Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WTC was a Nuclear Demolition - New Facts and Hard Evidence Exposing the Coverup and Censorship!!

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
You lucky 9/11 conspiracy people reading this thread - you're about to be some of the first to get some insight into the real truth of 9/11.

911 WTC nuclear demolition research by Dimitri Khalezov, former military specialist with a background in nuclear physics gives us insight into how nuclear 'devices' (not weapons) were used to demolish the WTC using the crushing wave effect, and shows us exactly how it was pulled off via underground detonations. He even explains why the south tower fell first, why there was remaining facet at the base, how the towers collapsed at freefall and the after effects at ground zero correlating to an underground detonation. I like also how he picked up on the re-iterations of the modern dictonary to re-define what the term ground zero actually means! He goes as far to explain the sequence of events and time-line of 9/11 and how decision making played a role in the collapse. He even claims the FBI reviewed his book and unofficially agree with it. This is brilliant work in my opinion and if what he says is even partially true this is rather mind blowing and anyone wanting to know the truth behind 9/11 should pay close attention, it all seems to add up rather nicely.



Here's a taster - the rest can be viewed on youtube (26 parts!), enjoy. This is an absolute must see and demands your attention immediately. Please make sure you actually watch the videos too before posting...


I will add more later, but I just had to get this post out to share this important information.


[edit on 29-3-2010 by Insolubrious]




posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Okay, I'll bite and get back with you after watching the vids. This better be good...



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Its obvious the guy is just a Conspiracy Theorist version of "Borat" taking the p1ss. I watched about 2 minutes of it before the cringe factor got boring.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I will rate this theory as "more far fetched than Controlled demolitions" but "more rational sounding than alien shape shifting lizards".



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Erm.......If it was Nuclear wouldn't there be a fall out of some sort? I am not buying nuclear explosion, but I am damn sure the buildings didn't freefall because of twisted metal supports heated up by the engine fuel.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 



New York City's media reported in June 2006 nearly 300 WTC responders including cops, fire fighters and construction workers have been diagnosed with cancer, and 33 of them have already died of cancer. Many of them are diagnosed with Blood Cell cancer such as Leukemia. Earlier in April the same NYP has reported 6 cops died of brain cancer. Americans who know nothing about Hiroshima and Nagasaki would instantly attribute this to airplane fuel's Benzene contents.

www.agoracosmopolitan.com...


A 47-year-old Brooklyn firefighter who worked at the World Trade Center wreckage for a month after the Sept. 11 terror attacks has died of throat cancer.
Ray Hauber's relatives and colleagues believe conditions at Ground Zero might have caused the esophageal cancer that killed him Saturday morning.

www.nydailynews.com...


"This is the story of 9-11 and cancer.

To date, 75 recovery workers on or around what is now known as "the Pile"—the rubble that remained after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on the morning of September 11, 2001—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.

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...


NEW YORK - The head of the largest program tracking the health of World Trade Center site workers said several have developed rare blood cell cancers, raising fears that cancer will become a “third wave” of illnesses among those exposed to toxic dust after Sept. 11.

www.msnbc.msn.com...


Why are Ground Zero workers getting sick?
Could this be a coincidence? Is this for real? How will we ever know? Those are just some of the questions I asked myself when writing about workers and emergency responders from Ground Zero who now claim they're sick from the toxic cocktail to which they were exposed.

www.cnn.com...

Need more?

Well something is giving these people cancer, does that normally happen after buildings collapse from office fires?



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Dontcha think, just maybe, there would have been a lot more cases, NOT just those working in the demolition areas?

Like, the people who continued to live and work in Lower Manhattan?

en.wikipedia.org...


This radioactive dust, consisting of hot particles, is a kind of radioactive contamination. It can lead to the contamination of the animal food chain.



Now, that mostly refers to nuclear blast after-effects. What about release of radioactivity, but without an explosion? Like, say, Chernobyl?:


International spread of radioactivity
The nuclear meltdown produced a radioactive cloud that was detected over all of Europe except for the Iberian Peninsula.

The initial evidence that a major release of radioactive material was affecting other countries came not from Soviet sources, but from Sweden, where on the morning of April 28 workers at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant (approximately 1,100 km (680 mi) from the Chernobyl site)were found to have radioactive particles on their clothes.


en.wikipedia.org...

I ain't no expert --- but it seems that this radioactivity stuff is very dangerous, and not easily contained when let loose? AND has quite a range of effectivity, in terms of 'fall-out' and subsequent detrimental health effects. NOT just to those working immediately in the vicinity, either.

So, unless someone has invented a new type of nuclear explosive that is NOT radioactive???



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


It sure looks like alot of people have been diagnosed with cancer, but what abot the lead poisoning from peru? Lead poisoning in towns over 99% of the children are suffering because of the toxic fumes around the pueblos surely more people in the City of New York would be effected no?



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I wouldn't be that insulting to Borat.

I wouldn't be suprised to find low levels of radiation in the dust from the WTC. Every day items such as clocks, smoke detectors, wrist watches and other items have radioactive materials in them. The ignitor boxes in the planes engines has radioactive material in them.

As far as the "benzine" content of jet fuel causing cancer when it is burned I have to say BS. I've been exposed to jet exhaust way more than anybody who was at the WTC and I have no signs of cancer. More than once I have literally taken a bath in jet fuel, with no side effects.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Dontcha think, just maybe, there would have been a lot more cases, NOT just those working in the demolition areas?


Not to mention, how the heck would any explosion down in the basement, nuclear or otherwise, cause the building to start collapsing up at the ninety somethingth floor where the planes hit?



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Perhaps if you actually watched all of the videos you wouldn't be asking such benign questions. Dimitri's native language is Russian and he is speaking on nuclear physics better than any of you could scream for help in Russian, give the man a chance for cripes sake!



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


Nuclear demolition of skyscrapers. Invented in the 60's, perfected in 2000.

www.nuclear-demolition.com...



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I wouldn't be that insulting to Borat.

I wouldn't be suprised to find low levels of radiation in the dust from the WTC. Every day items such as clocks, smoke detectors, wrist watches and other items have radioactive materials in them. The ignitor boxes in the planes engines has radioactive material in them.

As far as the "benzine" content of jet fuel causing cancer when it is burned I have to say BS. I've been exposed to jet exhaust way more than anybody who was at the WTC and I have no signs of cancer. More than once I have literally taken a bath in jet fuel, with no side effects.


I don't know about jet fuel, but I do know chronic exposure to pure benzene can cause cancers of the blood.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Great find Insolubrious! I think this man might be correct. His theory does much to explain the superheated materials that lasted as GROUND ZERO for months, the burned out cars, the pulverized concrete (and steel), the radio tower turning to dust, etc.
Considering that it was Prof. Steven E Jones who led the charge on the nanothermite theory, I think he was hired to run a red herring campaign.
Research the man, he believes some wierd stuff! I was amazed at how quickly even the mainstream media picked up on the guy. We've been lead away from the truth!!
I haven't watched the videos yet but I promise I will.
Star and flag!!


Forgot to add this link, excellent -www.lookingglassnews.org...

[edit on 29-3-2010 by Asktheanimals]

[edit on 29-3-2010 by Asktheanimals]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I find it ridiculous that people write off the nuke guy without a shred of logic to it and use sarcasm rather than reasoning. Totally inappropriate! Come on, guys... have a higher standard than that. The whole point of ATS is you are allowed to post the most outrageous claims and you still have to debate them on merits rather than the disgusting level of sarcasm shown on this thread.

So back on topic and on the evidence. The blast idea as proposed makes no sense to me. There is a layer of cement on each floor. Therefore, the damage wave and crush wave of a nuclear blast would not travel through the path of most resistance through the crushed cement. Rather, the plasma gasses would explode out through the path of least resistance... meaning the greatest immediate damage would be right out through the windows on the first floor.

The entire building would topple over at that point rather than descending in a collapse from the top down down into its own footprint. Or at the very least it would have been destroyed from the bottom up, considering the bottom floor steel would be "turned to dust" according to the micro-nuke idea. Furthermore, if a plasma-charged gas is under such high pressure, when it breaks the concrete of the WTC basement there is going to be an extraordinarily violent explosion. None of the videos indicate violent explosions at the base of the tower prior to the collapse.

And finally if this were true that three 150kt nuclear bombs exploded, I imagine it should be very easy to go to the WTC complex right now and measure the radiation levels. I wouldn't be surprised if this has not been done. Or you could go a step further and burrow a hole. The 150kt nuke idea implies extremely extensive damage to the bedrock below the WTC. So to anybody who believes the theory they can easily prove or disprove it by going to the WTC site and digging a tunnel.


[edit on 29-3-2010 by truthquest]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
It was Prof. Steven E Jones who led the charge on the nanothermite theory, I think he was hired to run a red herring campaign.


So he did it for the money by your theory. Okay, then show how he is living a life of luxury that other retired physics teachers don't live. After all, he was fired for his theories so it must have been a huge amount of money.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
I don't know about jet fuel, but I do know chronic exposure to pure benzene can cause cancers of the blood.


So can the fumes from burning plastics and other materials.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Hey, I have a novel idea... WHY don't YOU watch the VIDEOS...

All of your 'expert opinions' are being 'pulverized' by this guy. Are you afraid to watch and maybe learn something ?

Or are you just going to continue to rant and rave about something that you know absolutely NOTHING about ?!!!

If you weren't so high on yourself, then your questions could be answered by simply listening to what the guy has to say.

Oh, but wait, HE is only a nuclear physicist. I'm so sorry, surely you are so much smarter than he could ever hope to be. What the hell was I thinking ?!!

After all, this is good ol' dave...the guy who is so smart that he doesn't need to have someone express their professional findings to him...

Because good ol' dave has all of this figured out already !



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


BRAVO to you sir ! Have watched 7-15 so far , and I am PISSED !!!!


If this can be somehow proven then the Sh*t is going to be way the hell more than the fan can dare to handle !

PISSED



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


So, if you will arrange for me to acquire all of the appropriate permits etc., and cut thru all of the red tape and legalities, I personally will go to the site and drill core samples and I have friends who are professionals that are willing to help. One of them can even check the radiation levels . Think maybe you could arrange to set it all up for us ?????



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


The nuclear bomb view on what killed the WTS's is just plain wrong. The Feds and the NY organizations looked at this possibility. Even though it was clear there was no nuclear signature on the planes impacts, or when the towers came down. Add to the fact authorities did take radiation readings after the fact. Since NY was not vaporized at those moments it's safe to say it was not a nuclear bomb. Also a "dirty bomb" would have been detected by radiation meters. As always , in most cases the real reason the more basic explanation is usually the one thats correct.






top topics



 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join