention… read the article above… I specifically stated that I watched his 26 part video and even make comments about his claims in the videos. I watched it the day I wrote the article… the 22nd of Feb. Not today.

  121. I determined the size of the steel from the constructions drawings of the Twin Towers (link is on the right over there) and from the NIST report and the FEMA report and various other literature detailing the construction of the towers.

    the steel columns making up the exterior of the towers were roughly 14×14 and varied from a 1/4″ to 3/8″ in thickness of the metal. What you and Dimitri there don’t seem to grasp is that they changed the TYPE of metal, not it’s thickness over the course of the height of the towers. Different stiffness for different sections. Its all there if you care to do the research. But the fact is, Dimitri showed 3’x5′ columns with 5″ thick walls and misrepresented them as exterior columns… and he has done this SEVERAL times.

    Either he is a lazy researchers or he is just plain full of shit. Either way, he does our movement no good. There were NOT three 150 kiloton nukes that went off on 9/11 underground. Think about it. The two we dropped on Japan were 13 and 21 kilotons. Do you have any idea what 3 150 kiloton warheads would do to lower Manhattan? Think about it, you are smarter than that.

  122. Thank you, I also think I am smarter than that and I do indeed pay attention. No need for smart ass comments when having a discussion and expressing thoughts and opinions.

    I did not think you watched the video because you are consistently comparing the nukes dropped on Japan with the 150kton ones that Dimitri mentions which were buried 77 meters (250 feet) under street level.

    I’m not an expert (and I don’t think you are either) but still its not right to mislead people into thinking that a 150kton underground explosion is comparable to an above ground explosion. These differences are explained in Dimitri’s video.

    I’m not part of any movement . I don’t think we need to be in specific “camps” to get to the bottom of this.

    -JB

  123. this is what an underground detonation of a nuclear warhead looks like. The Sedan Test of 1962. It was only 104 kilotons.The dome (ground swelling up after detonation) rose to a height of 290 feet before venting.

    “The fusion-fission blast had a yield equivalent to 104 kilotons of TNT (435 terajoules) and lifted a dome of earth 290 feet (90 m) above the desert floor before it vented at three seconds after detonation, exploding upward and outward displacing more than 11,000,000 t (11,000,000 LT; 12,000,000 ST) of soil.[3] The resulting crater is 100 m (330 ft) deep with a diameter of about 390 m (1,280 ft). ”

    Dimitri claims there were 3 150 kiloton warheads detonated under ground zero, in that tight space, each being 50% larger than the warhead detonated in the video below.

  124. Nice video…I will have to study this some.

    My initial reaction tho:

    1. Doesn’t look like it would take out all of lower Manhattan.

    2. Doesn’t look like its comparable to what happened in Japan, ie. vaporizing a city, which was really my point of contention to begin with.

    3. This test was conducted under loose soil, not solid bedrock like the towers stood on. I’m not sure you can exactly compare the two situations given this fact.

    -JB

  125. 104 kilotons compared to 450 kilotons (3 @ 150)

    also of note is the close proximity of the three to each other. By time the third one went off, even according to Dimitri’s theory, there would have been little left of that bedrock the Twin Towers were on. By the way, the Twin Towers were built on a 5 story deep basin, the bathtub they called it I believe.

    Look, the point I am trying to make is this.. we can see clearly that what happened at Ground Zero looked nothing like this test, and it was 50% smaller than just ONE of the nukes Dimitri was talking about. The radioactive fallout from Sedan infected 7% of the US population and that was way out in the desert. That was a 104 kiloton nuke way out in the desert. It registered as a 4.7 on the Richter scale for christ’s sake. The radiation level was at 500 rads per hour at the rim of the crator it left. Do you have any idea the rads level at Ground Zero if 3 150’s had been detonated? first responders would have been dying in a matter of hours, not years.

    all I am saying is keep looking into it, alright? Don’t take his word for it, don’t take mine. Compare the Richter scale readings on Sept 11th to those from Sedan and any of the other underground tests.

    thanks for the comments.

  126. dear willyloman.

    If you continue to ask question why the Twin Towers disintegrated from top down it means you did not see my video or you saw it not attentively enough. Watch it attentively and you will get the answer to this partiuclar question. It is all there.

    Regarding you suggestion that nukes were too close to each other. They were not actually “too close”. Horizontal diameters of cavities left by them did not exceed 80 meters I guess – comparable to the footprints of the Towers (that were 66 by 66 m). Considering that first two nukes were off-center, their cavities did not overlap and it is self-evident. The third nuke – under the WTC-7 was even farther.

    Radioactive “fallout’ from Sedan test was because a crater was created there. So all former contents of the crater became radioactive dust that was airborne and fell elswhere. In Manhattan there were no radioactive dust, but only radioactive vapor that had very different physical properties. You can’t compare the two.

    Radiation levels at 500 R per hour in Sedan’s test could have been only for the first half an hour. The most high initial levels of radiation subside quickly in the first few hours. In the WTC case levels of radiation were definitely over 300 R per hour during first half an hour. You don’t even have to doubt it. Then they subsided to something like 100 R per hour, then in a few more hours – they subsided to tens R per hour. How many responders died from acute radiation sickness? In my estimation respodners are dying only from chronic radiation sickness, not from acute one, because certain radiation control was quickly established in ground zero (then still with low-case letters). So, no one could have a chance to overdose since control was established. However, it is not so with those who were trapped under debries, or fallen unconscious during the WTC collapse. Those (most of them) would accumulate several hundreds of Roentgents with no chance to survive. They died all. But their deaths were not recorded as from radiation causes, but from burns or from mechanical injuries. The doctors are not so stupid. They know how to bluff you. So I guess that a couple of hundreds of people (including some unfortunate firefigthers) died in a first few days from acute radiaiton sickness. Exact digits I don’t know, of course, because they are classified. But I would bet on a couple of hundreds of deaths from this particular reason.

    Compare Richter scale readings. There were earthquakes at the WTC collapses (3 times per each building) at minimum of 5.7-5.8 on the Richter scale. If you say in Sedan it was only 4.9 – this is the comparison you requested.

  127. Sorry, dear willyloman, on March 9, 2011 at 12:53 pm you have said:
    are you actually suggesting that we torture witnesses who saw planes hit the buildings on 9/11?

    My answer is “yes”. You have to torture them. {EDIT: THAT IS WHAT GOT DIMITRI BANNED FROM THIS SITE no racial slurs and no calls for violence. FOR THE RECORD: NO ONE HERE IS ADVOCATING TORTURING ANYONE, FREEMASONS OR NOT}Voluntarily they would not say anything. The Freemasons in general are brave. Firstly it is because they have a good psychological training to anticipate possible interrogations, secondly, they feel support of their brotherhood even if they are arrested. So they don’t give a shit about your questions if you simply arrest them and politely request them to sign that they are acquianted with basic rights of an arrested person. You have to torture them if you want to get something useful out of those who “saw” how airliners fly at their full cruise speeds at 300 meters above the ground and “filmed” how aluminum penetrated steel thick as a tank’s armor. And, I could tell you, that there is nothing wrong or unfair in torturing those disgusting folks. Because if not them Bush Jr. would not authorize torturing terrors suspects (and anyone else in addition). So, as long as those “witnesses” worked so hard to return the torture it would be the best thing to apply the torture to them. It is effective and, what is the most important – it is fair.

  128. really? 5.7-5.8 on the Richter scale? How come other buildings in the area didn’t collapse? anything over a 5.0 should have caused significant damage to other buildings?

    And how come Richter readings at the Lamont-Dougherty station at Columbia University taken during the collapses of the Twin Towers registered a 2.3?

    and why exactly is it that after your vertical pulverization of three 150 kiloton warheads went off that the bathtub under the Twin Towers was in fact, still intact?

    “If that were the case, the entire argument that the bathtub was not able to withstand an earthquake larger than a 2.3 Richter scale would fail because the bathtub did, in fact, survive a ground shaking that caused a Richter scale peak larger than 2.3.”

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/scientific-critique-of-judy-woods-paper-star-wars-beam-weapons-by-james-gourley.pdf

    “How many responders died from acute radiation sickness?”

    none, zero, zip

    “In my estimation respodners are dying only from chronic radiation sickness, not from acute one, because certain radiation control was quickly established in ground zero (then still with low-case letters).”

    well, as that may be your opinion, it is not supported by any doctors who have diagnosed anyone with chronic radiation sickness.

    “If you continue to ask question why the Twin Towers disintegrated from top down it means you did not see my video or you saw it not attentively enough. Watch it attentively and you will get the answer to this partiuclar question.”

    you know, I watched the video and I watched the part where you tried your best to avoid talking about this obvious fallacy in your hypothesis. You did exactly what you are trying lamely to do here… address the question without answering the question because you know how stupid the answer sounds. Dustified steel beams caused the floors of each of the Twin Towers to explode, one after the other, “boom boom boom” all the way down with “orange flashes of light” ringing around each floor one after the other.

    “The doctors are not so stupid. They know how to bluff you. So I guess that a couple of hundreds of people (including some unfortunate firefigthers) died in a first few days from acute radiaiton sickness. Exact digits I don’t know, of course, because they are classified. But I would bet on a couple of hundreds of deaths from this particular reason.”

    now you say that “a couple hundred” first responders died from radiation sickness in the first few days after 9/11 and NO ONE told anyone about it? and that the doctors are in on it as well? Yeah, I guess those numbers would be hard to get, so I suppose it makes sense that you should just make some up as you go along.

    let me ask you something… are you really used to people being this fucking stupid or are you just fucking with me? I mean, I really want to know… do people actually take this shit seriously or what? You gotta be fucking kidding me.

  129. yep… that’s the one.

    Dimitri, I got two real rules here… no using racial slurs or religious slurs of any kind….

    and…

    no calls for violence.

    I gave you a chance to back out of that by politely asking you to clarify that point, but you come back calling for the torture of random people who just happened to see what happened with their own eyes on Sept. the 11th.

    You are not a real Truth advocate, you are clearly a stooge, set in place to make us look like either fools or crazies prior to the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

    go on back to Gordon Duff and hang out with his ass, cus you’re done here…

    BANNED (and with good cause – advocating torture of people because they saw what Dimitri claims is impossible – and for being an obviously fake “truther”)

  130. LOL

    You banned him on such lame grounds.
    anything just not to let him expose you…

    You just lost the debate

  131. And it is such a lie.

    He speaks about how the towers fell from the top in great detail from part 7 and onwards.

    Sorry shill. you are busted.

  132. actually, Dimitri the fake truther got banned for calling for violence toward 9/11 witnesses. That’s good enough for me. and, he’s an idiot. or he thinks we are. Two good reasons.

  133. Lol.

    Nice fail there Willy br0.

    You Mad?

  134. wow… look at all the new people who think I lost that debate with Dimitri… I guess that must mean I did lose that debate. [sarcasm]

    you fuckin megaphonies are so obvious. Does that shit work at other sites, or do you just not have anything better that you have come up with yet?

  135. @willyloman.

    “The videos could be found here: [edit- you don’t get to post links to phishing sites here] ”

    Considering that you edited his comment, removed his website and document to disallow others from making up their own mind and coming to their own conclusions based on all the facts, while also stating that it’s a phishing site says more about you and it’s done you a disservice.

  136. It is a phishing site, and Dimitri is a fraud. 3 150 kiloton nukes? give me a break. If that is your idea of research, have fun…

  137. Was there TV fakery? Of course there was – this has been proven! Does it mean there were no planes? No, it doesn’t mean there were no planes at all.

    I have watched his video several times to get the jist of it and it does make a lot of sense. Especially the molten iron ‘running thru the channel rails months after 9/11’ per the FDNY. Thermite would have merely cut thru the steel and not a) turned it to microscopic dust and b) been several thousand degrees of temperature many months later. Maybe 15 minutes?

    Does this mean I’m crazy? Go ahead and say it. But I don’t think a conventional controlled demo could have been so symmetrical and clean. And for both towers (and WTC7).

    And a missile definitely hit the Pentagon – say what you want. Pull up the photo of all 6 thick rings of the Pentagon being burst thru by that tiny sharp projectile – definitely not a fiberglass/aluminum nose cone in my opinion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: